NON-

INSTITUTIONAL
CORRECTION

GROOUP 03
DEVELOPMENT OF JUVENILE PROBATION
 IN 1899- MINNESOTA AND
ILLINOIS ENACTED LAWS  Minnesota and Illinois each have their own history and
GIVING PROBATION development of juvenile probation.
SERVICE TO CHILDREN  Minnesota established the first juvenile court in 1899,
emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment for young
offenders.
 Illinois followed suit, implementing its juvenile court
system in 1899 as well. The Juvenile Court Act of
1899 in Illinois marked a significant shift toward a
separate legal system for juveniles, recognizing their
distinct needs and vulnerabilities.
 Juvenile probation in Minnesota began in 1915 with
the establishment of the first juvenile court in
Hennepin County. Illinois initiated its juvenile
probation system in 1907 when the first juvenile court
in the United States was established in Cook County,
Chicago.
 These early efforts aimed to provide rehabilitation and
 Rhode Island- where the first completely
 RHODE ISLAND state administered probation system
appeared.
Emerged in the late 19th century as an
alternative to incarceration
Influence of National Probation
Association
Rhode Island Training School (RITS)
Rhode Island has developed programs
within the Rhode Island Training School
to address the needs of juveniles involved
in the justice system.
Rhode Island - emerged in the late 19th century as an alternative to
incarceration. ( Rhode Island, along with other states, began enacting
probation laws during this time. Rhode Island, New Jersey, and New York
passed probation laws, while Minnesota and Illinois enacted specific juvenile
probation laws in 1899. While I couldn't find a specific date or time when the
juvenile probation system emerged in Rhode Island, it is likely that it
developed gradually as part of the state's overall juvenile justice system.)

- Influence of National Probation Association. ( The National Probation

Association, founded in 1907, played a significant role in shaping the
evolution of probation, including juvenile probation. ) - Rhode Island
Training School (RITS) Rhode Island has developed programs within the
Rhode Island Training School to address the needs of juveniles involved in
the justice system
The goal of the Rhode Island Training School is to provide rehabilitative
interventions that address the underlying issues contributing to a youth's
involvement in the justice system. By providing a structured and supportive
environment, the RITS aims to help youth develop the necessary skills and
values to make positive changes in their lives.

While it aims to rehabilitate offenders for their own good there are issues
concerning the rehabilitation of the youth offenders for instance the inability of
it to provide alternatives when an offender after serving probation is back to the
society he/she might have hard time to find a job which then cause to
unemployment. But overall they made some preventative measure for the said
issue scenes they’re still operating today. )
 NEW JERSY- THE FOURTH STATE TO
PASS A GENERAL PROBATION LAW
AFTER NEW ENGLAND MODEL IN 1900

In the early 1900s, reform-minded

individuals recognized that treating
young offenders as adults in the
criminal justice system was
ineffective. They wanted to focus
on rehabilitating young offenders
instead of punishing them.
In 1933, New Jersey passed the
Juvenile Court Act, which created a
separate court system for young
offenders
Expansion of Probation Services
(1940s-1950s)
(2000s-present): In recent years,
New Jersey continues to develop
and implement innovative
programs and best practices to help
young offenders reintegrate
successfully into society.
 NEW YORK-THE FIFTH The New York State Probation Commission
STATE TO PROVIDE was created in 1907
FOR ADULT
PROBATION In 1917, a State Division of Probation was
established within the NYS Department of
Corrections, and in 1928 the Office of the
Director of Probation was created.
As a result of additional statutory
changes, local probation departments,
which prior to the early 1970s were
responsible to the judiciary, followed the
NYS Division of Probation's lead. In
1974, all local probation directors were
made accountable to their respective
chief county officials, or, in the case of
New York City, the mayor.
In 1984, the
Classification/Alternatives Law
expanded the authority of the
state division. The name was
changed to the New York State
Division of Probation and
Correctional Alternatives.
At present, the New York City
Department of Probation is
second only in size to its
counterpart in Los Angeles
County.
 CALIFORNIA-WAS THE
SIXTH STATE TO ENACT In 1903, California enacted laws pertaining
ADULT PROBATION AND to adult probation and juvenile courts,
JUVENILE COURT LAWS, reflecting a shift towards more
BOTH IN 1903 rehabilitative approaches to crime and
punishment .
As for juvenile courts, the 1903 California
Probation Law necessitated the creation of
separate courts for juvenile offenders in
every county.
These developments were part of a broader
shift in the legal and correctional systems
towards more humane and rehabilitative
practices. The establishment of adult
probation and juvenile courts in California
marked an important step in this evolution.
 CONNECTICUT
Connecticut-the next State that enact
the general probation law was enacted
in 1903. This law allowed every court
in the state to appoint one or more
probation officers. Initially, when the
law was first implemented, probation
was limited to individuals who were
convicted of misdemeanors.
However, two years later, in 1905, this
limitation was removed. The law was
amended to expand the use of
probation beyond just misdemeanors.
 THE FIRST MICHIGAN
LAW LIMITED 1982-1985- Youth violence occurred
PROBATION TO FIRST
OFFENDERS - Marco Hardaway case (1983)
- Detroit Police Department started a
“Sweep Operation” in schools, in which
they would raid students’ lockers at
random in search of weapons and illicit
materials.
- Coleman Young administration
instituted a curfew on October 30,
1984, also known as “Devil’s Night.”
Automatic Waiver- transfer
juveniles normally under the
juvenile court’s jurisdiction to adult
criminal court if they were charged
with committing violent crimes.
•1988- Early attempts were
unsuccessful, so the legislature
successfully amended the juvenile
code to allow prosecutors to decide
which juveniles could be
prosecuted as adults
•1996- Michigan legislature
lowered the age for juveniles
eligible to be tried as adults to 14
REPUBLIC ACT NO.
9344
AN ACT ESTABLISHING A
COMPREHENSIVE JUVENILE
JUSTICE AND WELFARE SYSTEM,
CREATING THE JUVENILE JUSTICE
AND WELFARE COUNCIL UNDER
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
APPROPRIATING FUNDS
THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.
 JUVENILE
DELINQUENCY
“Should they be held responsible?”
 JUVENILE
DELINQUENCY?

It refers to the anti-social acts

on behavior committed by minors
which are contrary to the norms
of the society. It involves often
times misdemeanor, but may
include also offenses and felonies.
HISTORY OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
In the Philippine Settings

 PD 603 “The Child and Youth Welfare Code” – Under the said law, a person who is over
nine (9) but under twenty-one (21) years of age at the time of the commission of the offense
who committed a crime is known as a YOUTHFUL OFFENDER.

 Take note: this provision was later amended by PD1179. Under the said law, it defines a
youthful offender as a child, minor or youth, including one who is emancipated in
accordance with the law who is over nine years but under eighteen years of age at the time
of the commission of the offense.

 RA 9344 – Fifth teen (15) and below are exempted in criminal liability while over 15 and
below 18 are likewise exempted, unless acted with discernment and this child are called
“Child in Conflict with Law”
 Related Philippine Laws
affecting Children

o PD 603 – “Child and Welfare

Code”
o RA 6809 – Lowering the age of
majority from 21 to 18 years of
age.
o RA 10630 – An act strengthening
the Juvenile Justice System in the
Philippines, RA 9344
o RA 7610 – “Special Protection of
Children againts Abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination”.
 RELATED PROVISIONS UNDER
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9344
Republic act No. 9344: Probation as an


alternative to Imprisonment. – The court may,

after it shall convicted and sentence a child in
conflict with the law, and upon application at
any time, place the child on probation in lieu
of service of his/her sentence taking into
account the best interest of the child.
REVISED RULE ON CHILDREN IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAW
 Balanced and Restorative Justice is a principle in juvenile justice that requires a process of resolving
conflicts with the participation of the victim, the child in conflict with the law, and the community. It
seeks to obtain reparation for the victim; reconciliation of the victim, the child in conflict with the law,
and the community, and the reassurance that the child in conflict with the law can be reintegrated into
society. It also enhances public safety by involving the victim, the child in conflict with the law, and the
community in prevention strategies. (a)

 Best interest of the child refers to the totality of the circumstances and conditions that are most
congenial to the survival, protection and feelings of security of the child and most encouraging to the
child's physical, psychological and emotional development. It also means the least detrimental available
alternative for safeguarding the growth and development of the child.

 Probation is an alternative disposition, ordered by the court, under which a child in

conflict with the law is released after conviction and sentence and permitted to
remain at home or with an appropriate custodian, subject to certain terms and
conditions imposed by the court.
 Section 7. Exemption from Criminal Liability. – A child fifteen years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal
liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention program as provided for in Republic Act No. 9344 when consented to by the child and the
parents.

Exemption from criminal liability does not include exemption from civil liability which shall be enforced in accordance with the provisions of Article 221 of the
Family Code in relation to Article 101 of the Revised Penal Code and Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. If the act or omission of the child
involves a quasi-delict, Article 2180 of the Civil Code shall apply.

 Section 8. Procedure for Handling Children Exempted from Criminal Liability. – If it is determined at the initial contact that the child is 15 years of age or
below, the procedure provided in Section 20, Republic Act No. 9344 shall be observed as follows:

(a) The authority who had the initial contact with the child shall immediately release the child to the custody of the mother or father, or the appropriate guardian
or custodian, or in their absence, the nearest relative.

(b) The authority shall immediately notify the local social welfare and development officer of the taking of the child into custody.

(c) The local social welfare and development officer shall, with the consent of the child and the person having custody over the child, determine the appropriate
intervention programs for the child.

(d) If the child's parents, guardians or nearest relatives cannot be located, or if they refuse to take custody, the child may be released to any of the following: a
duly registered nongovernmental or religious organization; a barangay official or a member of the Barangay Council for the Protection of Children; a local
social welfare
and development officer; or, when and where appropriate, the Department of Social Welfare and Development.

(e) If the child has been found by the local social welfare and development office to be abandoned, neglected or abused by the parents, or if the parents and the
child do not consent to or do not comply with the prevention program, the Department of Social Welfare and Development or the Local Social Welfare and
Development Office shall file before the court a petition for involuntary commitment pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 603, otherwise known as “The Child
and Youth Welfare Code.” (a)
 Section 9. Procedure for Children Not Exempted from Criminal Liability. – A child fifteen (15) years and one
(1) day old or above but below eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the offense shall, at
the sound discretion of the court and subject to its supervision, be released on recognizance to the care of the
willing and responsible mother or father, or appropriate guardian or custodian, or, in their absence, the nearest
relative. However, if the prosecution determines that the child acted with discernment, the child shall be
proceeded against in accordance with Secs. 25 to 29 or, in case of diversion, Secs. 31 to 38 of this Rule.

 Section 10. Determination of Discernment. – Discernment is preliminarily determined by a social worker and
finally by the court in the case of a child charged with a non-serious offense. In all other cases, discernment is
determined by the court.

The determination of discernment shall take into account the ability of a child to understand the moral and
psychological components of criminal responsibility and the consequences of the wrongful act; and whether a
child can be held responsible for essentially antisocial behavior.
 Section 47. Promulgation of Sentence. – If, after trial, the court should find the child in conflict with the law guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged, it shall impose the proper penalty, including any civil liability which
the child may have incurred, and promulgate the sentence in accordance with Section 6, Rule 120 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure.

 Section 48. Automatic Suspension of Sentence and Disposition Orders. – If the child is found guilty of the offense
charged, the court, instead of executing the judgment of conviction, shall place the child in conflict with the law
under suspended sentence, without need of application. Suspension of sentence can be availed of even if the child is
already eighteen years (18) of age or more but not above twenty-one (21) years old, at the time of the pronouncement
of guilt, without prejudice to the child’s availing of other benefits such as probation, if qualified, or adjustment of
penalty, in the interest of justice.

The benefits of suspended sentence shall not apply to a child in conflict with the law who has once enjoyed
suspension of sentence, but shall nonetheless apply to one who is convicted of an offense punishable by reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment pursuant to the provisions of Rep. Act No. 9346 prohibiting the imposition of the death
penalty and in lieu thereof, reclusion perpetua, and after application of the privileged mitigating circumstance of
minority. If the child in conflict with the law reaches eighteen (18) years of age while under suspended sentence, the
court shall determine whether to discharge the child in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act No. 9344, or
to extend the suspended sentence for a maximum period of up to the time the child reaches twenty-one (21) years of
age, or to order service of sentence.
 Section 51. Discharge of Child Subject of Disposition Measure. – Upon the
recommendation of the social worker assigned to the child, the court shall,
after due notice to all parties and hearing, dismiss the case against the child
who has been issued disposition measures, even before reaching eighteen (18)
years of age, and order a final discharge if it finds that the child has been
rehabilitated and has shown the capability to be a useful member of the
community. If the court finds that the child (a) is incorrigible; or (b) has not
shown the capability of becoming a useful member of society; or (c) has
willfully failed to comply with the conditions of the disposition or
rehabilitation program; (d) or the child's continued stay in the training
institution is not in the child’s best interest, the child shall be brought before
the court for execution of the judgment. The final release of the child shall not
extinguish the civil liability. The parents and other persons exercising parental
authority over the child shall be civilly liable for the injuries and damages
caused by the acts or omissions of the child living in their company and under
the parental authority subject to the appropriate defenses provided by law.
 THANK YOU!
ALLAGA, Tricia Marie
BERNAL, Salvie
CAINGIN, John Lesther
HAMMADON, Jeanette
LUMAUIG, Princess
NAPHADAN, Margarita
TABBOG, Jaymark
VALDEZ, Sanshine