YOUNG PEOPLE 
IX THE COURTS 
of New York State 
LEGISLATIVE DOCUMENT (1942) 
NO. 55 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS 
OF NEW YORK STATE Report TO THE HONORABLE 
LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 
OF THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE TO 
EXAMINE INTO, INVESTIGATE AND STUDY THE 
EXISTING FACILITIES FOR TFIE CARE AND 
TREATMENT OF CHILDREN now coming under the 
Jurisdiction of the Children’s Courts, and of Minors 16 to 
18 years of age now coming under the Jurisdiction of the 
Adult Courts, and of the advisability of changes in the 
present method of handling cases of Minors 16 to 18 
years of age, either by extension of the Jurisdiction of the 
Children’s Courts or by some other method. 
tihciny* AV*if* ) «/7i 
April. 1942 PRINTED JUNE, 1942 
BY WILLIAMS PRESS, INC., ALBANY 
Designed by Robert Josephy CONTENTS 
FOREWORD 1 
PART ONE 
i INTRODUCTION 9 
ii SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 13 
PART TWO 
in JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND THE CHILDREN’S 
COURT 19 
EARLY CONCERN WITH THE PROBLEM . . DEVELOPMENT OF 
THE CHILDREN’S COURT . . CHILDREN’S COURTS TODAY , . 
CHILDREN’S COURT — SPECIALIST IN BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS 
. . THE CHILDREN’S COURT COMMITTEE . . RESPONSIBILITY 
OF THE SCHOOL . . DEVELOPMENT OF PROBATION . . RURAL 
PROBATION WORK . , AGE LIMITS OF THE CHILDREN’S COURTS 
iv COMPARISON OF THE ACTS RELATING TO CHIL- 
DREN’S COURTS 41 
PART THREE 
v THE ADOLESCENT 75 
ADOLESCENCE: SOME DEFINITIONS PHYSICAL FACTORS — 
EMOTIONAL ADJUSTMENT AND IMBALANCE — THE FACTOR 
OF INTELLIGENCE — SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DIFFICULTIES — 
CIVIL RESTRICTIONS BIBLIOGRAPHY . . CRIMINALITY OF 
YOUTH: AS TO NEW YORK STATE AS TO NEW YORK CITY 
UPSTATE NATIONALLY . . CONCLUSION 
vi THE "LESS THAN ADULT” OFFENDER IN OTHER 
JURISDICTIONS 103 
HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS OF THE WAYWARD MINOR LAW 
. . LAWS OF OTHER COUNTRIES: FRANCE BELGIUM — 
GERMANY AUSTRIA , . LAWS OF OTHER STATES . . PRO- 
CEDURE IN OTHER CITIES CHICAGO — PHILADELPHIA — 
DETROIT VII THE YOUTH IN COURT 119 
PRESENT PROCEDURES IN COUNTY AND CITY COURTS UP- 
STATE . . THE WAYWARD MINOR IN THE CHILDREN’S COURT 
. . THE JUSTICES OF THE PEACE . . PRESENT PROCEDURES 
IN NEW YORK CITY: THE ADOLESCENT’S COURT IN BROOK- 
LYN AND QUEENS — THE WAYWARD MINOR COURT FOR 
GIRLS — THE WAYWARD MINOR PROCEDURE IN THE COURT 
OF GENERAL SESSIONS — THE NEW YORK COUNTY YOUTH 
COUNSEL BUREAU 
VIII DRAFT ACTS FOR A YOUTH COURT 156 
INTRODUCTORY . . A YOUTH COURT FOR NEW YORK CITY 
. . YOUTH COURTS UPSTATE 
PART FOUR 
ix LEGISLATION SUBMITTED, NOT ENACTED AND 
NOT RE-INTRODUCED • 205 
x LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE 
COMMITTEE 215 
xi LEGISLATION PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED AND HERE 
RE-INTRODUCED 238 
PART FIVE 
xii MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS CONSIDERED BY THE 
COMMITTEE 279 
STATE-WIDE SYSTEM OF MINOR’S COURTS . . CRIME PREVEN- 
TION . . AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE PROPOSALS: THE YOUTH 
CORRECTION AUTHORITY ACT—THE YOUTH COURT ACT . . 
THE ENGLISH SYSTEM OF BORSTAL INSTITUTIONS 
XIII CONCLUSION 305 Foreirorrf 
TO THE HONORABLE LEGISLATURE 
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK: 
The following report is submitted pursuant to the fol- 
lowing resolution introduced in the Senate and Assembly of the 
State of New York and adopted March 28, 1941, continuing a 
Joint Legislative Committee to investigate Children’s Court Juris- 
diction, known as Children’s Court Jurisdiction and Juvenile 
Delinquency Committee: 
whereas, The Legislature, by joint resolution adopted May 7, 
1937, created a Joint Legislative Committee known as 
Children’s Court Jurisdiction and Juvenile Delinquency 
Committee, to examine into, investigate and study the 
existing facilities, public and private for the care and 
treatment of children coming under the jurisdiction of 
children’s court and of minors sixteen to eighteen years 
of age coming under the jurisdiction of the adult courts, 
and the advisability of changing the method of handling 
cases of minors sixteen to eighteen years of age either 
by extension of the jurisdiction of the children’s court 
or by some other method; and 
whereas, The powers and duties of such committee were con- 
tinued and the time for filing its final report was 
extended from time to time, the last continuation and 
extension having been to March 1, 1941, by resolution 
adopted March 26, 1940; and 
1 WHEREAS, Such committee has made report of its labors from 
time to time; and 
whereas, Additional time and study are necessary to make it 
possible for such committee to pursue its inquiry and 
examination into features of its subject matter which it 
has been unable to explore in sufficient detail heretofore; 
now, therefore, be it 
resolved (if the Assembly concur), That such Joint Legislative 
Committee, hereinbefore referred to and described, be 
and the same is revived, renewed and further continued 
with all its powers and duties as heretofore existing and 
provided for; and be it further 
resolved (if the Assembly concur), That such committee make 
report to the Legislature on or before March 1, 1942, 
concerning the results of its further investigations, and 
submit such proposals as may be necessary to carry its 
recommendations into effect; and be it further 
resolved (if the Assembly concur), That the expenses of such 
committee, both those heretofore accrued and unpaid, 
if any, and those hereafter accruing, not exceeding 
($20,000.00) twenty thousand dollars, shall be pay- 
able from the legislative contingent fund on vouchers 
approved and audited as provided by law. 
Pursuant to said resolution of said committee, the latter was 
organized as follows: 
Senator Fred A. Young, Chairman 
Assemblyman George B. Parsons, Vice-Chairman 
Senator Daniel Gutman, Secretary 
Senator William F. Condon 
Assemblyman Leo Lawrence 
Assemblyman Abraham Schulman 
Thereafter, Hon. Donald L. Brush was chosen Counsel, and 
Benedict S. Alper Research Director. A clerical staff was also 
appointed. 
2 During the year 1941, hearings were held at: 
Queens County on January 9th 
Kings County on January 10th 
Erie County on June 26th and 27th 
at which the following named persons appeared qr testified before 
the Committee: 
At Queens County.— 
MRS. smith alford, Executive Secretary of the Child Service 
League, 
J. o. arroll, Central Queens Y.M.C.A., 
LIEUT, THOMAS v. burke, Juvenile Aid Bureau, New York City 
Police Department, 
hon. Charles S, colden, County Judge of Queens County, 
Joseph M. conroy, Queens County Bar Association, 
hon. john c, donovan, Former Magistrate of the City of New 
York, 
rev, peter fox, Brooklyn and Queens Catholic Charities, 
hon. william b, groat, jr., Counsel to the Ives Committee, 
hiram s, hall, Queens Chamber of Commerce, 
hon, jenkin r, hockert, City Magistrate of the City of New 
York, 
hon, peter m. horn, City Magistrate of the City of New York, 
DEPUTY CHIEF INSPECTOR JOHN L. LAGARENE, 
JACOB r, levy, Probation Officer, Felony Court, Queens County, 
deputy chief inspector harry lobdell, New York City Police 
Department, 
Andrew magill, Pastor First Presbyterian Church, Jamaica, 
rabbi william malev, Jamaica Jewish Center, 
rev, Walter masiulis, Brooklyn and Queens Catholic Charities, 
mary moran, President of the Queens County Women’s Bar 
Association, 
rt, rev, jerome reddy, Catholic Charities, 
hon, Anthony p, savarese, City Magistrate of the City of New 
York, 
Patrick j, shelly, Chief Probation Officer Magistrate’s Court, 
lieut, james sloane, Main Office Detective Bureau, Queens, 
3 hon, henry a, SOFFER, City Magistrate of the City of New York, 
HON. Charles SULLIVAN, District Attorney of Queens County, 
MRS, claribel wikel, Queensboro Federation of Mothers’ Clubs, 
mrs. Webster williams, Queens Y.W.C.A., 
Ralph l, yocon, Flushing Y.M.C.A., 
At Kings County.— 
hon, william R. bayes, Court of Special Sessions, 
hon, jeannette brill, City Magistrate, 
hon, Joseph c, h. flynn, City Magistrate, 
Frederick c, helbing, Superintendent of New York State Voca- 
tional School, 
hon. james v, mangano, Sheriff of Kings County, 
hon, william o’dwyer, District Attorney of Kings County, 
hon, Nicholas H. pinto, City Magistrate, 
rev, edward E, swanstrom, Associate Director Catholic Char- 
ities Diocese of Brooklyn, 
GEORGE H, trumpler, representing the Kings County Grand 
Jurors Association, 
At Erie County.— 
samuel c. alessi, Corporation Counsel of Jamestown, 
hon, orla E, black, County Judge and Children’s Court Judge 
of Cattaraugus County, 
brother wozniak boleslaus, Catholic Aid Society of Buffalo, 
Eunice h, carter, Assistant District Attorney, New York County, 
marguerite gane, Executive Secretary of Children’s Aid Society, 
Jonas h. Hollands, General Secretary of Niagara Falls Chil- 
dren’s Aid Society, 
JOHN H. Hollenbeck, Clerk of Children’s Court and Probation 
Officer, Chautauqua County, 
hon, ward M. hopkins, County Court Judge and Surrogate, 
Allegany County, 
suzanne v, kubiak, Supervisor of Lackawanna Center of Cath- 
olic Charities of Buffalo, 
Carlos c. lacy, Commissioner of Public Welfare, City of Niagara 
Falls, 
4 JOHN b, miller, Counsel for Children’s Aid Society of Buffalo, 
hon, william h. munson, County Court Judge and Surrogate, 
Orleans County, 
Herbert l, o’hare, Representing the Commissioner of Social 
Welfare of Buffalo, 
hon, lee l, ottaway, Judge of County Court, Chautauqua 
County and President of Association of Juvenile Court 
Judges of America, 
TIMOTHY w, REGAN, Chief Probation .Officer of City Court of 
Buffalo, 
JOHN p. sherrard, Principal of School 44, Buffalo; member of 
New York State Teachers’ Association, 
Winifred c. Stanley, Assistant District Attorney of Erie County, 
edward p, volz, Chief Probation Officer of Erie County, 
JANE E. WRIEDEN, Salvation Army, Buffalo, 
hon, victor b. wylegala, Judge of County Court, Erie County. 
The Committee wishes to thank Mr. Benedict S. Alper, 
Research Director to the Committee, for the research and writing 
of this report. Mr. Alper thanks his assistants—Dr. Frederick 
A. Hoefer for help in connection with some of the research, and 
Edmond Schlesinger for gathering material on adolescence. 
The Committee wishes also to express its gratitude to Elon. 
Donald L. Brush, Counsel to the Committee, who has ably guided 
the Committee in its legal work and has helped to draft the 
proposals for submission of our recommendations to the 
Legislature. 
signed: Fred A. Young, chairman 
George B. Parsons, vice-chairman 
Francis /. McCaffrey, secretary 
William F. Condon 
Leo A. Lawrence 
Edgar F. Moran 
Abraham Schulman 
5 PART ONE chapter 1. INTRODUCTION 
The report which follows is the fifth by the Joint Legislative 
Committee to investigate Children’s Court Jurisdiction, which 
Committee was originally created by a joint resolution of the 
Senate and Assembly of the State of New York, adopted May 
7, 1937. 
Four previous reports have been submitted to the Legislature 
of the State of New York, and respectively published as: 
Legislative Document No. 69 of 1938 
Legislative Document No. 75 of 1939 
Legislative Document No. 62 of 1940 
Legislative Document No. 56 of 1941 
These early reports helped to present the background and to 
set out the problem. The report which follows will summarize 
the discussions and findings of the previous five years, and bring 
to definite conclusion certain findings and recommendations aris- 
ing from the deliberations of this Committee during this period. 
The broad questions confronting the Committee when it began 
its work included the following: 
What is the extent of the problem of delinquency and 
crime among minors? 
How should the State deal with juvenile and adolescent 
offenders? 
How effectively do existing public and private agencies 
treat the problem? 
9 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
What is wrong with these present methods? 
What should be done to improve these methods? 
These questions resolved themselves into two specific tasks: 
Determination of the advisability of raising beyond six- 
teen years the upper age limit of jurisdiction of the 
children’s courts of the State; 
Consideration of the steps which should be taken by the 
Legislature of the State of New York in order that the 
older adolescent offender who is beyond children’s 
court age may be dealt with more effectively by the 
courts, institutions and agencies of this State. 
Throughout its deliberations, the Committee has been well 
aware of the indivisibility of the problem of juvenile delinquency 
and youthful criminality. The boy or girl of twelve or thirteen 
years of age who is brought before the children’s court has, in 
the majority of instances, committed earlier offenses for which 
he may not have been apprehended. Similarly, the appearance in 
court of the older teen-age offender, from sixteen to twenty-one, 
usually climaxes a career in which unofficial acts of delinquency, 
or even earlier children’s court appearances, are not unknown, 
To carry the problem further, even though beyond the limits of 
our present inquiry, the criminal career of the confirmed recidi- 
vist, the "cheval de retour” who shuttles back and forth between 
the community and the penal institutions of the State, had its 
beginnings, in a discouragingly high percentage of cases, in the 
formative years of childhood. 
Our studies, therefore, covered the entire gamut of the problem 
of crime, and the recommendations which were made to us ranged 
from the nursery schools to the state penitentiary. We have, 
however, confined our attention to two major considerations—that 
relating to an increase in the age jurisdiction of the children’s 
court, and that relating to the problem of the adolescent offender. 
Certain other considerations.were presented to us moreover, 
which, while not precisely germane to our inquiries, could not be 
excluded from this report: the responsibility of the schools, the 
10 INTRODUCTION 
contribution of probation, the effectiveness of our reform and cor- 
rectional institutions—all these were considered by the Commit- 
tee, and our opinions regarding them are set out below. 
Throughout its deliberations and in its conclusions, the Com- 
mittee has adhered to a principle which it considers to be vital in 
legislation for children—that the actions of conscientious and 
well-meaning parents shall not be interfered with, while at the 
same time making sure that children in need of special attention 
through lack of proper parental care and guidance or through 
other adult contribution to delinquency or neglect—shall be given 
the best protection the state can afford them. 
In the course of the Committee’s work, bills were drafted and 
presented to the Legislature for its approval. Certain of these 
bills were enacted, certain others failed of passage by reason of 
veto by the Governor, or otherwise. We believe that a review of 
our efforts of the past five years would not be complete without 
some consideration of these legislative efforts, and they are, there- 
fore, included in Part Four. Certain other legislative proposals, 
newly drafted and proposed, which the Committee feels should 
be passed in order to implement its conclusions, will be found in 
chapters 4 and 8. 
We wish to extend our thanks at this time to the large number 
of persons who have given generously of their time and thought 
that the Committee might be expertly advised. The contributions 
of some of these persons have been acknowledged by name in this 
and in previous reports of the Committee. To all those others 
who by correspondence, by memoranda submitted to the Com- 
mittee, and in other ways, have aided us in arriving at our con- 
clusions, we wish to express our gratitude. 
The matter of delinquency and crime—their cause, treatment 
and prevention—has been much to the fore in public discussions 
of the past decade. The formation of this Committee is but one 
example of that interest. Through its five years of work, the Com- 
mittee believes it has not only helped to keep this important prob- 
lem before the citizens of the State, but has also helped to give 
that interest an intelligent and progressive direction. 
11 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
We have been constantly mindful not only of our responsibility 
to the citizens of our own State, but also of the pre-eminent posi- 
tion which New York has always occupied in the field of social 
legislation. By setting the standard high for the care and protec- 
tion of our own children, we help to raise these standards for 
children elsewhere. By improvement in our measures of social 
reform, we encourage the adoption of progressive methods for 
dealing with American childhood and youth generally. 
"There can be no finality in the conclusions reached as to the 
State’s provisions for children. Change in social conditions, 
fuller studies, advanced standards are bound from time to time, 
as in all the past, to bring new demands and lend new support 
for such as are now made. The door to progress is not to be 
closed.’’ 
12 CHAPTER II. SUMMARY OF 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
The major recommendations of the Committee are here sum- 
marized. These are discussed in detail in later pages of this 
report; the draft act as well as the findings and opinions of the 
Committee on each subject will be found in the chapter devoted 
to it. 
As to the Children's Conrt 
1. The Committee recommends that the age jurisdiction of the 
children’s court be maintained at its present level of sixteen 
years. (See chapter 3, last section). 
2. The Committee recommends that the State-wide Children’s 
Court Act, that part of the Domestic Relations Court Act of 
New York City which refers to the Children’s Court, and the 
special Children’s Court Acts of Monroe, Ontario, Chautau- 
qua and Onondaga Counties, be brought into complete uni- 
formity with one another. (See chapter 4). 
3. The Committee recommends that provision be made to 
empower judges of the children’s court to deal informally 
with certain cases. (See chapter 11, pp. 238-245). 
4. The Committee recommends that the children’s court be 
given additional authority to determine the conditions of 
probation for adults and children who come before it. (See 
chapter 11, pp. 245-249). 
13 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
5. The Committee recommends that the children’s court outside 
of New York City be given the same jurisdiction in non- 
support actions, as is now granted to the Domestic Relations 
Court of New York City. (See chapter 11, pp. 249-266). 
6. The Committee recommends that the Children’s Court Act 
be amended in the matter of filling vacancies in the office of 
children’s court judges. (See chapter 11, pp. 267, 268). 
7. The Committee recommends that the New York City Domes- 
tic Relations Court Act be amended so as to provide counsel 
for the petitioner and the court in trial and appellate pro- 
ceedings. (See chapter 11, pp. 268-270). 
8. The Committee recommends that the children’s courts be 
empowered to give some consideration to the preparation for 
the return of a child to its own home, after placement or 
commitment. (See chapter 11, pp. 271-275). 
As to the Youthful Offender 
9. The Committee recommends that there be established for 
youthful offenders between the ages of sixteen to nineteen in 
each of the five counties in New York City a division of the 
Domestic Relations Court of that City, to be known as the 
Youth Court. (A draft act embodying this recommendation 
will be found in chapter 8, p. 161; an analysis of the act on 
pp. 175-185 of the same chapter). 
10. The Committee recommends that for the other counties of 
the State, the children’s court judge or judges and the board 
of supervisors of each county be allowed to certify to the 
Secretary of State that the number of adolescent offenders 
between the ages of sixteen and nineteen is sufficient to merit 
the establishment of a Youth Court as a separate part of 
the children’s court, under the same procedure as has been 
drawn up for the Youth Court in the Domestic Relations 
Court of New York City. (A draft act embodying this 
recommendation will be found in chapter 8, pp. 186-200; an 
analysis of the act on pp. 200-201 of the same chapter). 
14 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 
4s to Certain Other Proposals Placed Before It 
11. The Committee recommends that a state-wide system o£ 
youth courts or minor’s courts not be created at this time. 
(See chapter 12, pp. 279-280). 
12. The Committee recommends that further consideration be 
given to the Youth Correction Authority Act of the Ameri- 
can Law Institute. (See chapter 12, pp. 284-290). 
13. The Committee recommends that the Youth Court Act of 
the American Law Institute not be adopted by the State of 
New York even though certain features of it are included in 
the draft acts submitted by this Committee relative to the 
establishment of Youth Courts. (See chapter 12, pp. 290- 
294). 
14. The Committee recommends that there be set up in the 
Executive Department a division of crime prevention either 
as a bureau of a state-wide Youth Service Council or as an 
independent agency. (See chapter 12, pp. 280-284). 
15. The Committee recommends that further consideration be 
given to the English System of Borstal Institutions for youth- 
ful offenders, with a view to the adoption of certain features 
of this System in the public and private training and correc- 
tional institutions for minors in this State. (See chapter 12, 
pp. 294-304). 
16. The Committee recommends that a Committee be created by 
joint legislative resolution to study the institutions to which 
the children’s courts and the criminal courts of the State now 
commit less than adult offenders. (See chapter 13.) 
15 PART TWO CHAPTER 111. JUVENILE DELINQUENCY 
AND THE CHILDREN’S COURT 
Early Concern with the Problem 
In the consideration of any social problem, it is always well to 
cast at least a short glance backward before setting out on an 
appraisal of what is now, or what should be in the future. The 
Committee is aware that it is not the first investigative body 
created in New York State for the study of the extremely complex 
problem of the juvenile offender. We trace here a brief review 
of the historical background of the present courts for children, 
with attention first to the question of how juvenile delinquency 
and crime appeared to our predecessors among committees of 
inquiry and the conclusions which these groups arrived at as a 
result of their studies. 
The first discoverable public report on this problem was made 
in 1818 by Mayor Golden to the Common Council of the City of 
New York. It will be noted that his attention was attracted to 
the evils of institutional commitment: 
"The Mayor begs leave also to present for the consideration of 
the Board, the situation of those young persons who are sentenced 
to confinement in the Penitentiary. There are now there eleven 
boys under eighteen: several are under fourteen. They are shut 
up in cells with other convicts. It must be obvious that under 
such circumstances it would be in vain to expect that their punish- 
ment will improve their morals: it can hardly fail to have a con- 
trary effect. It is presumed that some system might be adopted 
which would separate the aged from the young, and at the same 
19 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
time afford the latter employment and instruction. This might 
extend to both sexes and be a means of benefiting and perhaps 
reclaiming many young females, a great number of whom are at 
all times confined within the walls of the Penitentiary . . . 
In the same year a private philanthropic group of which Mayor 
Golden was a prominent member—the Society for the Prevention 
of Pauperism—began a systematic investigation into the condi- 
tions of juvenile prisoners in the adult jails of New York City. 
Reporting on conditions at Bellevue Prison, the Society com- 
mented: ' Here is one great school of vice and desperation; with 
confirmed and unrepentant criminals we place these novices in 
guilt—these unfortunate children from 10 to 14 years of age, 
who from neglect of parents, from idleness or misfortune, have 
been doomed to the penitentiary by condemnation of law”. 
The aim of the group was to establish an institution which 
would separate the young offender from the adult criminal. 
Their inquiries led to the courts, and in 1824 for the first time, 
we note that it is the court process, as well as the institution, 
which comes under scrutiny. For that year, the District Attorney 
of New York City supplied the following figures: that the police 
magistrates alone sentenced more than 450 persons under twenty- 
five years of age as disorderly persons and vagrants, including a 
considerable number of boys and girls between the ages of nine 
and sixteen, that furthermore the "Court of Sessions” tried more 
than sixty children for petty theft, while several others were 
found to have committed more serious crimes. 
During the following year the Society changed its name—"For 
the Reformation of Juvenile Delinquents”, but continued to press 
for its original purpose: the establishment of a separate institu- 
tion for juveniles. 
Beginning with the New York Law of 1824, commitments to 
Houses of Refuge and similar institutions for youthful offenders 
were not sentences of imprisonment but commitments for custody 
and for education. The idea of punishment was for the first time 
eliminated—at least from the statute book—and its place was 
taken by notions of treatment and training. This was true also 
for the New York Juvenile Asylum which received homeless and 
destitute children as well as delinquents. 
20 JUVENILE DELINQUENCY 
As a consequence of this new attitude in the law, commitments 
were made not for a definite length of time but usually for 
minority. Institutional authorities were authorized by law to 
"bind out” their charges as soon as they were considered fit. 
Known as "indenture”, this procedure was employed in very many 
cases. (It is at present still in operation in the Massachusetts 
Reformatory for Women.) These early concepts anticipated the 
practice of commitment instead of sentence in the case of juveniles, 
as well as the indeterminate sentence and even parole. The 
juvenile process may well be credited with these progressive 
innovations, some of which eventually found their way into the 
procedure for dealing with the adult offender. 
Juvenile delinquency was again investigated in New York City 
in 1850 when the Chief of Police reported to the Mayor on the 
"Constantly increasing numbers of vagrant, idle and vicious chil- 
dren of both sexes who infest our public thoroughfares, hotels, 
docks, etc. . .”. The Police Chief estimated that 2,955 such chil- 
dren were at large in only twelve out of the twenty patrol pre- 
cincts of the City. The report classified these children in five 
groups: 
1. about 770 children engaged in petty thievery, stealing from 
piers and docks; 
2. some 100 children, mainly small girls are vagrants and 
beggars; 
3. approximately 380 female prostitutes of child age; 
4. 120 boys known as "baggage smashers”—homeless vagrants 
and thieves; 
5. between 1600 and 1700 boys belonging to street corner gangs. 
Neglect and criminal exploitation by parents and other adults, 
lack of a home and failure to attend school were cited as impor- 
tant factors in the creation of these conditions. 
Experimentation with educational methods of institutional 
treatment of youthful offenders was the immediate outcome of 
these investigations. Because attention was at first focused chiefly 
on the atrocious conditions in jails and penitentiaries where chil- 
dren were thrown in with experienced convicts and prostitutes. 
21 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
the primary aim was to segregate selected groups of delinquents 
in special institutions. The first institution of this type anywhere 
in America was the New York House of Refuge, established in 
1825. Except for a $2000 appropriation from the State, it was 
privately maintained. Within three years it was followed by like 
institutions in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. 
Concern over the conditions revealed by the 1850 report was 
followed by the establishment of the New York Juvenile Asylum, 
a private institution for homeless, destitute, and delinquent chil- 
dren which later developed into the well known Children’s Vil- 
lage at Dobbs Ferry. 
These reforms, however, were limited almost entirely to the 
field of institutional treatment and after-care. No substantial 
change was made in the organization and procedure of criminal 
courts, nor in the detention of juvenile offenders awaiting trial. 
It remained so in our State until the last quarter of the nineteenth 
century. 
In 1877, the New York State Legislature passed a law prohibit- 
ing the placing of any child under sixteen "in any prison or place 
of confinement, or in any court-room or in any vehicle in com- 
pany with adults charged or convicted with crime, except in the 
presence of proper officers’’. (Laws of 1877, chapter 428.) The 
first steps to be taken in the direction of probation supervision are 
found in 1884 with the passage of a statute providing that when 
a person under the age of sixteen was convicted of a crime, he 
might be committed to the care of any suitable person or institu- 
tion, in lieu of being fined or sentenced to imprisonment. (Chapter 
46, section 713.) A new section added to the Penal Code in 
1892, allowed children under sixteen years of age to be tried sep- 
arately, with a special docket and record to be kept for these 
cases. (Chapter 217.) The Greater New York City Charter 
of 1898 provided for a separate children’s court within the system 
of Magistrate’s Courts (section 1399), but this provision was 
never implemented in practice. 
These are the earliest discoverable precedents for our present 
children’s courts. In 1899, in Cook County, Illinois, appeared 
the first juvenile court, with separate personnel, though technically 
22 JUVENILE DELINQUENCY 
it remained a division of the circuit court with one judge assigned 
to sit exclusively in juvenile cases. 
Development of the Children’s Court 
In our State the probation law of 1901 gave to the courts a new 
instrument for the socialized treatment of criminal cases, by pro- 
viding that persons over sixteen years of age might—in the dis- 
cretion of the court—be placed on probation. The law made a 
further provision regarding persons under the age of sixteen in the 
City of Buffalo, but in order to secure its passage, the proponents 
of this measure agreed that the probation term be limited to three 
months in the cases of children. 
The influence of this law upon the procedure in children’s 
cases was immediately evident. It was to take effect on September 
1, 1901, but in July of that same year, we find the first beginnings 
of a juvenile court procedure. "In Buffalo the Probation Law 
provides for no children’s court, but by voluntary arrangement, 
Judge Murphy of the police court, before whom practically all 
the juvenile delinquency cases come up for trial, has transferred 
his juvenile cases to the room of the county agent for destitute 
children, several blocks distant from the police court, where he 
holds his juvenile court two afternoons in the week”. (Proceed- 
ings of New York State Conference on Charities and Correction, 
Albany, 1902, p. 285.) 
Six important principles guided this pioneer tribunal, according 
to its first judge: separate sessions for children, in a separate build- 
ing; avoidance of jail detention through the use of bail, or by 
paroling the child to his home; attendance of probation officers 
at the session; exclusion of the public; ban on newspaper pub- 
licity; the use of probation as the "keystone of the court”. 
In 1902, the first Children’s Court was established by law for 
Manhattan, as a branch of the Court of Special Sessions. In the 
following year a division of the court was constituted for Brook- 
lyn, followed by Queens and Richmond in 1910. Two years later, 
four justices of Special Sessions were assigned to sit in the Chil- 
dren’s Court, one in each of these four Boroughs, and a staff of 
23 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
probation officers was appointed to serve them. In 1914, the fifth 
and last Children’s Court was opened in Bronx County. These 
separate courts were brought together in 1915 as the Children’s 
Court of New York City, a new and separate division of the Court 
of Special Sessions. 
The parallel with the origin of a special handling of adolescent 
offenders is evident: starting without legislative sanction, an extra- 
legal procedure was soon recognized by law. In 1906, Rochester 
received a special Children’s Court Act and in 1907, the State 
Probation Commission became interested in a state-wide system 
of county children’s courts. A special Children’s Court Act was 
enacted in 1910 for Monroe County; in 1913 for Ontario County 
and for Chautauqua County in 1918. 
The Committee on the Judiciary proposed for the State Con- 
stitutional Convention of 1915, a provision empowering the 
Legislature to establish Children’s Courts and Domestic Rela- 
tions Courts "in order to keep pace with modern theories of deal- 
ing with delinquent children”. (Document No. 42, p. 16.) By 
an overwhelming majority of 400,000 votes this amendment was 
accepted by the voters of the State in 1921 after it had passed 
both houses of the Legislature for two successive years. In the 
following January, Governor Miller stated in his message to 
the Legislature: 
"The vote on said amendment (permitting the estab- 
lishment of children’s courts) was an expression of 
public disapproval of the present system or lack of 
system of dealing with neglected and delinquent chil- 
dren. Juvenile delinquency should be dealt with in 
accordance with the condition and needs of the child, 
not under the penal law or in accordance with the rules 
of criminal procedure.” 
The Governor recommended a state-wide Children’s Court Act, 
to be based on a non-criminal jurisdiction, which Act was passed 
during that same session. 
In 1924, the Children’s Court Act for New York City was 
made law, which established it as an independent tribunal for 
24 JUVENILE DELINQUENCY 
the hearing and treatment of children’s cases, and completely 
freed it from any of the features of criminal procedure. With 
the Domestic Relations Court Act for New York City in 1933, 
the Children’s Court took its place in a family court setting. 
The current attitude toward the children’s court is well summed 
up in the Reports and Studies prepared for the State Constitutional 
Convention in 1938: 
"Its purpose is not primarily to punish a child for the 
commission of a specific wrong or to declare the nature 
of his legal rights, but to discover the causes of the 
child’s neglect or delinquency and then to determine 
what can best be done in his interest and in the interest 
of the State to rehabilitate him or to arrest further 
neglect or delinquency.” (p. 660.) 
Children’s Courts Today 
Today there are six counties (Albany, Erie, Herkimer, Mont- 
gomery, Onondaga and Westchester) which have specialized 
children’s courts, with full-time judges who devote themselves 
exclusively to this work, while in three counties of the State (Jef- 
ferson, Monroe, and Oneida) special county judges serve as 
children’s court judges. In the remaining forty-eight counties of 
the State (New York with its five counties is not here included) 
the same judge who presides over the children’s court also sits on 
the bench of the county court and he sometimes acts as surrogate 
as well. One judge of such a county aptly described himself— 
and other judges similarly placed—as a "triple-threat man”. In 
the smaller counties, the reason for this is found in the fact that 
the children’s courts do not have a sufficiently large number of 
juveniles appearing before them to justify the creation of a dis- 
tinct and separate tribunal. 
The Children’s Court Law of 1922 provides that where—in the 
opinion of the county board of supervisors and of the county 
judge or judges—the juvenile business in any county does not 
merit the election of a special children’s court judge, the county 
25 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
judge shall sit as judge of the children’s court as well. The point 
of origin for the creation of separate children’s court judgeships 
rests with the county boards of supervisors; the judge’s opinion is 
only a concurring one, and alone he may not initiate a move for 
the establishment of a separate court. As a result of the attitude 
of county boards of supervisors, there are many counties among 
the forty-eight now without children’s courts where the amount 
of such business amply merits the election of a judge who will 
devote full time to children’s cases. It is the responsibility of 
these communities to make their demands known to their county 
officials. 
Previous reports of this Committee have quite adequately cov- 
ered the question of the extent of delinquency among the children 
of New York State, and the trend in delinquency rates from the 
start of the century up to within very recent years. These same 
reports have also examined into the causative factors in the devel- 
opment of delinquent conduct. 
It has been established that as far as the number of children 
coming into court is concerned, the rate of increase has by no 
means been proportionate to the growth of population (even the 
growth in the number of children within children’s court age) 
between the years 1903 and 1938. The Committee can therefore 
say with finality and conviction that there is no reason for alarm 
on the part of the citizens of this State that the tide of delinquency 
among children is rising or that there are any grounds for fearing 
that it may engulf the forces established by society for apprehend- 
ing and treating young offenders. This statement refers, of course, 
to the child seven to sixteen. The matter of adolescent crim- 
inality, the problem of the offender in the upper teen-ages, is not 
dealt with here, but in chapter 5, pages 97-108. 
As to the problem of crime causation, the Committee has pre- 
viously submitted to the Legislature, detailed and expert reports 
prepared by the clerical and research staffs of the Committee. A 
brief recapitulation of these findings may not, however, be amiss 
at this point. Despite the extensive and varied causes ascribed for 
the development of delinquent tendencies and acts among chil- 
dren, by witnesses who have appeared before us, there was una- 
26 JUVENILE DELINQUENCY 
nimity on one point—that the roots of crime spring from all the 
disorders, all the varied forms of social pathology so evident in 
the picture of contemporary life. To list these causes is but to 
call the roll of all the social ills. One fact nevertheless stands 
out—if there is no single cause of crime, neither can there be any 
single panacea. To isolate one cause among many, to emphasize 
one cure-all above many salutary measures that must be taken, is 
to distort the problem of crime causation out of all true focus, to 
blur rather than sharpen the total image. 
It does not lie within the province or the powers of this Com- 
mittee to introduce legislation which can—or will—make the 
home, the school, the religious or social agency more aware of 
its responsibility . . to give the child within its jurisdiction such 
care, protection and assistance as will best conserve its welfare”. 
By no law that we might propose, or that the Legislature might 
enact, could all the pernicious influences which now bear upon 
the lives of children be eliminated, or reduced to the point where 
they no longer had a deleterious effect. 
We cannot, however, leave the subject of crime causation with- 
out this final word—that all the measures which increase the 
social and economic welfare of the people generally will raise the 
level of child care and—if only indirectly—reduce the number of 
children who commit offenses and come before our courts. 
If delinquency has not increased in proportion to the increase 
in the child population, it is only because we have expanded the 
measures for detecting and treating maladjustment among young 
people. There are those who see in the failure of the juvenile 
delinquency rate to increase, reasons for halting child-caring serv- 
ices in general at their present level. This Committee has no 
patience with that point of view. It is our earnest conviction that 
only by redoubling present efforts on the part of all those agencies 
which deal with children—public and private, educational and 
recreational, court and non-court, clinical and institutional—will 
the present rate continue to dip downward, and scores of thou- 
sands of blighted young lives salvaged at a point early enough to 
enable them to become positive assets to the state whose concern 
for them is one of its most important functions. 
27 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
It is well to remember that measures for the special care of the 
juvenile offender are little more than one hundred years old, that 
the institution of the juvenile court itself was created in 1899, 
that the first children’s court in New York State was established 
in 1901, that the State-wide Children’s Court Act was passed just 
two decades ago. It is a tribute to the progressive, socially- 
minded citizens of this State that they have continually striven 
to increase the age and offense jurisdiction of these tribunals. It 
should be kept in mind, furthermore, that the juvenile court 
started in the large metropolitan areas of this country. The reason 
for this lay chiefly in the fact that the large cities have always 
had a higher rate of delinquency and crime in proportion to their 
area than the non-urban centers of population: the problem was 
not only seen more clearly in the cities, it was also more acute. 
The enactment of the first juvenile delinquency laws in this 
State in 1902, 1906 and 1910 brought about certain beneficial 
objectives from which there has since been no retreat. Among 
these are: a distinction between the adult criminal and the youth- 
ful offender; the consideration of the cases of delinquent children 
on the basis of their condition rather than on the basis of their 
offense; separation of the treatment of the juvenile from the pro- 
cedure and organization of the criminal court; the introduction 
of new and exact provisions as to juvenile court method, from 
arrest through disposition, especially the requirements as to 
hearing in place of trial. Each year since its passage these prin- 
ciples of the original code have been applied with increased 
effectiveness by our courts for children. 
The Committee has been advised that in other states (which 
it is not necessary to mention here) the court for children has 
been placed on the defensive. It has been limited in its jurisdic- 
tion in recent years, and in some places deprived of its power to 
such an extent that it is only allowed to continue by the sufferance, 
so to speak, of the criminal court of which it is a part. The Com- 
mittee is happy to report that our appellate courts when called to 
pass on the decisions of the children’s court have shown an 
enlightened attitude toward the basic philosophy and funda- 
mental principles upon which the institution of the children’s 
28 JUVENILE DELINQUENCY 
court has been reared. We believe that public opinion, the Legis- 
lature and the Courts of New York State, as a result of their 
aggressive defense of the rights of children, have maintained the 
court procedure at a continuously high level of performance. 
Two recent cases may be cited as examples of the manner in 
which our courts have affirmed the protective and non-criminal 
nature of children’s court proceedings. A court decision in 1934 
has definitely established that the Children’s Court Act gives to 
the court for children "exclusive jurisdiction to hear and deter- 
mine the cases of children under the age of sixteen years who are 
charged with juvenile delinquency. The result is that the only 
crimes which a child under sixteen years of age is capable of 
committing are treason, murder in the first degree, and murder 
in the second degree; and as to those crimes alone, in the cases 
of such a child, have the criminal courts jurisdiction’’. (People 
v. Murch 263 N. Y. 285, 189 N. E. 220.) 
The basic philosophy of the Children’s Court—that actions in 
such a court are not against but rather in behalf of a child who 
comes before it—has been stated unequivocally in another recent 
decision; . . the purpose and jurisdiction of the Children’s 
Courts is not in the nature of a trial and punishment of children 
for a violation of . . . law at all, but rather for the guidance and 
redemption of neglected and delinquent children”. (People v. 
S.P.C.C., New York Law Journal, Sept. 2, 1927, p. 2141.) 
It is our earnest hope that there shall be no slackening of the 
steady progress which the children’s courts of this State have 
made since their inception forty years ago. This level can be 
maintained only by constant and vigilant interest in the welfare 
of the children of New York State. 
Children’s Conrt — Specialist 
in Behavior Problems 
In view of the added responsibility to be given to the children’s 
courts under the bills which we submit herewith, it may be well 
for the Legislature to consider removing cases of neglect and of 
the physically handicapped from the jurisdiction of these courts. 
29 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
In the Committee’s opinion these are essentially matters for 
administrative dealing by our existing County Departments of 
Child Welfare. The extension of social security funds and pro- 
grams for children in rural areas, formerly without such services, 
has made the handling of these cases by the children’s courts 
largely obsolete. 
While we are not prepared to recommend a bill on this subject 
at this session, we urge upon the Legislature that after the youth 
court plan has been in operation at least a year that consideration 
should be given to relieving the children’s courts of jurisdiction 
over these two types of cases in order to free them for the added 
responsibility over the youthful offender who is sixteen, seventeen 
and eighteen years of age. 
The children’s court was established originally to deal with 
problems of delinquent behavior. Many other conditions of chil- 
dren have been added from time to time to the court’s jurisdic- 
tion. The trend in this country at the present time is in the direc- 
tion of restricting the children’s courts to cases involving behavior 
problems. We believe that the children’s courts can only do a 
better job with the juvenile delinquent and the youthful offender 
if they will be relieved of these essentially administrative func- 
tions in relation to the neglected and the physically handicapped 
child. 
The Children’s Conrt Committee 
Because a great deal of the effectiveness of the work done by 
the children’s court is dependent upon the degree of cooperation 
and understanding which this work receives in the community, 
many children’s courts have had associated with them—since the 
beginning of this movement—advisory boards or committees 
made up of citizens who advise and cooperate with the court and 
help to interpret its work to the community. 
A further reason for such boards is the fact that the term of 
office of children’s court judges, because it is limited to six years, 
does not provide that continuity of interest in the problems of 
children which would result from a longer period for these 
judges. Furthermore, the court often desires assistance in the 
30 JUVENILE DELINQUENCY 
selection and appointment of probation officers and other court 
personnel. Here the advice of an advisory board or committee 
is invaluable. 
Such boards help to raise funds for activities of the court which 
are not always chargeable to a governmental department. The 
board helps to establish proper relations between the court and 
the community agencies which work with it. The development 
of foster homes for temporary detention as well as for placement, 
the securing of clinical facilities, the cooperation of educational 
authorities and other public agencies is often accomplished and 
interpreted through the work of lay people organized to assist 
the work of the children’s court. 
Other states specify the appointment of such groups by law, 
but in New York their organization has come about purely on a 
voluntary basis. In the few counties where lay committees have 
been formed, the judge or the probation department has taken 
the initiative. The county child welfare bureaus are ideally 
suited to this purpose. 
One of the best known of these committees is that associated 
with the Children’s Court of Onondaga County. This Commit- 
tee is made up of representatives of community agencies such as 
the League of Women Voters and civic leaders who have 
informed themselves in conscientious fashion regarding the work 
of the court in order that they may the more effectively help to 
translate its work to the community. A similar committee is 
also in operation in Warren County and we are informed that 
such a committee is contemplated for Erie County as well. 
The Committee looks with favor upon the work of these com- 
mittees and suggests that children’s courts in other places seri- 
ously consider the value to be gained from the creation of such 
groups in other parts of the State. 
Responsibility of the School 
Many educators have appeared before the Committee to give 
their opinion regarding the school’s responsibility for the observa- 
tion and treatment of conduct disorders. They were likewise 
31 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
most cooperative in answering the questionnaire which the Com- 
mittee sent out in 1939- The Committee believes with them 
that the schools have a definite duty toward the maladjusted 
children who attend the public schools of this State. The school 
is, after all, the one agency of government which has all of the 
children of the State under care for some time during their form- 
ative years. We have made great progress in extending special 
facilities to children with special difficulties—the blind, the deaf 
and dumb, the physically handicapped, the mentally defective 
or disordered, and others. Personality difficulties are as serious 
a condition meriting just as much public attention as these other 
conditions for which the schools have now made provision. 
The role of the school in the observation and treatment of 
conduct disorders likely to lead to delinquency and crime is most 
clearly set forth in the 1927 report of the New York State Crime 
Commission. This Commission made a study of the careers of 
251 adolescents who had been school truants six years earlier. 
It was discovered that 51 per cent of these truants of 1921 had, 
by 1927, acquired court records. Almost a third of these records 
were for a misdemeanor or felony. Even more startling was the 
discovery that 30 per cent of the former truants had, within 
these six years, an average of four arraignments each in the 
criminal courts. 
The school is the setting within which the child gets his first 
important acquaintance with the outside world, where he finds 
himself for the first time up against a series of daily situations 
which he must successfully meet in order to secure satisfaction 
and the approbation of his companions and his adult leaders. 
By far the largest proportion of children within our public 
schools secure a high measure of satisfaction. There is, never- 
theless, a sizable group of children to whom school is, for one 
reason or another, a boring, chafing, restricting and otherwise 
unsatisfactory place. Like other human beings, children tend 
to escape from situations which render them no positive satis- 
factions. This is the fundamental reason for the largest pro- 
portion of school truants. The fact that truancy has been greatly 
reduced within the last two decades is proof of the fact that the 
32 JUVENILE DELINQUENCY 
school curriculum generally has been made more flexible, more 
attractive and more attuned to individual needs and interests. 
What is required now is a greater measure of individualization, 
a greater flexibility, in order that the proportion of children who 
And no satisfaction within the school may be still more dras- 
tically reduced. 
The psychiatrist at Elmira Reformatory, Dr. Rene Breguet, 
in a very thorough and interesting statistical analysis of 1,000 
commitments to that institution, discovered a fact which should 
challenge the educational leaders of this State—t.e., that the age 
of beginning delinquency among these reformatory inmates was 
closely coincidental with that point in their school development 
when the demands of the curriculum started to exceed their 
mental ability as judged by the intelligence quotient. 
Thus we see that when the school yields them little or no 
return for the interests and energies with which they are equipped, 
these children will seek elsewhere for such satisfactions. 
The fact that the truant is out of school at a time when every- 
one else is at school means that he is more likely to engage in 
delinquent acts. He is further led into unlawful conduct by the 
fact that, because he is absent during school hours, he must be 
constantly on the lookout for an officer who may apprehend him. 
The boy who finds nothing within the school to attract him is 
tempted into misconduct as a means of compensating for his 
failure or inability to win approbation in acceptable ways. 
We therefore urge upon the educators of this State that they 
take further measures to deal in preventive fashion with cases 
of truancy and other forms of school maladjustment when the 
first symptoms of these conditions are revealed. The schools may 
not be charged with the legal responsibility for hearing and 
treating cases of delinquency, because they do not have the 
"added punch of the law’’ which now undergirds the jurisdic- 
tion of our courts for children. There is no reason, however, 
why the schools should not assume a larger measure of responsi- 
bility toward those maladjusted pupils now within their control 
who have not yet been adjudicated delinquent. 
33 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
Development of Probation 
In any discussion of the children’s court procedure or other 
methods for dealing with the offender under twenty-one, it is 
important to remember that the establishment of the first Chil- 
dren’s Court in the State, in Buffalo, and the passage of the first 
probation law in the State, both took place in the same year— 
1901. This law applied only to persons over the age of sixteen 
(except in the City of Buffalo) and its use was limited to cities 
only. Amendments made during the following four years gradu- 
ally included children and extended the benefits of the Act to 
all parts of the State. 
Probation in its early years in New York developed slowly 
and irregularly. A Commission to investigate this new court 
addition was appointed in 1905. In the following year it 
reported to the Governor that only a few courts had carried into 
effect the provisions of the existing law relative to the appoint- 
ment of probation officers. The Commission further pointed 
out that each of these courts had established a different proba- 
tion procedure. It recommended some kind of state-wide super- 
vision, as a result of which the Legislature created a permanent 
State Probation Commission in 1907. 
The Commission was authorized to exercise general supervision 
over the work of probation officers, to keep informed as to their 
work, to improve and extend the probation system, to collect 
and publish information thereon and to make recommendations. 
No probation statistics were compiled prior to this time. 
In the following year the first State Conference of Probation 
Officers was held and since that time has continued to meet 
annually. 
In 1921 the Commission published a summary of the improve- 
ments in probation service which had taken place in the preced- 
ing fourteen years. These were: 
1. an increased use of preliminary investigation prior to any 
decision to place on probation, which implied greater dis- 
crimination in the selection of cases suitable for probation; 
3 4 JUVENILE DELINQUENCY 
2. the increased length of the probation period with the gen- 
eral acceptance of the necessary care to cover a substantial 
period of time—usually not less than three months; 
3. the conditions of probation were being made more definite 
and the laws against probation violation more vigorously 
enforced; 
4. a higher collection rate of money payments ordered by the 
court as restitution, fines, and non-support assessments; 
5. improvement in case work methods—careful investigations, 
home visits, cooperation with outside agencies, more thor- 
ough case records; 
6. increased public discussion of probation method. 
The Commission, in summing up these achievements, stated 
that "probation has passed through the test of the experimental 
state in New York. It has proven to be both socially and finan- 
cially profitable”. In the same year, courses in preparation for 
probation work were given in at least three universities through- 
out the State. Starting with 1923, the Commission reported that 
each year saw more persons on probation than in correctional 
institutions in the State. 
The 1926 report stressed the lack of sufficient personnel, 
inadequate salaries and excessive case loads as the three chief 
obstacles to the full use of probation method by the courts. In 
1928 the Legislature passed a law, based on the recommenda- 
tion of the Crime Commission, that no person was to be placed 
on probation without a preliminary investigation and a report 
of the circumstances of the offense, the criminal record, if any, 
and the social history. The year 1929 saw the first institute for 
probation officers already in service and the issuance of a hand- 
book of general rules for the administration of probation, for- 
mulated and approved by the Commissioner of Correction. 
As of 1939, the division of probation had established district 
examiners for consultation with local probation officers in four 
areas of the State who were to inspect local probation work, 
to aid in the solution of difficult local problems and to work 
for a closer and more understanding relationship with individual 
departments in each area. In this latter year the probation divi- 
35 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
sion investigating the use of probation reports by penal and cor- 
rectional institutions regarding newly admitted inmates discov- 
ered that such reports were received in 77 per cent of all new 
admissions. 
At the present time fifteen out of the sixty-two counties of the 
State have no publicly salaried probation officer for the cases of 
juveniles or adults. These counties are Allegany, Chautauqua, 
Chenango, Genesee, Greene, Orleans, Otsego, Putnam, Schoharie, 
Steuben, Sullivan, Wayne, Washington, Wyoming, Yates. There 
are in addition six other counties which, while making some pro- 
vision for juvenile probation, have no salaried probation service 
for adults—Columbia, Herkimer, Rensselaer, Schenectady, Schuy- 
ler, Tioga. 
Certainly the institution of probation has been established long 
enough to have won universal approval as a social method of 
dealing with convicted offenders—either children or adults— 
who require some kind of court supervision in order to enable 
them again to take their place in their communities. While it is 
not within the power of the Legislature to do so, nevertheless 
this Committee strongly recommends that the gaps in our pro- 
bation service be filled by the appointment of probation officers 
in those counties which are now without them. This may call 
for some State subsidy, which we believe should now be done. 
In return for such a subsidy, the State-through its division of 
probation—should have a greater measure of control over local 
probation work, specifically through certification of local appoint- 
ments to the probation service and the removal of certain officers 
for good and sufficient reason. 
At the present time commitments by criminal courts in our 
counties are made in large numbers to completely state-supported 
penal and correctional institutions. There is not, nor has there 
ever been, any question that this is a proper field for State 
administration. Yet when these same criminal courts place a 
person on probation, the quality of the investigative and super- 
visory service which he receives is based entirely on the financial 
means of the county to provide good probation service. 
We believe that the time has come to raise the level of proba- 
tion service in this State to the level of the best that can be found 
36 JUVENILE DELINQUENCY 
anywhere within our borders. The recent step in New York 
City towards the consolidation of the work of seven or eight 
separate and distinct probation services is a move in the direction 
of raising the general plane of probation, not only of improving 
the lowest and least adequate. 
Along this same line, we have submitted a bill to make the 
State-wide Children’s Court Act comparable with the New York 
City Act in regard to the duties of chief probation officers of 
children’s courts. (See chapter 4, pp. 67-69). 
Rural Probation Worh 
The Erie County Probation Department may be cited as an 
example of how county probation work, when centrally adminis- 
tered, may be extended to rural areas of the State. Outside of 
the City of Buffalo, Erie County has a population of over 200,000, 
including an area greater than a thousand square miles and con- 
taining twenty-seven towns, in which are located two cities of 
the third class and several villages. 
The Probation Department has divided this County into several 
districts with one probation officer in charge of each. At least 
one branch office or reporting station has been established in 
each district—space and facilities have been made available to 
the Probation Department through the help of the local town 
and village officials. This arrangement not only facilitates the 
reporting of probationers, but makes possible a better working 
relationship between the judges and the probation officers. Of 
the one hundred-odd justices of the peace and police justices 
serving the rural areas, about one-half handle criminal matters. 
These judges hear thousands of cases each year—of the total 
number of persons convicted in 1940, 556 were placed on pro- 
bation to the County Department. 
The pre-sentence investigations made by the probation officer 
for submission to the magistrates in the rural courts are compar- 
able to the reports prepared for county court and supreme court 
judges. These local justices also receive recommendations from 
their probation officers either in writing or verbally before sen- 
tence. Over the course of years these officers have undoubt- 
37 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
edly done much to educate the local magistrates, who rely upon 
them as consultants. 
Cases placed on probation are supervised by the local probation 
officer working under the direction of the case supervisor in the 
County Department, with whom the plan of treatment is drawn 
up. Extensive cooperation with various social agencies in the 
county has been secured for cases in these rural areas as well 
as for those originating within the city limits of Buffalo. Because 
of the long distances which probationers would otherwise have 
to travel in order to report, probation officers, to keep reliably 
informed as to the conduct and condition of their charges, make 
a large number of supervisory visits to the homes and places of 
employment of their probationers. For example, during 1940, 
11,806 such visits were made by the Department’s officers in adult 
cases alone. This does not include the work done by the Juve- 
nile Probation Division in connection with children’s court cases. 
Several other counties—we particularly cite Cayuga, Monroe, 
Nassau, Niagara, Oneida, Onondaga, Suffolk and Westchester 
in this regard—are increasing the aid rendered by their proba- 
tion departments to local justices of the peace. Where such 
services are made available to them, these local magistrates have 
come increasingly to rely upon them. 
With the extension of such rural probation service, branches 
of our criminal courts throughout the State would be able to 
render a higher degree of effective service and supervision to 
cases placed on probation. The first requisite is to extend proba- 
tion into every county in the State. The next is to encourage 
these probation officers to carry their work into every section of 
their counties. 
Affe himits of the Children? s Court 
On the question of raising the age jurisdiction of the children’s 
court above its present level of sixteen years, the Committee has 
received a great diversity of opinion. In response to a ques- 
tionnaire sent out by this Committee in 1939, 63 per cent of the 
children’s court judges of this State expressed themselves in favor 
of raising the age by one year. A majority of the judges were 
38 JUVENILE DELINQUENCY 
opposed to the inclusion of the seventeenth year in the children’s 
court jurisdiction, however. By and large, sentiment for increas- 
ing the age limit of the children’s court was found more fre- 
quently in the rural areas than in the large cities of the State, 
but even in these areas the sentiment was by no means unanimous. 
During the first public hearings held by this Committee in 
New York City in December of 1937, the witnesses who came 
before us were almost unanimously opposed to the extension of 
the children’s court age beyond its present upper limit of the 
sixteenth birthday in that City. Witnesses in other large cities 
of the State were likewise opposed to any increase in the age 
jurisdiction of the children’s court. 
The Committee is aware of the fact that the tendency through- 
out the country during recent years has been in the direction of 
raising the age jurisdiction of the juvenile court. We have been 
repeatedly informed that the largest majority of the states have 
set this limit at eighteen years. We can only report what we 
have found in our years of study, however, and that fact is a 
strongly divided opinion on the subject. 
Since 1877, when the first important law for the protection 
of the young offender was passed by the Legislature, the six- 
teenth birthday has been the top age for the special consideration 
of children’s cases by our courts. We admit that this repre- 
sents no valid argument against increasing the age limit of the 
children’s courts, if such a move were to be supported*by any 
kind of majority sentiment such as appeared, for example, seven- 
teen years ago, in behalf of the proposal that a constitutional 
amendment be enacted to allow the creation of a state-wide sys- 
tem of children’s courts. Yet, for every convincing argument 
in favor of an age increase posed to the Committee there has 
been made one against it; for every group desiring to extend the 
jurisdiction of the children’s court, another group has appeared 
in opposition. Those who would be charged with the added 
responsibility—the children’s court judges themselves—are 
divided on the matter. 
The Committee believes that by giving legislative sanction to 
a system of youth courts to deal with the offender who is sixteen, 
39 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
seventeen, and eighteen years old, the same ends will be attained, 
and a socialized procedure introduced which will accomplish 
more than would be achieved by simply adding one, or at most 
two, years to the jurisdiction of our children’s courts. Further- 
more, the way is clear for the eventual addition of the nineteenth 
and twentieth years to the jurisdiction of these youth courts. 
The Committee recommends, therefore, on the basis of all the 
evidence that has been laid before it that the age jurisdiction of 
the children’s court be maintained at the sixteenth birthday in 
all the counties of the State. 
It is of course true that, by setting an arbitrary age limit upon 
the jurisdiction of the children’s court, some injustice may be 
done to those who are just slightly beyond such age limit, as 
well as to those well above the age of sixteen who may require, 
by reason of their need and condition, the parental oversight of 
the children’s court. We have yet to devise a more equitable 
standard of measurement, however. If the present limits work 
an injustice on those above children’s court age, at least that 
injustice operates equally upon all, which is some corrective. The 
psychological age of a child may, perhaps, be a better measure 
of his responsibility, of his right to come into a juvenile rather 
than an adult court, and it is not entirely unlikely that the time 
may come when our psychometric technique may be improved 
to the point where it is as accurate a standard of mental develop- 
ment as*the calendar is of chronological age. When that time 
comes, indeed, the factor of intelligence will operate as much 
to bring adults as juveniles within the province of a non-criminal 
court. 
Meanwhile we must continue to rely on the calendar, realizing 
at the same time that it is not only in the children’s court—or in 
a youth court—that the calendar operates in this arbitrary man- 
ner. Persons below or above certain age limits are ineligible 
to hold certain public offices, although they may have the best 
physical and mental capacity and maturity. This is especially 
true in the case of compulsory retirement from office at certain 
ages. The statutes of limitations work a like apparent injustice 
on those whose actions are delayed beyond a certain number of 
years, yet these time limits are of the very essence of the statutes. 
40 CHAPTER IV. COMPARISON OF THE 
ACTS RELATING TO CHILDREN’S 
COURTS 
A more important consideration than the precise limit of 
children’s court jurisdiction and the injustices which will result 
no matter at what year the limit is set. is that relating to uniform 
treatment of all the young people of the State, wherever they may 
commit their offenses, wherever they may be apprehended and 
brought into court. 
Six different children’s court acts are at present operative in 
this State. These include the Monroe County Act, originally 
passed in 1906; that of Ontario County enacted in 1913; the 
Children’s Court Act of 1918 for Chautauqua County; the 1922 
State-wide Children’s Court Act; the New York City Court of 
Domestic Relations Act of 1933 which brought together the 
Children’s Court and the Family Court of that City; and finally 
the Children’s Court Act of Onondaga, which in 1936 abolished 
the Syracuse City Children’s Court and set up in its place a court 
which was county-wide in its jurisdiction. These various statutes, 
passed at different times during the past thirty-five years, reflect 
the state of public opinion and the level of social work practice 
prevailing at those periods. As a result, some of them contain 
certain features which are more progressive than parallel sections 
of other acts, while important parts of some laws are completely 
lacking in others. 
For example, only the New York City Children’s Court may 
impose fines on children in amounts up to $500; only the Onon- 
daga Children’s Court Act gives the Court jurisdiction over way- 
41 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
ward minors; the state-wide Act permits the hearing of cases 
by a jury, a permission denied to children’s courts operating under 
special acts; only the Children’s Court Act for Chautauqua County 
has jurisdiction over every offense committed by children, while 
the remaining children’s courts of the State are excluded from 
jurisdiction over offenses punishable—if committed by an adult 
—by life imprisonment or death. Because of the progress in 
social thinking which took place between the passage of these 
various Acts, certain of them are completely free from the vestiges 
of criminal procedure which still cling to others. 
It is the belief of this Committee that the State has a responsi- 
bility to assure equality of treatment to all the citizens within its 
borders. This frequently—almost invariably—necessitates dif- 
ferent administrative machinery for different parts of the State. 
Yet within the machinery of the children’s court—as separately 
constituted in some counties, as a division of the Court of Domes- 
tic Relations in New York City—there should be absolute con- 
formity in the legal provisions under which the cases of children 
who come before the court are heard, adjudicated and treated. 
To this end the Committee has caused a comparison to be made 
between the Children’s Court Act for the State, the Children’s 
Court Act for New York City and the separate Children’s Court 
Acts for the Counties of Monroe, Ontario, Chautauqua and 
Onondaga. 
Below we set out the changes which we believe should be 
made, and the reasons therefor, in order that all these laws may 
be brought to the point of complete conformity with one another 
in every essential feature. 
1 The state-wide Children’s Court Law excludes crimes 
punishable by death or life imprisonment from the jur- 
isdiction of the Children’s Court. (Section 2, subdi- 
vision 2-A). 
The New York City Act excludes offenses punishable 
by death or life imprisonment from the jurisdiction of 
the Children’s Court. (Section 2, subdivision 15-A). 
42 CHILDREN’S COURT ACTS 
The Children’s Court Law of Chautauqua gives to the 
Children’s Court jurisdiction over every criminal offense, 
even those punishable by death or life imprisonment. 
(Chapter 464, Laws of 1918, section 1, subdivision a). 
It is only in the rarest instance that children under the age of 
sixteen are brought into the children’s courts of this State for 
offenses so serious that they would be punishable by death or life 
imprisonment if committed by an adult. These include treason, 
murder and kidnapping. Life imprisonment following upon a 
fourth conviction for a felony, or for robbery in the first degree, 
or burglary in the first degree after a prior conviction for a felony, 
is inapplicable in children’s cases, as a rule, because juvenile 
delinquency is not a felony. In New York City, the District 
Attorney’s office makes a practice of referring all cases of this 
kind to the Children’s Court, in the first instance. 
It is the opinion of this Committee that the Chautauqua County 
Act contains, in this regard, the most progressive provision to 
be found in any of the three sets of laws which we are here com- 
paring. We believe that the children’s court should have juris- 
diction over any and all delinquent acts committed by a child, 
that regardless of the type of offense charged, he is entitled to 
the full care and protection of the State. 
Where the upper age limit of jurisdiction of the children’s 
court is not to be raised by legislative action at this time, we think 
it especially important that all the children’s court acts of this 
State be made comparable as regards this essential feature. 
The juvenile court laws of many states outside of New York 
make provision for the exemption of certain classes of offenses 
from the requirement that children not be detained in jail. All 
of the children’s court acts of New York State are categoric in 
forbidding the detention of children in jail for whatever purpose 
or for however short a period of time. We believe that all of 
the children’s court laws of the State should be equally categoric 
in not denying the special procedure of the children’s court to 
those few very serious offenses which children may commit during 
a year. By giving to all of the children’s courts of the State 
43 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
exclusive jurisdiction over every offense committed by children, 
we shall have rid our law of one of the few remaining obsolete 
relics of medievalism. 
To this end we submit the following bills embodying this 
recommendation. 
•/in » ict TO AMEND THE CHILDREN’S COURT 
ACT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, IN RELATION TO DEFINI- 
TION OF DELINQUENT CHILD 
The People of the State of New York, 
represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 
Section 1. Subdivision two of section two of chapter five hun- 
dred and forty-seven of the laws of nineteen hundred twenty-two, 
entitled "An act establishing children’s courts, defining their jur- 
isdiction, power and duties, and regulating procedure therein,” as 
last amended by chapter three hundred and ninety-three of the 
laws of nineteen hundred thirty, is hereby amended to read as 
follows: 
2. "Delinquent child” means a child (a) who violates any law 
or any municipal ordinance or who commits any act which, if 
committed by an adult, would be a crime [not punishable by 
death or life imprisonment]; (b) who is incorrigible, ungovern- 
able or habitually disobedient and beyond the control of his 
parents, guardian, custodians or other lawful authority; (c) who 
is habitually truant; (d) who, without just cause and without the 
consent of his parent, parents, guardians or other custodian, 
repeatedly deserts his home or place of abode; (e) who engages 
in any occupation which is in violation of law, or who associates 
with immoral or vicious persons; (f) who frequents any place 
the existence of which is in violation of law; (g) who habitually 
uses obscene or profane language; (h) who begs or solicits alms 
explanation: Matter italics is new; matter in brackets [ } is old 
law to be omitted. 
44 CHILDREN’S COURT ACTS 
or money in public places under any pretense; or (i) who so 
deports himself as to wilfully injure or endanger the morals or 
health of himself or others. 
§ 2. This act shall take effect immediately. 
• in JMet TO AMEND THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS 
COURT ACT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, IN RELATION TO 
THE DEFINITION OF DELINQUENT CHILD 
The People of the State of New York, 
represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 
Section 1. Subdivision fifteen of section two of chapter four 
hundred and eighty-two of the laws of nineteen hundred thirty- 
three, entitled "An act to establish in and for the city of New 
York a court of domestic relations, to be known as the domestic 
relations court of the city of New York, and defining its powers, 
jurisdiction and procedure and providing for its organization,” 
as amended by chapter three hundred and sixty-two of the laws 
of nineteen hundred thirty-four, is hereby amended to read as 
follows: 
(15) Delinquent child means a child over seven and under 
sixteen years of age (a) who violates any law of the United States 
or of this state or any ordinance of the city of New York, or who 
commits any act which if committed by an adult would be an 
offense [punishable otherwise than by death or life imprison- 
ment]; (b) who is incorrigible, ungovernable or habitually dis- 
obedient and beyond the control of his parents, guardian, cus- 
todian or other lawful authority; (c) who is habitually truant; 
(d) who, without just cause and without the consent of his parent, 
guardian or other custodian, deserts his home or place of abode; 
(e) who engages in any occupation which is in violation of law; 
(f) who begs or who solicits alms or money in public places; (g) 
who associates with immoral or vicious persons; (h) who fre- 
quents any place the maintenance of which is in violation of law; 
45 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
(i) who habitually uses obscene or profane language; or (j) who 
so deports himself as wilfully to injure or endanger the morals 
or health of himself or others. 
§ 2. This act shall take effect immediately. 
m/tn JMet TO AMEND CHAPTER SIX HUNDRED 
AND ELEVEN OF THE LAWS OF NINETEEN HUNDRED TEN, 
ENTITLED "AN ACT CONFERRING JURISDICTION UPON THE 
COUNTY COURT OF MONROE COUNTY TO ADJUDICATE 
UPON ALL CASES OF CHILDREN IN MONROE COUNTY UNDER 
SIXTEEN YEARS OF AGE, WHO ARE DELINQUENT, NEGLECTED 
OR OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO THE DISCIPLINE OR IN NEED OF 
THE CARE AND PROTECTION OF THE STATE; AND REGULAT- 
ING THE PROCEDURE IN SUCH CASES, INCLUDING THE ESTAB- 
LISHMENT OF A DETENTION HOME, A PROBATION SYSTEM 
AND THE APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIANS FOR SUCH CHIL- 
« 
DREN,” IN RELATION TO APPLICATION OF ACT WITH 
RESPECT TO CHILDREN’S OFFENSES 
The People of the State of New York, 
represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 
Section 1. Subdivision A of section two of chapter six hundred 
and eleven of the laws of nineteen hundred ten, entitled "An act 
conferring jurisdiction upon the county court of Monroe county 
to adjudicate upon all cases of children in Monroe county under 
sixteen years of age, who are delinquent, neglected or otherwise 
subject to the discipline or in need of the care and protection of 
the state; and regulating the procedure in such cases, including 
the establishment of a detention home, a probation system and the 
46 CHILDREN’S COURT ACTS 
appointment of guardians for such children,” is hereby amended 
to read as follows: 
A. Who violates any penal law or any municipal ordinance, or 
who commits any act or offense for which he could be prosecuted 
in a method partaking of the nature of a criminal action or pro- 
ceeding [(except a crime punishable by death or life imprison- 
ment)], or 
§ 2. This act shall take effect immediately. 
Jtn */tct TO AMEND CHAPTER TWO HUNDRED 
AND SEVENTY OF THE LAWS OF NINETEEN HUNDRED THIR- 
TEEN, ENTITLED "AN ACT CONFERRING JURISDICTION UPON 
THE COUNTY COURT OF ONTARIO COUNTY IN MATTERS 
RELATING TO CHILDREN; AND REGULATING THE PROCE- 
DURE IN SUCH CASES, INCLUDING THE TEMPORARY DETEN- 
TION OF CHILDREN, A PROBATION SYSTEM AND THE 
APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIANS,” IN RELATION TO APPLICA- 
TION OF ACT WITH RESPECT TO CHILDREN’S OFFENSES 
The People of the State of New York, 
represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 
Section 1. Subdivision (a) of section two of chapter two hun- 
dred seventy of the laws of nineteen hundred thirteen, entitled 
'An act conferring jurisdiction upon the county court of Ontario 
county in matters relating to children; and regulating the pro- 
cedure in such cases, including the temporary detention of 
children, a probation system and the appointment of guardians,” 
is hereby amended to read as follows: 
(a) who violates any penal law or any municipal ordinance, 
or who commits any act or offense for which he could be prose- 
cuted in a method partaking of the nature of a criminal action 
47 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
or proceeding [(except a crime punishable by death or life 
imprisonment)], or 
§ 2. This act shall take effect immediately. 
The State-wide Children’s Court Act gives to the court, 
in its discretion, permission to hear and determine cases 
with or without a jury of six. (Section 14.) 
The four special County Acts and the New York City 
Act have no provision regarding the requirement or 
absence of a jury. 
The appellate courts of the State have clearly established (see 
pp. 35 and 36) that an action relative to a delinquent child is 
not in the nature of a criminal proceeding and, therefore, the 
New York City Act and the County Acts are correct in making 
no provision for jury trials. 
Most juvenile court acts in other states similarly omit this 
provision. Both the standard juvenile court law and the juvenile 
court standards issued by the Federal Children’s Bureau jointly 
with the National Probation Association emphasize that denial 
of the right to a jury trial does not constitute a deprivation of 
rights under due process of law. The Monroe County Act, 
which makes no mention of jury trials, clearly states that chil- 
dren are to be considered not as criminals, but as wards of the 
State. The formal criminal court procedure which accompanies 
a jury trial has nothing in common with the informal hearing 
of the children’s court which aims at discovering the facts under- 
lying the child’s background and condition. It is self-evident 
that failure to provide for jury trials for juveniles cannot apply 
to the cases of adults coming before the children’s court, who are 
of course entitled to such a trial if they request it. 
The Committee is in favor of the abolition of the jury trial in 
children’s cases because it is inconsistent with both the law and 
the philosophy upon which the children’s court code is based. 
To this end we submit a bill embodying this recommendation. 
48 CHILDREN’S COURT ACTS 
• ##f %/Met TO AMEND THE CHILDREN’S COURT 
ACT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, IN RELATION TO PRO- 
CEDURE 
The People of the State of New York, 
represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 
Section 1. Section fourteen of chapter five hundred and forty- 
seven of the laws of nineteen hundred twenty-two, entitled "An 
act establishing children’s courts, defining their jurisdiction, 
powers and duties, and regulating procedure therein,” as last 
amended by chapter three hundred and ninety-three of the laws 
of nineteen hundred thirty, is hereby amended to read as follows: 
§ 14. Procedure. Where the method of procedure in a case or 
proceeding in which the court has jurisdiction is not provided in 
this act, such procedure shall be the same as provided by law, 
or by rules formally adopted by the court within the scope of 
this act[, but the court may hear and determine causes in which 
it has jurisdiction with or without a jury, in the discretion of 
the court. If there be a jury, the number of jurors shall be six 
and the jury shall be drawn and a trial had in the same manner 
as obtains in the trial of criminal actions in the county court of 
said county, and the jury shall be in charge of the county officers 
the same as though said trial was in fact held in the county court]. 
§ 2. This act shall take effect immediately. 
explanation: Matter in italics is new; matter in brackets [ } is old 
law to be omitted. 
The State-wide Children’s Act makes no express pro- 
vision for fines in children’s cases; that section of the 
Act which refers to judgments (Section 22, subdivision 
f) makes no reference whatsoever to the use of fines. 
49 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
The Children’s Court Acts of Chautauqua, Monroe, 
Ontario and Onondaga County make no express pro- 
vision for the imposition of fines in children’s cases. 
The New York City Act gives the children’s court 
power, after adjudication, to render judgment including 
"a fine in a sum not to exceed $500, or in the alternative 
to remand, commit or place on probation . . (Sec- 
tion 83, subdivision D.) 
Progressive juvenile courts have long since discouraged the use 
of fines in children’s cases, because of their experience that such 
penalty fails usually upon the parents who are compelled to pay 
the fine, and not the child. In earlier days, before the restrictions 
on the employment of children, such penalties may have served 
to deter from further wrong doing. A child does not usually 
have funds at his disposal, and a fine thus has little effect on him 
—either as a disciplinary measure or as a means whereby respect 
for property may be instilled. If the parent is the person respon- 
sible for contributing to the delinquency of the child, then the 
fine should be levied against him, but he should not be indirectly 
penalized. 
The power to impose a fine is inconsistent with the non-crim- 
inal nature of the children’s court procedure. Some children’s 
courts now make restitution a condition of probation in certain 
cases, but this kind of disposition subordinates the monetary 
factor to the treatment process, instead of making it the sole 
consideration. 
The Committee believes that the New York City Act should 
be amended so as to omit this power to levy fines upon children. 
A bill embodying this recommendation immediately follows. 
50 CHILDREN’S COURT ACTS 
m in TMct TO REPEAL SUBDIVISION (D) OF SEC- 
TION EIGHTY-THREE OF THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT 
ACT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, RELATING TO IMPOSITION 
OF FINES, AND RENUMBERING CERTAIN SUBDIVISIONS OF 
SUCH SECTION 
The People of the State of New York, 
represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 
Section 1. Subdivision (d) of section eighty-three of chapter 
four hundred and eighty-two of the laws of nineteen hundred 
thirty-three, entitled "An act to establish in and for the city of 
New York a court of domestic relations, to be known as the 
domestic relations court of the city of New York, and defining 
its powers, jurisdiction and procedure and providing for its organ- 
ization,” as amended by chapter nine hundred and forty-three of 
the laws of nineteen hundred forty-one, is hereby repealed. 
§ 2. Subdivisions (e), (f), (g) and (h) of such section, as 
amended by chapter nine hundred and forty-three of the laws of 
nineteen hundred forty-one, are hereby renumbered, respectively, 
subdivisions (d), (e), (f) and (g). 
§ 3. This act shall take effect immediately. 
explanation: Matter in italics is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old 
law to be omitted. 
4; The State-wide Children’s Court Act empowers the 
judge of any children’s court to visit any institution to 
which a child may be remanded or committed by the 
Children’s Court of his County (section 45). The same 
permission is also found in the Onondaga County Act 
(section 2). 
The New York City Court Act provides that each insti- 
tution to which a child has been committed must be 
51 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
visited and inspected by at least one of the justices at 
least once a year (section 87). 
The Children’s Court Act of the County of Ontario 
makes it the "duty” of the County Judge "as far as 
practicable” to inspect at least once a year all institu- 
tions where there is any child under commitment. The 
Monroe Act specifies the first, but omits the latter con- 
dition. Under the laws of both counties, these judges 
have the further power to investigate, and to examine 
witnesses under oath concerning the conditions prevail- 
ing in such institutions (section 18 of each Act). 
The Children’s Court Act of Chautauqua County makes 
no provision for visitation or inspection of juvenile 
institutions by the judge of this county. 
The Committee has been very much concerned with this matter 
of visits by judges to the institutions to which they remand or 
commit children—a rather thorough presentation of this matter 
may be found below on pages 215-219. We consider this sub- 
ject to be of sufficient importance to merit the restatement here of 
our belief that judges should be interested in the institutions to 
which they may commit or remand children and that they should 
furthermore have not only the power, but also the obligation to 
visit and inspect these places. 
The provision of the Children’s Court Act of Monroe County 
which gives the judge power to investigate the conditions under 
which children are treated at these institutions should be made 
available to all the judges of all the children’s courts in the State. 
Judges who might not otherwise follow this procedure should be 
required by law to make at least an annual visit, even if it be only 
a "duty call”. 
To this end we submit the following bills embodying this 
recommendation. 
52 CHILDREN’S COURT ACTS 
• ##f . Ic/ TO AMEND THE CHILDREN’S COURT 
ACT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, IN RELATION TO VISITA- 
TION, INSPECTION AND INVESTIGATION OF INSTITUTIONS 
The People of the State of New York, 
represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 
Section 1. Section forty-five of chapter five hundred and forty- 
seven of the laws of nineteen hundred twenty-two, entitled "An 
act establishing children’s courts, defining their jurisdiction, power 
and duties, and regulating procedure therein,” as last amended 
by chapter three hundred and ninety-three of the laws of nine- 
teen hundred thirty, is hereby amended to read as follows: 
§ 45. General provisions; court records; construction. In the 
hearing of any case coming within the provisions of this act the 
general public shall be excluded and only such persons and the 
representatives of authorized agencies admitted thereto as have a 
direct interest in the case. All cases in which children are directly 
involved or appear shall be heard separately and apart from the 
trial of cases against adults. A room separate and apart from 
the regular courtroom shall be provided for the use of the 
children’s court, together with suitable quarters for the use of 
the judge, the probation officers and other employees of the court. 
The court shall devise and cause to be printed such forms for 
records and for the various petitions, orders, processes and other 
papers for the use of the court or in the cases or proceedings 
instituted under or pursuant to provisions of this act as shall be 
deemed necessary to meet the requirements of the court. 
The court shall maintain a full and complete record of all cases 
brought before it. The county shall provide a separate place for 
the filing of all papers in a manner similar to filing papers of a 
county court. All such records may be withheld from indis- 
explanation: Matter in italics is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old 
law to be omitted. 
53 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
criminate public inspection in the discretion of the judge, but such 
records shall be open to inspection by the parent, guardian, next 
friend or attorney of the child. Any authorized agency to which 
a child is committed may examine the record of investigation and 
may in the discretion of the court obtain a copy of the whole or a 
part of such record. 
No adjudication under the provisions of this act shall operate 
as a disqualification of any child subsequently to hold public 
office or as a forfeiture of any right or privilege or to receive 
any license granted by public authority; and no child shall be 
denominated a criminal by reason of such adjudication, nor shall 
such adjudication be denominated a conviction. Neither the fact 
that a child has been before the children’s court for hearing, nor 
any confession, admission or statement made by him to the court 
or to any officer thereof while he is under the age of sixteen years, 
shall ever be admissible as evidence against him or his interests 
in any other court. 
All provisions of the penal law or code of criminal procedure 
or other statutes inconsistent with or repugnant to any of the 
provisions of this act shall be considered inapplicable to the cases 
arising under this act. All statutes and laws, not inconsistent with 
these provisions, relating to courts exercising general jurisdiction 
shall apply with full force and effect, except as herein otherwise 
specifically provided. Chapter four hundred and eighty-nine, 
laws of nineteen hundred and fifteen, is hereby repealed. 
[The] It shall be the duty of the judge of said court [shall 
have the power] officially, at least once a year, to visit and inspect 
any institution to which a child may be remanded or committed by 
the children’s court of his county. The judge of said court may 
also examine witnesses under oath within the county where any 
such institution is located, or appoint a referee for the purpose 
of obtaining any information as to the efficiency and character 
of such institution. 
Any child placed out, boarded out or committed under order of 
the court shall be subject to the visitation and supervision of 
the state board of social welfare in accordance with the provisions 
of the [state charities] social welfare law. 
54 CHILDREN’S COURT ACTS 
This act shall be construed to the end that the care, custody 
and discipline of the children brought before the court shall 
approximate as nearly as possible that which they should receive 
from their parents, and that as far as practicable they shall be 
treated not as criminals but as children in need of aid, encour- 
agement and guidance. 
§ 2. This act shall take effect immediately. 
Yin YMct TO AMEND THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS 
COURT ACT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, IN RELATION TO 
POWERS OF INVESTIGATION WITH RESPECT TO INSTITU- 
TIONS TO WHICH DELINQUENT CHILDREN ARE COMMITTED 
The People of the State of New York, 
represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 
Section 1. Section eighty-seven of chapter four hundred and 
eighty-two of the laws of nineteen hundred thirty-three, entitled 
"An act to establish in and for the city of New York a court of 
domestic relations, to be known as the domestic relations court 
of the city of New York, and defining its powers, jurisdiction and 
procedure and providing for its organization,” is hereby amended 
to read as follows: 
§ 87. Visits to institutions. At least once each year it shall 
be the duty of the justices to cause each institution to which a 
delinquent child shall have been committed by the court during 
the year to be visited and inspected by at least one of the justices. 
Such justices may also examine witnesses under oath within the 
county where any such institution is located or within the city 
of New York if the institution he located therein, or appoint a 
referee for the purpose of obtaining any information as to the 
efficiency and character of such institution. 
§ 2. This act shall take effect immediately. 
55 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
• in Jtet TO AMEND CHAPTER FOUR HUNDRED 
AND SIXTY-FOUR OF THE LAWS OF NINETEEN HUNDRED 
EIGHTEEN, ENTITLED "AN ACT CONFERRING JURISDICTION 
UPON THE COUNTY COURT OF CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY TO 
ADJUDICATE UPON CASES OF CHILDREN IN CHAUTAUQUA 
COUNTY UNDER SIXTEEN YEARS OF AGE WHO ARE DELIN- 
QUENT, NEGLECTED, OR OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO THE DIS- 
CIPLINE OR IN NEED OF THE CARE AND PROTECTION OF THE 
STATE, AND UPON CASES OF ADULTS WHO MAY BE RESPON- 
SIBLE FOR OR CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONDITION OF SUCH 
CHILDREN; AND REGULATING THE PROCEDURE IN SUCH 
CASES, INCLUDING PROVISIONS FOR THE DETENTION OF 
CHILDREN, A PROBATION SYSTEM AND THE APPOINTMENT 
OF GUARDIANS,” IN RELATION TO VISITATION, INSPECTION 
AND INVESTIGATION OF INSTITUTIONS 
The People of the State of New York, 
represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 
Section 1. Chapter four hundred and sixty-four of the laws of 
nineteen hundred eighteen, entitled "An act conferring jurisdic- 
tion upon the county court of Chautauqua county to adjudicate 
upon cases of children in Chautauqua county under sixteen years 
of age who are delinquent, neglected, or otherwise subject to the 
discipline or in need of the care and protection of the state, and 
upon cases of adults who may be responsible for or contribute to 
the condition of such children; and regulating the procedure in 
such cases, including provisions for the detention of children, a 
56 CHILDREN’S COURT ACTS 
probation system and the appointment of guardians,” is hereby 
amended by adding thereto a new section, to be section nineteen-a, 
to read as follows: 
§ 19-a. Visitation and inspection of institutions. It shall be 
the duty of the judge of said court to visit and inspect at least 
once a year each institution in which there shall be at the time 
any child under commitment pursuant to this act, and the man- 
agers and officers of said institution shall accord to said judge full 
opportunity to inspect the said institution in all its departments. 
Said judge may examine witnesses under oath within the county 
where said institution is located, or appoint a referee for the pur- 
pose of obtaining any information as to the efficiency and char- 
acter of such institution. 
§ 2. This act shall take effect immediately. 
5 The State-wide Act specifies that in neglect proceedings 
(as in delinquent proceedings) the petition shall be 
titled "in the matter of . . a child under sixteen years 
of age” (section 10). 
The New York City Children’s Court Act by amend- 
ment in 1937 titles the proceeding relative to a neglected 
child "in the matter of . . . parent, parents, custodian 
or custodians, ... of a child . . . alleged to be a neglected 
child.” 
In the Children’s Court Acts of Chautauqua, Monroe, 
and Ontario Counties, the provision regarding petitions 
relative to neglected children is similar to that in the 
State-wide Act. In Onondaga County, the State-wide 
Act itself is applicable. 
Prior to 1937 when section 71 of the New York City Children’s 
Court Act was amended as above, children were the respondents 
—defendants—in neglect proceedings. Since Chapter 726 of 
the Laws of 1937, the parent or custodian of the child has been 
made the respondent in these proceedings. The present State- 
wide law and the Children’s Court Acts in the Counties of 
57 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
Chautauqua, Monroe, and Ontario still hold the child as the 
respondent in neglect proceedings which is, in effect, incongruous. 
The person charged with the neglect of the child should properly 
be the respondent in a neglect proceeding and he should have an 
opportunity to answer the charge. 
The Committee believes that the rest of the State ought to be 
given the advantage of this procedure which is socially proper 
and just, and to this end we submit the following bills embodying 
this recommendation. 
Jin Jtet TO AMEND THE CHILDREN’S COURT 
ACT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, IN RELATION TO TITLE 
OF PROCEEDINGS IN CASES OF ALLEGEDLY NEGLECTED 
CHILDREN 
The People of the State of New York, 
represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 
Section 1. Section ten of chapter five hundred and forty-seven 
of the laws of nineteen hundred twenty-two, entitled "An act 
establishing children’s courts, defining their jurisdiction, power 
and duties, and regulating procedure therein,” as amended by 
chapter three hundred and ninety-three of the laws of nineteen 
hundred thirty, is hereby amended to read as follows; 
§ 10. Petition. The parent or custodian of any child, an 
authorized agency, or any interested person having knowledge or 
information that a child is abandoned, neglected or delinquent or 
otherwise within the jurisdiction of the court may institute a pro- 
ceeding by filing with the court a petition verified by affidavit, 
stating such facts as bring the child within the jurisdiction of the 
court, and praying the court for action in conformity with the 
provisions of this act. The title of the proceeding, except in the 
case of a child alleged to be a neglected child, shall be "Children’s 
explanation: Matter in italics is new; matter in brackets [ } is old 
law to be omitted. 
58 CHILDREN’S COURT ACTS 
Court, County of , in the matter of 
, a child under sixteen years of age.” 
In the case of a child alleged to be a neglected child, the title of 
the proceeding shall be "Children’s Court, County of , 
in the matter of , parent, parents, custodian 
or custodians" (as the case may be) "of a child 
alleged to be a neglected child." The petition shall include the 
name and residence of the child and of the parents, if known to 
the petitioner, or the name and residence of the person having the 
guardianship, custody, control or supervision of such child if 
known to the petitioner, or shall set forth that they are unknown 
if that be the fact. 
§ 2. Titles of proceedings with respect to allegedly neglected 
children now pending in children’s courts subject to the provisions 
of the children’s court act of the state of New York shall be 
deemed amended to conform to the provisions of section ten of 
such act, as hereby amended. 
§ 3. This act shall take effect September first, nineteen hundred 
forty-two. YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
,1ft m/tct TO AMEND CHAPTER FOUR HUNDRED 
AND SIXTY-FOUR OF THE LAWS OF NINETEEN HUNDRED 
EIGHTEEN, ENTITLED "AN ACT CONFERRING JURISDICTION 
UPON THE COUNTY COURT OF CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY TO 
ADJUDICATE UPON CASES OF CHILDREN IN CHAUTAUQUA 
COUNTY UNDER SIXTEEN YEARS OF AGE WHO ARE DELIN- 
QUENT, NEGLECTED, OR OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO THE DISCI- 
PLINE OR IN NEED OF THE CARE AND PROTECTION OF THE 
STATE, AND UPON CASES OF ADULTS WHO MAY BE RESPON- 
SIBLE FOR OR CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONDITION OF SUCH 
CHILDREN; AND REGULATING THE PROCEDURE IN SUCH 
CASES, INCLUDING PROVISIONS FOR THE DETENTION OF 
CHILDREN, A PROBATION SYSTEM AND THE APPOINTMENT 
OF GUARDIANS,” IN RELATION TO TITLE OF PROCEEDINGS 
IN CASES OF ALLEGEDLY NEGLECTED CHILDREN 
The People of the State of New York, 
represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 
Section 1. Section three of chapter four hundred and sixty-four 
of the laws of nineteen hundred eighteen, entitled "An act con- 
ferring jurisdiction upon the county court of Chautauqua county 
to adjudicate upon cases of children in Chautauqua county under 
sixteen years of age who are delinquent, neglected, or otherwise 
subject to the discipline or in need of the care and protection of 
the state, and upon cases of adults who may be responsible for or 
contribute to the condition of such children; and regulating the 
procedure in such cases, including provisions for the detention of 
60 CHILDREN’S COURT ACTS 
children, a probation system and the appointment of guardians,” 
is hereby amended to read as follows: 
§ 3. Petition. Any person having knowledge or information 
that a child is within the provisions of the second preceding section 
may file with the court a petition verified by affidavit, stating 
the alleged facts that bring such child within said provisions. 
The title of the proceedings, except in the case of a child alleged 
to be a neglected child, shall be "county court, children’s part, 
county of Chautauqua, in the matter of (inserting name), a child 
under sixteen years of age.” In the case of a child alleged to be 
a neglected child, the title of the proceeding shall be "county 
court, children’s part, county of Chautauqua, in the matter of 
(inserting name), parent, parents, custodian or custodians" (as 
the case may be), "of a child (inserting name) alleged to be a 
neglected child." The petition shall set forth the name and 
residence of the child and of the parents, if known to the peti- 
tioner, or the name and residence of the person having the 
guardianship, custody, or supervision of such child, if the same 
be known or ascertained by the petitioner, or the petition shall 
state that they are unknown if that be the fact. 
§ 2. Titles of proceedings with respect to allegedly neglected 
children now pending in the children’s part of the county court 
of Chautauqua county shall be deemed amended to conform to 
the provisions of section three of chapter four hundred and sixty- 
four of the laws of nineteen hundred eighteen, as amended by 
this act. 
§ 3. This act shall take effect September first, nineteen hundred 
forty-two. 
61 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
,/tn m/Met TO AMEND CHAPTER SIX HUNDRED 
AND ELEVEN OF THE LAWS OF NINETEEN HUNDRED TEN, 
ENTITLED "AN ACT CONFERRING JURISDICTION UPON THE 
COUNTY COURT OF MONROE COUNTY TO ADJUDICATE 
UPON ALL CASES OF CHILDREN IN MONROE COUNTY UNDER 
SIXTEEN YEARS OF AGE, WHO ARE DELINQUENT, NEGLECTED 
OR OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO THE DISCIPLINE OR IN NEED OF 
THE CARE AND PROTECTION OF THE STATE; AND REGULAT- 
ING THE PROCEDURE IN SUCH CASES, INCLUDING THE 
ESTABLISHMENT OF A DETENTION HOME, A PROBATION 
SYSTEM AND THE APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIANS FOR SUCH 
CHILDREN,’’ IN RELATION TO TITLE OF PROCEEDINGS IN 
CASES OF ALLEGEDLY NEGLECTED CHILDREN 
The People of the State of New York, 
represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 
Section 1. Section three of chapter six hundred and eleven of 
the laws of nineteen hundred ten, entitled "An act conferring 
jurisdiction upon the county court of Monroe county to adjudicate 
upon all cases of children in Monroe county under sixteen years of 
age, who are delinquent, neglected or otherwise subject to the 
discipline or in need of the care and protection of the state; and 
regulating the procedure in such cases, including the establishment 
of a detention home, a probation system and the appointment of 
guardians for such children,’’ is hereby amended to read as 
follows: 
§ 3. Any person having knowledge or information that a child 
residing in or actually within the county is within the provisions 
62 CHILDREN’S COURT ACTS 
of the preceding section may file with said county court a veri- 
fied petition stating the facts that bring such child within said 
provisions. The petition may be upon information and belief. 
The title of the proceeding, except in the case of a child alleged 
to be a neglected child, shall be, "County Court, County of Mon- 
roe. In the Matter of (Inserting Name), a Child under Sixteen 
Years of Age.” In the case of a child alleged to he a neglected 
child, the title of the proceeding shall he "County Court, County 
of Monroe. In the Matter of (Insertnig Name), Parent, Parents, 
Custodian or Custodians” (as the case may be) "of a Child 
(Inserting Name) alleged to he a Neglected Child.” The petition 
shall set forth the name and residence of the child and of the 
parents, if known to the petitioner, and the name and residence 
of the person having the guardianship, custody, control and super- 
vision of such child, if the same be known or ascertained by the 
petitioner, or the petition shall state that they are unknown, if 
that be the fact. 
§ 2. Titles of proceedings with respect to allegedly neglected 
children now pending in the county court of Monroe county shall 
be deemed amended to conform to the provisions of section three 
of chapter six hundred and eleven of the laws of nineteen hun- 
dred ten, as amended by this act. 
§ 3. This act shall take effect September first, nineteen hundred 
forty-two. 
63 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
. In et TO AMEND CHAPTER TWO HUNDRED 
AND SEVENTY OF THE LAWS OF NINETEEN HUNDRED THIR- 
TEEN, ENTITLED "AN ACT CONFERRING JURISDICTION UPON 
THE COUNTY COURT OF ONTARIO COUNTY IN MATTERS 
RELATING TO CHILDREN; AND REGULATING THE PROCE- 
DURE IN SUCH CASES, INCLUDING THE TEMPORARY DETEN- 
TION OF CHILDREN, A PROBATION SYSTEM AND THE 
APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIANS,” IN RELATION TO TITLE 
OF PROCEEDINGS IN CASES OF ALLEGEDLY NEGLECTED 
CHILDREN 
The People of the State of New York, 
represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 
Section 1. Section three of chapter two hundred and seventy 
of the laws of nineteen hundred thirteen, entitled "An act con- 
ferring jurisdiction upon the county court of Ontario county in 
matters relating to children; and regulating the procedure in 
such cases, including the temporary detention of children, a pro- 
bation system and the appointment of guardians,” is hereby 
amended to read as follows; 
§ 3. Petition. Any person having knowledge or information 
that a child residing in or actually within the county is within the 
provisions of the preceding section may file with said county court 
a verified petition stating the facts that bring such child within 
said provisions. The petition may be upon information and belief. 
The title of the proceeding, except in the case of a child alleged 
to be a neglected child, shall be "Children’s Part, County Court, 
County of Ontario. In the Matter of (inserting name), a Child 
under Sixteen Years of Age.” In the case of a child alleged to be 
a neglected child, the title of the proceeding shall be "Children’s 
64 CHILDREN’S COURT ACTS 
Part, County Court, County of Ontario. In the Matter of (insert- 
ing name), Parent, Parents, Custodian or Custodians’’ (as the case 
may be) "of a Child (inserting name) alleged to he a Neglected 
Child." The petition shall set forth the name and residence of the 
child and of the parents, if known to the petitioner, and the name 
and residence of the person having the guardianship, custody, 
control and supervision of such child, if the same be known or 
ascertained by the petitioner, or the petition shall state that they 
are unknown, if that be the fact. 
§ 2. Titles of proceedings with respect to allegedly neglected 
children now pending in the children’s part of the county court 
of Ontario county shall be deemed amended to conform to the pro- 
visions of section three of chapter two hundred and seventy of the 
laws of nineteen hundred thirteen, as amended by this act. 
§ 3. This act shall take effect September first, nineteen hundred 
forty-two. 
Cb The State-wide Children’s Court Act permits the chil- 
dren’s courts to appoint psychiatrists, as well as physi- 
cians and psychologists. (Section 24.) 
The New York City Act requires that the Children’s 
Court shall be served by a psychiatric bureau, organized 
and staffed as an adjunct of the court. (Section 33.) 
The child guidance movement, at its inception thirty years ago, 
was chiefly confined to the large urban centers. State-wide sys- 
tems of clinics under public auspices and the establishment of 
clinics under private auspices have grown considerably since that 
time. 
The New York City Children’s Court Act reflects the growing 
awareness of the importance of expert assistance in determining 
the needs of children and in guiding treatment for them. The 
State-wide Act does not now permit the establishment of a clinic 
in those cities which might consider such service as an adjunct to 
the court. While it would be impractical to require by law the 
establishment of a psychiatric clinic for every children’s court in 
65 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
the State, nevertheless the passage of permissive legislation to 
that end might invite the more progressive children’s courts to 
establish clinical services directly connected with them. 
To this end we submit a bill embodying this recommendation. 
. /ft m/tet TO AMEND THE CHILDREN’S COURT 
ACT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, IN RELATION TO THE 
PERMISSIVE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF A PSY- 
CHIATRIC BUREAU AS AN ADJUNCT OF ANY CHILDREN’S 
COURT 
The People of the State of New York, 
represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as folloivs: 
Section 1. Chapter five hundred and forty-seven of the laws of 
nineteen hundred twenty-two, entitled "An act establishing chil- 
dren’s courts, defining their jurisdiction, powers and duties, and 
regulating procedure therein,” is hereby amended by adding 
thereto a new section, to be section thirty-six-a, to read as follows: 
§ 36-a. Psychiatric bureau. A psychiatric bureau may be 
organized and established and serve as an adjunct of the children’s 
court in any county, for the physical, mental and psychiatric 
examination of persons within the jurisdiction of the court, if the 
board of supervisors of the county shall authorize and provide for 
such bureau, and such boards are hereby so empowered. Any such 
bureau shall be staffed with one or more competent psychiatrists 
and others, in accordance with appropriate authorization, who 
shall be appointed by the judge of the court and serve under his 
direction. 
§ 2. This act shall take effect immediately. 
explanation; Matter in italics is new; matter in brackets [ } is old 
law to be omitted. 
66 CHILDREN’S COURT ACTS 
w The State-wide Children’s Court Act makes no detailed 
provision regarding the duties of chief probation officers 
of the children’s court; it merely states that the chief 
probation officer shall, under the direction of the court, 
have supervision of the work of all other probation 
officers. (Section 36.) 
The New York City Children’s Court Act specifies the 
duties of the chief probation officer, stating that he 
shall "formulate uniform methods for the probation 
work of the court and develop processes in the tech- 
nique of casework, including investigation, interview- 
ing, use of records, analysis of information, diagnosis, 
plan of treatment, correlation of effort by individuals 
and agencies, and methods of influencing human 
behavior. It shall be his duty to scrutinize the work of 
all the probation officers and instruct them as to meth- 
ods and technique and imbue them with proper stand- 
ards and ideals of probation work’’. (Section 24.) 
The State-wide Act does not specify the duties and functions 
of chief probation officers in the detailed manner found in the 
New York City Act. There are seventeen counties in the State 
(Broome, Cayuga, Chemung, Erie, Fulton, Jefferson, Monroe, 
Nassau, Niagara, Oneida, Onondaga, Ontario, Orange, Rock- 
land, Suffolk, Ulster and Westchester) not including the City of 
New York which have appointed chief probation officers under 
this authorization with supervisory functions over children’s 
court probation work alone, or in combination with work in the 
criminal courts. Some of these counties have only one officer, 
who has the title of "Chief’’. It is the opinion of this Committee 
that the powers and duties of these chief probation officers should 
be set forth in a manner paralleling that of the New York City 
Act. 
There is no doubt that in many communities of the State the 
level of probation work is as high as that in the Children’s Court 
of New York City. Although it is questionable whether the 
incorporation of these provisions in the State-wide and County 
67 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
Children’s Court Acts would of and by itself guarantee that the 
level of probation care in all children’s courts would auto- 
matically be raised, we believe that the law under which they 
operate should nevertheless be uniform in its specifications. 
In many rural counties of the State a variety of agents serve 
as probation officers: it is not unusual to have the district attorney 
or the county agent for dependent children, or other persons, 
serve the court in a voluntary capacity in the same manner as 
paid probation officers do in other parts of the State. The law 
should at least specify the conditions under which probation is 
to be administered in all of our children’s courts, and these pro- 
visions should be made uniform throughout the State. 
To this end we submit a bill embodying this recommendation. 
•/tn */Mct TO AMEND THE CHILDREN’S COURT 
ACT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, IN RELATION TO DUTIES 
OF CHIEF PROBATION OFFICERS 
The People of the State of New York 
represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 
Section 1. Section thirty-six of chapter five hundred and forty- 
seven of the laws of nineteen hundred twenty-two, entitled "An 
act establishing children’s courts, defining their jurisdiction, 
powers and duties, and regulating procedure therein,” as amended 
by chapter three hundred and ninety-three of the laws of nineteen 
hundred thirty, is hereby amended to read as follows: 
§ 36. Powers and duties of probation officers. The chief pro- 
bation officer shall, under the direction of the court, have super- 
vision of the probation work of [all other probation officers] the 
court. He shall formulate uniform methods for the probation 
work of the court and develop processes in the technique of case- 
work, including investigation, interviewing, use of records, analy- 
sis of information, diagnosis, plan of treatment, correlation of 
explanation: Matter in italics is new; matter in brackets [ } is old 
law to be omitted. 
68 CHILDREN’S COURT ACTS 
effort by individuals and agencies, and methods of influencing 
human behavior. It shall be his duty to scrutinize the work of 
all the probation officers and instruct them as to methods and 
technique and imbue them with proper standards and ideals of 
probation work. 
It shall be the duty of a probation officer to make such investiga- 
tion before, during, and after the hearing of any case as the court 
may direct and to report his finding to the court. He shall visit 
and keep himself informed as to the conduct and condition of 
each child under his supervision and shall make report thereof to 
the court. He shall keep accurate accounts of all moneys or other 
articles collected or taken from the persons under his supervision 
and shall make report thereof to the court. Probation officers for 
the purposes of this act shall have the powers of peace officers, 
and all provisions of the general laws of the state relating to 
probation, so far as they are applicable, shall apply to cases com- 
ing within the provisions of this act. 
§ 2. This act shall take effect immediately. 
This Committee is not the first to recommend the dele- 
tion from the penal law of those provisions which are out of 
harmony with the various children’s court acts now operative in 
the State. The Commission to Examine the Laws Relating to 
Child Welfare in its years of study suggested two such changes, 
which were immediately enacted. (Chapter 207 of the Laws of 
1923 and 436 of 1924). 
In 1939 and again in 1940 the State Judicial Council likewise 
recommended that the text of certain sections of the penal law 
be brought into harmony with the Children’s Court Acts by 
removing inconsistencies in language and deleting such portions 
as had become definitely obsolete. (1939 Report, pp. 325-330; 
1940 Report, p. 52). Specifically, the Judicial Council suggested 
the repeal of Sections 2194 and 2184, substituting for the latter 
a new Section 2184, as follows: 
Judgment in cases of juvenile delinquency. When a 
child under the age of sixteen years is adjudicated to 
69 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
be delinquent, as defined by section twenty-one hun- 
dred and eighty-six of this chapter, the judgment of the 
court shall be as prescribed by the Children’s Court Act. 
"The provisions of title two of article seven of the 
Social Welfare Law shall govern the commitment of 
juvenile delinquents to state training schools”. 
The Legislature did not enact this amendment in 1940 or 
1941. We urge that this change in the penal law be made at 
this time, because it is in line with the attempts of this Com- 
mittee to harmonize and to bring into conformity with one 
another all the laws relating to proceedings in children’s courts. 
After forty years of a non-criminal dealing with children’s prob- 
lems in special courts, we believe there is no longer any valid 
reason for carrying in our penal law any vestigial reminders of 
an outmoded primitive attitude toward children. 
To this end we submit a bill embodying this recommendation. 
jtn m/Met TO AMEND THE PENAL LAW, IN RELA- 
TION TO JUDGMENT IN CASES OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, 
AND REPEALING EXISTING SECTION TWENTY-ONE HUN- 
DRED AND EIGHTY-FOUR AND SECTION TWENTY-ONE 
HUNDRED AND NINETY-FOUR OF THE PENAL LAW RELAT- 
ING THERETO 
The People of the State of New York, 
represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 
Section 1. The penal law is hereby amended by inserting therein 
a new section, to be section twenty-one hundred and eighty-four, 
to read as follows: 
§ 2184. Judgment in cases of juvenile delinquency. When a 
child under the age of sixteen years is adjudicated to be delin- 
explanation: Matter in italics is new; matter in brackets [ } is old 
law to be omitted. 
70 CHILDREN’S COURT ACTS 
quent, as defined by section twenty-one hundred and eighty six 
of this chapter, the judgment of the court shall be as prescribed 
by the children’s court act. 
The provisions of title two of article seven of the social wel- 
fare law shall govern the commitment of juvenile delinquents to 
state training schools. 
§ 2. Existing section twenty-one hundred and eighty-four and 
section twenty-one hundred and ninety-four of the penal law are 
hereby repealed. 
§ 3. This act shall take effect September first, nineteen hundred 
forty-two. 
With the introduction of the amendments necessary to bring 
these statutes into conformity with one another, this Committee 
feels that it has done all that lies within its power to insure 
equality of treatment to the children of the State who come 
before our courts. Even with the passage of these amendments, 
differences in administrative set up and in personnel will con- 
tinue. These matters do not depend solely on legislation and 
they are therefore excluded from our further consideration here. 
Adequacy of facilities for investigation and treatment of chil- 
dren’s cases, is a matter for which the various counties and the 
Executive Departments of this State must assume responsibility 
as well as for the translation of these legislative enactments into 
practice and their proper interpretation. 
It is our earnest hope that as a result of the efforts of this Com- 
mittee, courts and their probation staffs, as well as governmental 
and private agencies of all kinds, no less than the public gener- 
ally may be encouraged to expand their interest in the problem 
of the delinquent child in all the counties of our State. 
71 PART THREE chapter V. THE ADOLESCENT* 
By his characteristic physical and emotional differentiations, 
no less than by the nature and number of the offenses which he 
commits, the adolescent distinguishes himself from both the 
child and the adult. Case studies of delinquents and non-delin- 
quents demonstrate that the teen years represent a period of 
strain. Even the average adolescent finds it difficult to strike the 
proper balance between his own inner demands and urges and 
the requirements of the larger society about him of which he is 
becoming daily more aware. To the deprived adolescent in an 
unfavorable environment these years are frequently marked by 
criminality as one way of securing satisfaction, as one attempt 
to resolve inner conflicts. 
It is impossible here even to summarize the vast literature 
which has grown up about the problem. While our interest is 
limited to the adolescent who commits an offense, is apprehended, 
brought into court, and, perhaps, detained in jail, placed on 
probation or committed to an institution, we cannot overlook the 
age period through which he is passing. It is not enough simply 
to state that the adolescent of sixteen, seventeen, or eighteen 
years is deserving of special care by our courts and institutions. 
This belief can be—and is— confirmed by the growing evidence 
from many fields of scientific knowledge, that the youth of these 
ages is not yet fully mature, not yet fully adult. Our courts and 
* Numbers appended to statements in this chapter refer to the source 
bibliography to be found on pp. 91 and 92. 
75 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
institutions must take cognizance of these facts, and so alter their 
procedure as to make special provisions for the youth group. 
Some Definitions 
The concept of adolescence was little known until the publi- 
cation of G. Stanley Hall’s famous study, which examined the 
evidence from many fields.22 Since then the term "adolescence” 
has become the equivalent of instability, variability, and conflict. 
Says one authority: "Adolescence literally means growth, but 
as the term is used in biology and psychology it defines the period 
of human development from the beginning of puberty to the 
end of the maturation process. Its chronological boundaries 
vary with race, climate, nutrition, social status and inheritance 
and may include some individuals as young as eight and others 
as old as twenty-five. The significance of the growth rate in the 
life of an individual cannot, it appears, be stated accurately in 
terms useful for education, but there is a growing conviction that 
the period of infancy and childhood should be surrounded by 
special immunities and protection, and that its prolongation has 
significance for the more complete higher evolution of human 
beings.”18 
A more precise definition is found in the following: "Adoles- 
cence is the period of growth that intervenes between mere child- 
hood and complete adulthood. Adolescence extends from about 
the age of 12, when premonitory mental symptoms of puberty 
appear, to about 25 for males and 21 for females when the pro- 
ductive powers are ripe. The term was formerly restricted to the 
latter part of this period (from 18 to 25) but later writers have 
followed a suggestion of Clouston (Clinical Lectures on Mental 
Diseases, Philadelphia) that the term should be extended so as 
to cover the entire transition. The phenomena of these years, 
12 to 25, display a sufficiently definite progression to justify a 
subdivision of the period into early, middle and late adolescence; 
the middle subperiod covering the two or three years from about 
the age of 15 during which the transition is most rapid and the 
mental life most inchoate.”19 
76 THE ADOLESCENT 
All of the authoritative descriptions or definitions of this 
period agree that adolescence is clearly distinguishable from both 
childhood and adulthood, and that consequently the adolescent 
should be treated in special ways. As but one instance, we cite 
the fact that the English Prevention of Crime Act of 1908, divided 
all minors into children under fourteen, young persons between 
fourteen and sixteen, and "juvenile adults’’ between ages sixteen 
and twenty-one. 
Physical Factors in Adolescence 
From the field of physiology comes a wealth of evidence that 
adolescence is a period of change. Important for our purposes 
is the finding that adolescence does not begin at the same chrono- 
logical age for all normal boys and girls. Even at age eighteen 
the growth in the human organism is by no means fully com- 
plete. During these years "the annual rate of growth in height, 
weight and strength is increased and often doubled and even 
more”.21 Between the years of fifteen or sixteen, and eighteen, 
the final period of slow growth is observed.30 Not only is there 
an apparent difference of about a year in physical development 
between youths brought up in the city and in the country, but 
even more striking differences appear between individuals— 
" There is more difference between individual and individual dur- 
ing adolescence than during the first twelve years of life, and 
this is true of all the aspects of development, both physical and 
mental”.17 
Based on a series of physical measurements on approximately 
3,500 school children, three New England investigators estab- 
lished that a skeletal age of eighteen years, eleven months repre- 
sents skeletal maturity for boys, and sixteen years, five months 
represents a corresponding maturity for girls.15 Up to that point, 
these young people were still developing, still adding to and 
strengthening the underlying bony framework. 
The concept of anatomical or physiological age as opposed 
to chronological age was first stressed by an early worker in the 
field of child growth. **. . . all observations, records and inves- 
77 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
tigations of children, whether pedagogical or medical, social or 
ethical, must regard physiological age as a primary and funda- 
mental basis”.12 
This is. in fact, the basic concept of the children’s court, even 
though its jurisdiction is limited by chronological factors. Varia- 
tions from the norm displayed by young, growing persons, are, 
however, the rationale for bringing under a jurisdiction other 
than the purely criminal, those youthful offenders who are deserv- 
ing of special treatment by reason of their immaturity. 
We quote only two applications of the concept of physio- 
logical age mentioned by Baldwin, editor of the standard work 
in this field: "A careful analytic study of the periods of growth 
of boys and girls should precede any provisions for their physical 
education, and the results of such study will throw light on their 
development in general motor coordination, and in the mental 
traits which accompany, directly and indirectly, rhythmic or 
irregular physical development”. . . As to social adjustment, 
Prof. Baldwin has this to say: "That there is a direct relationship 
between social age and physiological maturity needs only to be 
mentioned to be evident. Some girls at a given chronological 
age are sufficiently mature to meet the social conditions which 
may arise, while others are not. It is apparent that in dealing 
with children, especially delinquents, between ten and eighteen 
years of age, there is a tremendous problem involved which rests 
directly on the physiological age of the individual. Girls face 
the problem earlier on the average than do boys. In a particular 
case it may mean a social misfit for life with another child 
involved, or the individual may be subject to remedial social 
training and development”.2 
A wide variety of indices have been employed by which to 
determine not only developmental norms for use in studying 
individual adolescents, but also for the determination of the 
stage at which a particular individual has arrived: growth curves, 
the ratio between height and weight,3 strength of the grip of the 
hand,34 successive stages of bone development,27 dentition,9 the 
age distribution of pubescence in boys and of physiological matu- 
ration in girls.12 
78 THE ADOLESCENT 
The importance o£ the adolescent changes which these various 
measurements attempt to gauge is well stated in a report of the 
White House Conference on Child Health and Protection: "It 
is not generally recognized what profound changes are taking 
place in the individual both physically and mentally during this 
period. Not only is there a sudden spurt in growth but a certain 
instability in the relationship of the various organ systems appears 
at this time. However, because of the comparatively large size 
of the boy and girl at this age, physicians have usually thought 
of them as practically mature and have treated them very much 
as adults. Such information as we now possess clearly shows 
that this point of view is unsound and that further studies of 
the period of adolescence are essential to complete our knowl- 
edge”.43 
A youth’s health and weight can be determined with accuracy, 
but we cannot from these measures determine at what stage he 
is on the road to maturity. Some of the characteristics of adoles- 
cents—and this refers as much to the intellectual and emotional 
as to the physical—mature in some cases "by leaps and bounds, 
in others by more gradual evolution”.16 Despite the wide diver- 
gences in the development of youths however "... our social 
conventions compel a child to fit himself into a scholastic, intel- 
lectual and social environment based upon his chronological 
age”,44 
The concern of adolescents with their bodily development, and 
the influence of that concern has been described by many workers 
in this field. Says one: "The great majority of adolescents are 
inclined to be concerned with the normality of their physical 
status . . . and the absence of clear-cut norms in the realm of 
adolescent physiology merely adds to their uncertainty”.4 Despite 
these individual differences, however, it has been established that 
young people are postpubescent in the greatest majority of 
instances at age seventeen years and nine months. The differ- 
ence between the attitudes and interests of pre-pubescent girls 
and boys and those who are fully mature sexually, physiologi- 
cally speaking, is demonstrated by the interest which each sex 
begins to display in the other, as well as by the imaginative and 
79 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
day-dreaming activities in which they engage during these years.:ili 
The number and type of sex offenses committed by youths during 
this period is but one evidence of a newly awakened interest 
paralleling the approach of full maturity. Many writers have 
pointed to the fact that youths are in many instances ”... capable 
and ready for homes of their own, (yet) there is no way to 
manage this because of the delay occasioned by economic con- 
ditions”.32 
This same writer states further that the extreme accelerations 
and retardations in the growth of particular organs, results in 
an uneven distribution of growth for the individual. This lack 
of uniformity in organic development described by one physician 
as "asymetrical growth”, makes far-reaching demands upon the 
adaptive capacity of the individual, and is at least partially 
responsible for the susceptibility of youth to disease. 
As puberty approaches, most of the diseases to which childhood 
is most prone, decrease, while rheumatism, disorders of bones, 
muscles, nerves, heart and circulation tend to increase. Youth 
becomes liable to characteristic adult diseases, often in simpler 
form with less involved symptoms. 
From a recent study cited above, we learn that tuberculosis 
alone accounts for one-fourth of the deaths in the age range 
fifteen to nineteen, based on 1932 statistics for the more import- 
ant specific causes of death among males and females aged ten 
to fourteen, and fifteen to nineteen, for the United States as a 
whole. Girls between the ages of fifteen and nineteen died three 
times as frequently of tuberculosis as did those aged ten to four- 
teen; for boys the corresponding figure is three and one-half. 
Boys between fifteen and nineteen died twice as frequently of 
lumbar pneumonia as boys in the age group of ten to fourteen; 
only for bronchial pneumonia was the contrary true.15 These 
findings are confirmed in "Recent Social Trends in the United 
States”.31 One investigator describes a special kind of mental 
disease which he calls "phthisical insanity” . . . beginning during 
or just after adolescence, when he believes the body is in a state 
of reduced nutritive condition favorable to tubercular infection.10 
Certain other susceptibilities on the part of youth to specific 
80 THE ADOLESCENT 
pathological conditions have been indicated by students of the 
problem. An ophthalmologist states his belief that many of the 
weaknesses and other eye troubles peculiar to puberty actually 
originate in the sexual modifications of that period, particularly 
among girls.13 It is a familiar fact, that children who apparently 
recover from an original syphilitic infection which appears soon 
after birth may at the period of second dentition or of puberty 
show renewed manifestations.8 Hall concludes: "The germs 
of death are now taking root like tares among the forces of the 
budding vernal life; all this makes adolescence a process of assay 
and ordeal. . . .”22 
Emotional Adjustment and Imhalanee 
Material on the emotional life and attitudes of youths in mid- 
adolescence is not so ample. Such studies as have been made, 
however, and their number is increasing, point to the insecure 
emotional equilibrium of the youth period. Old ties with earlier 
modes of conduct break or are broken; there is less harmony 
and less complete coordination; a conflict frequently occurs 
between a desire to run from difficulties—the childish response 
—and the will to stand and fight back; new urges, stronger 
desires, arise together with a greater capacity for their expres- 
sion; a pull between old habits of behavior and the more recent 
drives toward adventurous, even reckless, self-expression appears. 
In short the "storm and stress” with which youth strives to leave 
childhood behind and to gain admittance into the adult world, 
defines the time of adolescence and sets it apart from other age 
periods. 
A study in the excellent Iowa Child Welfare series based on 
four groups: 
76 boys and girls in state training schools, 
31 adolescents in a state home, 
200 "normal” adolescents in a large city high school, 
90 "normal” adults, 
presents several conclusions of interest. The first of these has 
found general acceptance by workers in the field of mental 
81 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
hygiene, namely that: "Abnormal behavior is the uncontrolled 
manifestation of the same temperament which actuates the nor- 
mal individual’’. Lack of integration and balance, typical adoles- 
cent characteristics, are thus seen to be important governing 
factors in anti-social conduct. Comparing the non-delinquent 
or "normal” adolescents with the adult group, it was found that 
the former were more oscillating and paradoxical in their feel- 
ings and actions. They were more rebellious, suspicious, intoler- 
ant of others; overly enthusiastic; they liked more excitement; 
were more prone to depression, self-consciousness, oversensitive- 
ness; also they doubted the veracity of others and employed 
more escape-mechanisms. Delinquent girls showed more evi- 
dences than non-delinquent girls of feeling unworthy and hav- 
ing guilt complexes; were restless, prone to nervous upsets; had 
a day-dream life; were outspoken, intolerant, suspicious and 
apprehensive of others, and preferred to work alone.26 
The adolescent in general, who is without the benefit of expe- 
rience of living, shows extreme temperament manifestations 
toward his training, in his desire to be removed from "the leash”. 
He has a low normal or balancing component to offset his other 
extreme characteristics. The personality imbalance characteristic 
of young persons in this period approaches in many instances the 
"pre-psychotic” syndromes, and consequently they may be wrongly 
diagnosed as such.29 
An interesting investigation of 200 boys, twelve to fourteen 
years of age at the beginning of the research, who were studied 
systematically for two years, gives results which are important 
for an understanding of the emotional life in the mid-period of 
adolescence between years fifteen and eighteen. 
In the course of the two-year period of observation, it was 
possible to discern the changes that took place in these boys, 
paralleling their pubescent development. The diminishing acti- 
vities of these boys as they became older were noted as: sleep, 
participation in physical play, eating, club activities, etc. The 
decrease in the amount of time devoted to sports or physical play 
was coupled with an increase of the spectator role. The most 
provocative finding for our purposes may be the rapid reduction 
82 THE ADOLESCENT 
discovered in the amount of time utilized by these youths for 
organized group activities, in scout-troops, clubs, classes in 
churches, Y.M.C.A.’s and settlements. Only one-quarter of the 
sixteen year olds investigated, continued any club participation, 
while at the beginning of the study nearly all of the boys belonged 
to some group. 
The study found that the greatest shift during the four years 
from fourteen to sixteen was in the realm of self-criticism. This 
increased self-analytical attitude is in line with the fact that the 
adolescent is becoming more aware of himself in relation to 
others. Some growth, though slight, was registered during the 
four years in social insight and in the tendency to be critical 
of others. The author answers the question: Are we justified in 
denying or belittling the role of physiological growth and matu- 
ration in the development of the individual and swinging to a 
thoroughgoing position of social or environmental causation, 
with the statement: The development of the individual adoles- 
cent is conditioned by factors both within and without himself.14 
The endocrinologist and the behaviorist have much to con- 
tribute to an understanding of the emotional life of adolescents. 
The fact that the emotions are so closely connected wtih visceral 
and glandular activities makes it apparent that, with the matura- 
tion of the sex and related glands, there will be a stronger tend- 
ency toward the love attachments and emotional manifestations 
associated with the adolescent. In this tendency, probably the 
powerful social drives of adolescents, and their extreme loyalty 
and ideals, play an important part. Concerning anger, it is fair 
to say that the idealistic nature of the adolescent is likely to carry 
his anger too far, at the same time that fear as a means of con- 
trol loses its influence.42 
Nor can the importance of habits as drives to action by the 
adolescent be overemphasized. Habits of a social nature are in 
their formative stage during the later years of adolescence; these 
are at the same time influenced by changes in the emotional life 
during this period. "With adolescent growth and development, 
emotional drives become more powerful; emotional disturbances 
are more in evidence, and more complex emotional states of a 
social nature develop.”20 
83 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
The phenomenon of self-assertion before the opposite sex dur- 
ing these years is well known: "It is certainly clear that in order 
to reach normal adult stature the adolescent must pass during the 
adolescent period, from early lack of sex consciousness to a 
state characterized by the exact opposite, namely, sex conscious- 
ness, and then to the state of attraction to the opposite sex. This 
last is the state when in ordinary parlance the boy is in varying 
degrees 'girl crazy” and the girl, in some measure, "boy crazy.”0 
The high emotional tension at adolescence is explained in other 
terms by another writer as "due in part to the function of the 
endocrine glands which has changed markedly with the intro- 
duction of the hormones from the gonads. It is highly probable 
that changes in the hormones from the gonads have produced 
a difference in adrenal gland function, and that since the adrenal 
gland seems to have so great a relation to the emotions, an 
unusual tension is the result. This is all the more probable since 
there appears to be a fundamental relation between adrenal gland 
secretion and the development of the secondary sex character- 
istics.”1 
This same writer interprets the insecurity of the adolescent as 
"fear in a generalized form and without the more profound 
changes in pure fear states.” Insecurity during this period may 
reach such a height that the escape mechanisms are increased 
far beyond the normal point. In order to help meet this situa- 
tion, the adolescent needs a security which is subconscious as well 
as conscious: superficial reassurances will be found to be wholly 
inadequate in dealing with him. He needs to know that he is 
secure in the acceptance of those he loves. 
Many authorities are agreed that during adolescence, ambi- 
valence representing a rapid emotional swing, seems to occur 
rather more frequently than at any other time. 
It is difficult to determine just what is meant by emotional 
maturity, as to fix the precise point at which a person ceases to 
develop in emotional power and control. Yet the answers to 
these problems are of great importance in our understanding and 
treatment of adolescents. One psychologist, drawing upon 
anthropological sources, notes that in primitive initiation cere- 
84 THE ADOLESCENT 
monies, some tribes made "capacity to suffer” a frequent test of 
the maturity of its youthful members.25 Ordeals consisted of 
mental and physical hardships, and the young person who refused 
to undergo them, or who yielded to fear or pain, or cried out, 
was considered to have failed the initiation. The entrance of 
these into full membership in the group was refused because 
they were considered to be immature, childish, not yet ready for 
adult responsibility. It is to be noted that many of the offenses 
committed by youths are in response to dares or other spurs by 
those older than themselves. Many instances may be cited of 
a hierarchy of offenses which youthful aspirants to gang mem- 
bership must commit before they may be considered full-fledged 
accomplices to their older leaders.24 
We know that emotional control comes with years and expe- 
rience, by increased power from within, to help withstand exter- 
nal pressures. However, it is believed by many psychologists that 
emotional maturity is perhaps more influenced by training and 
circumstances than is any other phase of development. The 
ultimate courage and patience of a person is in the last analysis 
determined by what happens to him during immaturity. 
Finally, we note that the suicide curve rises during adolescence, 
but on the other hand there is evident also a new and offsetting 
horror of death not felt before. 
The Factor of Intelligence 
The relation of the factor of intelligence to social adjustment 
is of great importance for an understanding of the problems of 
adolescents—delinquent youths, as well as those who do not 
come before the courts. In any such discussion, we must clearly 
distinguish between mental ability or intelligence on the one 
hand and mental content or knowledge on the other. 
Intellectual growth, like physical growth begins at conception 
and continues until some point in late adolescence. Psychologists 
do not agree on the precise point at which the growth of intelli- 
gence ends. Psychometric studies show a rise of the curve of 
mental power to the age of about sixteen years on the average, 
85 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
and little if any rise thereafter. Among adolescents of superior 
intelligence as a group, such as are to be found in high schools, 
improvement has been noted in scores on intelligence tests up to 
eighteen years, and it has not been conclusively established that it 
ceases at that age. In this connection it is interesting to note 
that in the fifty years between 1880 and 1930, the high school 
population of this country increased from a little more than 3 
per cent of the total population of high school age to almost 
50 per cent.28 
It is during adolescence that the individual first achieves his 
maximum powers of thinking and planning, and the need of a 
constructive and systematic explanation of the universe is felt, 
perhaps, for the first time. Youths in their middle teens begin 
to display a power of generalization which is seldom seen in 
those in their early teens, even though the concepts in the former 
age group are not so perfectly formed as they will be at twenty 
when the abstract understanding of life is possible.37 There is 
general recognition that the adolescent is frequently incapable 
of exercising complete adult judgment by reason of lack of 
experience, even though what we term intelligence and bodily 
maturity may be reaching their apex. 
The difficulties which many a youth experiences during these 
years spring from the doubts which he begins to entertain regard- 
ing accepted customs and traditions of society in general, and 
particularly those of his family. Rebelliousness seen against this 
kind of a background can be understood as a healthy and neces- 
sary step in the mental development of the individual, even 
though the outward expression of the conflicts which such rebel- 
liousness engenders are borne only with great difficulty—by those 
associated with him.38 
The adults who live and work with him must appreciate his 
attempts to affirm a social as well as an economic independence 
of all those who have—up to now—guided and trained him.39 
Between sixteen and eighteen, the more intelligent adolescent 
becomes concerned with such aspects of the world about him as 
the problems of creation, of death and of immortality and also 
in the impersonal problems of space, time, reality, infinity, etc. 
86 THE ADOLESCENT 
He begins to think of what he will do in the future. The chart- 
ing of a life plan at this point, one which is in line with his 
special aptitudes and abilities, which will allow for a harmonious 
balance of all—or almost all—-his drives, is a very difficult prob- 
lem indeed. 
It is at this stage in his development that he requires all the 
help that society can give him. Dependent largely on the influ- 
ences which are brought to bear upon him, his ". . . strivings and 
aggressiveness may lead in a direction of ambition and fine 
accomplishment, or may find outlets largely in delinquent 
trends.”23 
These years should represent a period of continuing emancipa- 
tion. "From the conception of the self as little more than a 
physical body possessed of strong play interests, and of the uni- 
verse outside oneself as little more than a narrow horizon that 
hems in certain small geographic areas, the youth comes in the 
later adolescent period to envisage the self as a force of great 
potentiality. . .”22 The concern of the institutions of society is 
for the cultivation of that potentiality. 
Social and Economic Difficulties 
During the adolescent period youths face an intensification of 
their problems, especially those which arise from the environ- 
ment, the restrictions upon their activities and their self-expres- 
sion. It is not poverty itself, but the concomitants of poverty 
which bear down especially hard upon this age period. Over- 
crowded homes bring about many results especially deleterious 
for youth: lack of privacy, absence of recreation facilities at 
home, the necessity of meeting one’s acquaintances, boys or girls, 
outside the home. The influence of a home broken by reason 
of separation, death, divorce or imprisonment, hard as it is upon 
the younger child, is perhaps more difficult for the adolescent, 
at a time when he needs all the anchors and all the security that 
can be mustered for his support. 
During this age period, also, we see the cumulative effects of 
the over-severe or too lax discipline of earlier years, as well as 
the harm done by inadequate or improper educational training. 
87 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
Though difficult to establish conclusively, there is undoubtedly 
a close and valid connection between youthful criminality and 
unemployment. Free from school, because he is over the com- 
pulsory age, or because he is no longer interested in or profiting 
from the curriculum, or because his family needs his help, the 
youth seeks a job. The change from school to work—or to a 
search for work—is bound to be unsettling. The sudden free- 
dom and responsibilities, the demands which are now made upon 
him, perhaps the new found independence and the sense of earn- 
ing—are bound to create new stresses and strains. Many of the 
jobs open to young people require little training and pay even 
less wages. 
Until very recently, youth suffered more from unemployment 
than did any other age group in the labor market. During the 
last week of March, 1940, for example, there were two million 
persons in this country aged fourteen to twenty-four who were 
totally unemployed and seeking work. The records of the WPA, 
NYA and CCC show that there were over one million additional 
unemployed youth working at relief jobs. The burden of unem- 
ployment in March 1940 was especially heavy on youths just 
out of school. Less than 70 per cent of the boys and girls 
between the ages of fourteen and nineteen who had joined the 
labor force were employed on non-relief jobs, while 23 per cent 
of the boys and 26 per cent of the girls were entirely without 
work and looking for a job.' 
We find the recent past a most critical period for young people, 
many of whom grew up in rural areas but were forced to migrate 
cityward in order to find job opportunities. Youth may be said 
to bear the brunt of unemployment. The transition from youth 
to manhood and from disciplined lessons to independence is 
indeed a double handicap. If in addition to this, the type and 
difficulty of the work are not adapted to the nature and capacity 
of the young worker, and if his co-workers are uncongenial or 
set a bad example, the youth’s natural restlessness and instability 
will indeed be sorely tried. 
88 THE ADOLESCENT 
Civil Restrictions 
In addition to these handicaps, the youth who is out of school 
and looking for work, finds himself under other disabilities. He 
may be barred from entrance into some trade unions until he has 
come of age, or he may be required to fulfil apprenticeship 
requirements. Sixteen and seventeen year olds must have work- 
ing papers before they may take jobs as errand boys or in any 
other employment. Youths under eighteen are protected by wage 
and hour laws.41 They are also excluded from certain dangerous 
occupations, because of their greater liability to accidents. To 
date, five such occupations in inter-state commerce have been 
declared to be hazardous under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 
1938: in the manufacture of explosives, in motor-vehicle opera- 
tion or assistance, in coal mines, in logging and saw-milling, and 
in any occupations involving power-driven woodworking ma- 
chines.40 Studies of the hazards of the ship-building industry 
and the special danger to health connected with radio-active 
substances may soon lead to orders in these fields as well.45 
Membership in organizations of all kinds, leadership in clubs, 
admittance to theatres and to educational institutions, enrollment 
in political parties, qualification for police, fire, teaching and 
other public employment, the right to vote, to run for office, serve 
on a jury, or hold property are limited in one way or another by 
the rigid factor of age. 
The basis of certain of these civil law restrictions is found in 
the fact that at common law the age of which an infant reaches 
full majority is fixed at twenty-one years, whether male or female. 
In some jurisdictions the age of majority as to females, at least 
for some purposes, has been fixed by statute at eighteen. An 
infant or a minor, deprived of parental care, control and over- 
sight is considered as a person under a certain disability, and may 
in certain circumstances become a ward of the state. This power 
is not an unlimited and arbitrary one and is exercised only for the 
welfare of the child. Such legislation is beneficial and remedial, 
not criminal, in its nature and is entitled to favorable and liberal 
construction. At common law, infants do not possess the same 
legal rights as do adults. 
89 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
Generally speaking, an infant may acquire property rights, 
but he is not regarded as capable of managing his property, and 
the law therefore places it in the hands of a guardian. Nor may 
any contract made by him in infancy bind him after he comes of 
age unless he ratifies it at or after that time.35 The armed forces 
in peace time have definite age requirements for young persons 
desiring to enlist. 
Parental consent for marriage is required for boys under twenty- 
one years and for girls under eighteen. The minimum age at 
which marriage licenses may be legally issued, if the parents 
consent without awaiting a special order from a judge of a 
designated court, is sixteen years for boys and fourteen years 
for girls in New York State. There are indications that in time, 
rising standards will lift both of these minimum ages.33 
Corpus Juris, in its restatement of the entire American law, 
adds to this enumeration of restrictions as to adolescents: "While 
at common law an infant who had violated the criminal law was 
generally treated as an adult, it is contrary to the spirit of modern 
penology to impose upon juvenile offenders, whose need is 
reclamation and reform rather than punishment, the penalties 
intended for adults.’’11 This same criticism may of course be 
levelled against the entire administration of the criminal court 
procedure in relation to adolescents. 
Regarding the broad gap between the protective restrictions 
of the civil law and the rigors of the criminal code, a final word 
may be quoted from the sociologist; "That half-grown group of 
biologically mature and physically semi-mature children whom 
we designate as adolescents represent one of the most puzzling 
and least understood problems in our population. Their unstable 
relationship to the rest of society arises in part out of the uncer- 
tainty of their status. Thus the state law protects the minor 
in his exercise of immature judgment in the field of contracts 
but leaves him open to harsh penalties in connection with the 
exercise of immature judgment in matters of morals and ethics.’’5 
90 THE ADOLESCENT 
Bihliog raphy 
1. Ada Hart Arlitt: Adolescent Psychology 
2. Bird T. Baldwin; The Physical Growth of Children frotn 
Birth to Maturity 
3. F. Boas and C. Wisler: Statistics of Growth 
4. Peter Bios: The Adolescent Personality 
5. Sophonisba P. Breckinridge: Social Work in the Courts 
6. A. F. Bronner; Emotional Problems of Adolescence 
7. Bureau of the Census: Facts about Youth, October 1941 
8. Cyril Burt: The Young Delinquent 
9. Psyche Cattell: Dentition as a Measure of Maturity 
10. Clouston: The Neurosis of Development 
11. Corpus Juris Secundum 
12. C. W. Crampton: Physiological Age, a Fundamental Prin- 
ciple 
13- Cullack: The Eye at the Age of Puberty 
14. Hedley S. Dimock: Rediscovering the Adolescent 
15. Walter F. Deaborn and others: Monographs of the Society 
for Research in Child-Development, Serial 14 
16. Encyclopedia Britannica, 1938 
17. G. M. Whipple: Encyclopedia Americana, 1938 
18. Miriam Van Waters: Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 
1935 
19. G. A. Coe: Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics 
20. K. C. Garrison: Psychology of Adolescence 
21. W. W. Greulich and others: Handbook of Methods for the 
Study of Adolescent Children 
22. G. Stanley Hall: Adolescence, Its Psychology and its rela- 
tion to Physiology, Anthropology, Sociology, Sex, Crime, 
Religion and Education 
23. W. Healy: The Practical Value of Scientific Study of Juve- 
nile Delinquency 
24. W. Healy and B. S. Alper: Criminal Youth and the Borstal 
System 
25. Leta S. Hollingworth; The Psychology of the Adolescent 
26. H. M. Houtchens: Temperament in Adolescent Groups 
91 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
27. Harriet I. Kelly: Anatomical Age and Its Relation to Stature 
28. National Survey of Secondary Education 
29. Newell C. Kephant: The Disorganization of Mental Func- 
tions in the Delinquent 
30. Howard V. Meredith: The Rhythm of Physical Growth 
31. Recent Social Trends in the United States 
32. M. M. Reynolds: Children from Seed to Saplings 
33. Mary E. Richmond and Fred S. Hall: Marriage and the 
State 
34. Frank K. Shuttleworth; The Adolescent Period 
33. Thomas C. Simon ton: Handbook of Practical Laiv 
36. C. P. Stone and R. G. Baker: The Attitudes and Interests of 
Premenarchial and Postrnenarchial Girls 
37. L. M. Terman: The Measurement of Intelligence 
38. Douglas A. Thom: Normal Youth and its Everyday Prob- 
lems 
39- Frederic Tracy: The Psychology of Adolescence 
40. U. S. Children’s Bureau, Folder No. 27, June 1941 
41. U. S. Women’s Bureau 
42. J. B. Watson: Psychology from the Point of View of a Be- 
haviorist 
43. White House Conference on Childhealth and Protection, 
Part I, General Considerations 
44. White House Conference on Childhealth and Protection, 
Part II, Growth and Development of the Child 
45. Letter to the Committee from Director, Industrial Division, 
Children’s Bureau, Dec. 9, 1941. 
Criminality of Votith 
We present here a statistical review of the contribution made 
by the youth group to the problem of crime in this State. The 
figures which follow have been drawn from many sources, chief 
among which are: 
1. Evidence placed before the Committee by witnesses; 
2. Reports of the New York State Department of Correction; 
other State and Municipal Departments; statistics of the New 
York Crime Commission; 
92 THE ADOLESCENT 
3. Prof. Thorsten Sellin of the University of Pennsylvania who 
has kindly given us permission to quote from his excellent 
study, ' The Criminality of Youth”, published in Philadelphia in 
October of 1940. 
AS TO NEW YORK STATE. The average age of all those 
arrested for major offenses in this State in recent years was 
twenty-seven. This average showed little variation during the 
six years 1932 through 1937. There is no evidence to support 
the widespread belief that the average age of adult criminals 
has declined in recent years. The following figures seem to 
indicate, however, that while youths do not predominate in the 
commission of all offenses for which arrests are made by the 
police, they nevertheless seem to contribute a disproportionately 
high percentage of the really serious offenses. 
In the five years from 1930 through 1934, 23.5 per cent of the 
arrests for major offenses of persons above fifteen years of age 
were of youths between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one. 
Breaking this figure of 23.5 per cent down according to the type 
of major offenses, it is noted that youths in the age group sixteen 
to twenty account for almost one-third (32.4 per cent) of all 
robberies in the State, almost one-third (30.5 per cent) of rape 
offenses, over two-fifths (42.9 per cent) of all burglaries and 
one-half (50.8 per cent) of all auto thefts . These four offenses 
alone account for over 40 per cent of all arrests for serious 
felonies in the State over this four year period. 
In fifteen cities of New York State of a population over 40,000 
each (not including New York City) over one-third (35.8 per 
cent) of those arrested for felonies were between the ages of 
fifteen and twenty-one. 
For the entire State of New York in the calendar year 1939, 
there were 11,924 convictions for major offenses, that is, primarily 
felonies. Of that number, 3,232 (27.1 per cent) were of youths 
between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one. 
Based on arrests for major offenses per 100,000 of their sex 
and age group in the total population, each year from 1932 
through 1938 shows that the nineteen year olds in this State 
contribute—or at least are arrested for—the largest proportion 
of major offenses of any single age. 
93 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
Those twenty years old had a higher rate of arrests for major 
offenses than the sixteen to eighteen year old group for the years 
1932 through 1935, but in 1936, 1937 and 1938 the proportion 
of major offenses for which the sixteen to eighteen year group 
was arrested exceeded that of the twenty year olds. 
Using the same base—that is, 100,000 of each age group in 
the general population, the years 1930 to 1934 disclose that the 
sixteen to nineteen year olds lead all other groups in arrests for 
burglary and auto thefts (666 and 425 per 100,000 respectively), 
while the age group sixteen to twenty leads all others in arrests 
for certain serious offenses—listed in the following table—2096 
per 100,000 of their age group in the total population. 
Statistics of arrests are admittedly questionable in many ways 
as indices of criminality; their chief value is as complementary 
data to more reliable sources. Nevertheless, when rates of con- 
viction are substituted for rates of arrest, the sixteen to nineteen 
year old group is shown to have the highest conviction rate for 
burglary, for offenses against Section 552 of the Code of Crim- 
inal Procedure (unlawful entry; possessing burglar’s tools; carry- 
ing or possessing dangerous weapons; aiding escape; pickpockets 
and jostling; unlawful possession or distribution of drugs) and 
for other serious misdemeanors. This same age group is also 
convicted for serious offenses in a higher proportion—1486 per 
100,000—than any other four year age grouping. 
The sixteen to twenty year old age group is convicted of rob- 
bery, rape, and automobile theft in the highest rate per 100,000 
of any four year age-span in the population. From the twentieth 
year on, the rate of arrest—and of conviction—appears to drop 
steadily. 
The following table shows the total number of youths sixteen 
through twenty years of age who were committed to State, County 
and City penal and correctional institutions: 
N. Y. State Prisons and Reformatories 9,942 
N. Y. City Penal Institutions and Jails 103,344 
County Jails 68,410 
County Peniteritaries 6,090 
Grand Total 187,786 
94 THE ADOLESCENT 
These figures include persons remanded for trial as well as 
those sentenced, as far as the New York City institutions and the 
county jails are concerned. All adult penal and correctional 
institutions are included, with the exception of those for insane 
and defective delinquents, and not including Federal prisons in 
the State. 
The proportion which the commitment of the group sixteen 
through twenty years of age bears to the total commitments in 
these institutions for the ten-year period is as follows: 
1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 10 Yr. 
Average 
14.7 15.9 15.2 15.2 12.2 12.1 11.0 11.7 11.9 11.7 13.2 
Based solely on commitments to State Prisons and Reforma- 
tories and County Penitentiaries (which excludes detention and 
remand cases), these same percentages for the same decade 
become: 
1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 10 Yr. 
Average 
12.9 10.7 13.0 12.8 11.3 12.1 10.9 10.8 15.2 14.4 12.4 
In other words, while the total unselected figures for all insti- 
tutions seem to show a slight reduction in the percentage of youths 
committed there, the omission of other than sentenced cases 
shows little change. The only deduction which may be drawn 
from these rates—and that tentatively—is that there has been 
some little decrease in the numbers of older adolescents who are 
detained in city and county jails. 
During this ten-year period, youths sixteen through twenty 
composed the following percentage of the total commitments: 
State Prisons and State Reformatories 30.7 
New York City Penal Institutions and Jails 12.5 
County Jails 13.8 
County Penitentiaries 6.3 
95 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
The seriousness of the offenses committed by this age group is 
reflected in the fact that youths comprise almost a third of the 
inmate populations of our penal institutions of last resort. 
A study made of prisoners paroled in 1938 who were known to 
have had previous arrests showed that more than a third of them 
were first arrested between the ages of sixteen and twenty. 
AS TO NEW YORK CITY. Coming now to the picture of 
youthful criminality in New York City, we see in 1929, according 
to a special study by the Crime Commission—that while the 
arrest rate for serious charges in the entire male population was 
3,960 per 100,000 population, this rate rose to 4,780, among 
adolescent boys aged sixteen to twenty, an increase of slightly 
more than 20 per cent. "Crimes involving danger, violence, 
adventure and thrill were primary among those ascribed to 
youths’’—more than one-half of all arraignments were for auto 
theft, almost a third for burglary, and a quarter for robbery. Rape 
was also a common offense for which members of this age group 
were arrested. 
In the year 1936 the number of youths between the ages of 
sixteen and twenty arrested for all offenses composed only 4 per 
cent of all those charged with offenses by the police. (If motor 
vehicle violations are excluded, this figure rises to 6.6 per cent.) 
Yet in that same year, 1936, youths from sixteen to twenty 
years were arrested for: 
10.7% of all extortions 
13.3% of all larcenies from the person 
15.1% of all destruction of property 
22.3% of all sneaks from buildings 
24.7% of all robberies 
39-2% of all larcenies from highway, vehicle, etc. 
39.6% of all unauthorized use of property (auto theft) 
42.0% of all burglaries 
In 1939 the percentage of youths in the same age group arrested 
by the police had decreased from 4 to 1.8 per cent—less than one- 
half of what it had been in 1936. Many factors may be cited to 
explain this fall. Nevertheless, the contribution of youth to cer- 
96 THE ADOLESCENT 
tain serious offenses had increased, noticeably in all but two of 
these same offense categories as follows: 
8.1% of all extortion—a decrease of 2.6% 
14.9% of all larcenies from the person—an increase of 
1.6% 
18.6% of all destruction of property—an increase of 
3.5% 
19-6% of all sneaks from buildings—a decrease of 2.7% 
29.2% of all robberies—an increase of 4.5% 
46.4% of all larcenies from highway, vehicle, etc.—an 
increase of 7.2% 
53.1% of all unauthorized use of motor vehicles—an 
increase of 13.5% 
47.5% of all burglaries—an increase of 5.5% 
In other words, according to the official statistical reports of 
the Police Department of New York City, while the percentage 
of youths arrested for all offenses during the year 1939 dropped 
to less than one-half of what it had been three years earlier, this 
same youth group had increased their contribution to the really 
serious offenses, and were responsible for almost a full fifty per 
cent of all larcenies from vehicles, auto theft, and burglary. 
Again, this conclusion must be viewed in the light of the fact that 
arrest figures are less reliable than other crime indices. Neverthe- 
less the finding is of interest. 
In a recent letter to this Committee, the District Attorney of 
New York County is authority for the statement that in the three 
years prior to 1940, "approximately 60,000 criminal cases have 
been handled by my staff. Nearly one-quarter of the defendants 
in these cases were between sixteen and twenty years old.” 
During the two years 1937-38, the Police Department of New 
York City reported 2,880 arrests of sixteen year old youths. Of 
these: 
116—or 4.0 per cent were arrests for robbery 
466—or 16.2 per cent were arrests for larcenies from 
the person by stealth 
542—or 18.8 per cent were arrests for burglary 
1,124 total 
97 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
In other words, sixteen year old youths who were taken into cus- 
tody by the police, were, in two-fifths of the cases (39.0 per cent) 
charged with the commission of serious offenses against property. 
UPSTATE. The Judge of Cattaraugus County submitted a statis- 
tical analysis of the records of his Court from January 1, 1938 to 
May 5, 1941, a period of forty months, during which time there 
were 221 convictions of all ages. Of these, 91 were convictions 
of defendants from sixteen to twenty years of age, for the fol- 
lowing offenses: 
Burglary 55 
Robbery 8 
Attempted Robbery 1st degree 4 
Grand Larceny 15 
Forgery 5 
Attempted Extortion 1 
Sodomy 1 
Criminally receiving stolen goods 1 
Arson 1 
total 91 
Breaking the total figures down by single ages, we find that 
there were: 
15 convictions of those aged 16 
24 convictions of those aged 17 
18 convictions of those aged 18 
15 convictions of those aged 19 
19 convictions of those aged 20 
total 91 
In this county, two-fifths (41.2 per cent) of all the convictions 
for criminal offenses in a period of almost three and a half years 
were of young persons in the ages sixteen through twenty. THE ADOLESCENT 
In the City of Buffalo, in recent years, the following numbers 
of youths were arrested: 
YEAR 
Aged 16 
Aged 17 
Aged IS* 
Total 
1938 
249 
254 
401 
904 
1939 
231 
241 
337 
809 
1940 
218 
267 
384 
869 
3 year average 
229 
251 
374 
861 
* Includes 
traffic violations. 
The type of offenses committed by these youths resemble those 
committed by delinquents aged fourteen and fifteen. Burglary 
is the most prevalent charge, followed by assault, disorderly con- 
duct, petty larceny, injury to property, and unlawful entry. The 
increase in the eighteenth year is very marked. An examination 
of the prior records of arrested young persons sixteen, seventeen 
and eighteen years old shows that in 1938 approximately 18 per 
cent were previously known to the Children’s Court; in 1939, 15 
per cent; and in 1940, 22 per cent. No inquiry was made into the 
length of time the youths arrested in the age groups sixteen 
through eighteen had resided in Buffalo: it is fair to assume that 
some proportion of them were newcomers to the City, and it is 
entirely likely that of these, some had appeared in juvenile courts 
elsewhere. 
This finding is reminiscent of the statement in "The Youthful 
Offender”, published by the New York State Crime Commission 
in 1931: "that each year brings to our courts a substantial new 
group of offenders, whether the major group of the offenders of 
the previous year ceased criminal conduct or whether they merely 
avoided being caught is a matter for conjecture” (p. 110). 
NATIONALLY. It should not be thought that New York City 
or New York State stands alone in the number and nature of the 
offenses committed within its borders by youths in the upper teen 
ages. The problem may well be described as national in its scope: 
the degree of attention and study which it is receiving at the hands 
of all kinds of local and national bodies is an indication of the 
99 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
seriousness with which certain factors regarding the adolescent 
offender are being considered. 
Taking the country as a whole, young people between the ages 
of sixteen and twenty-one compose 13 per cent of the total popu- 
lation over fourteen years of age. This same age group con- 
tributes 20 per cent of our criminals: one and one-half times their 
proportion of the population. In one year, 50 per cent of all auto 
thefts, 40 per cent of all burglaries, almost 30 per cent of all 
robberies, and over 20 per cent of all other larcenies were com- 
mitted by youths who were too old to come into the juvenile court, 
and yet not old enough to vote. 
Youths come before our criminal courts for serious offenses 
twice as often as do adults thirty-five to thirty-nine years of age, 
three times as often as those from forty-five to forty-nine, and five 
times as often as those from fifty to fifty-nine. Of all those 
arrested throughout the country for all types of offenses, as 
reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation during the first 
six months of 1937, the largest age group among those arrested 
for robbery was 19; for burglary, 17; for larceny and theft, 18; 
and for auto thefts, 18. Records of the Federal Department of 
Justice covering the first nine months of 1940 indicate that persons 
nineteen years of age were most often arrested. For the same 
period in 1941, the Department reports that 31.3 per cent of the 
total fingerprint records received were of persons less than twenty- 
five years of age, with youths of nineteen again leading in fre- 
quency of arrests. 
From Thorsten Sellin comes the assurance that "youths dom- 
inate in serious offenses against property—in turn the vast major- 
ity of all serious crimes—that appear to be more habit-forming 
than other forms of criminal conduct” and that "the proportion 
of first offenders is extraordinarily high in the youth group com- 
pared with later age groups”, from which he concludes: "there 
is every reason to assume that a person who begins his delinquency 
in youth or who continues his career as juvenile delinquent into 
the youth period is much more exposed to the hazard of recidivism 
than are those who begin their criminal careers later in life. If 
this conclusion is sound, adequate treatment measures for the 
100 THE ADOLESCENT 
youth group are needed, and if they can be made successful, the 
offense rates of later age groups should in the course of time show 
considerable decline.” 
Conclusion, 
There are those who see in the seriousness of the offenses com- 
mitted by the older adolescent offender grounds for dealing more 
harshly with him, for imposing a degree of punishment and a type 
of approach which would leave no room for the protective and 
understanding philosophy and procedure of the juvenile court, 
which, in modified form, is the essence of the adolescent’s court 
procedure. The Committee is happy to say that it does not share 
this opinion in any degree. Just as surely are we opposed to the 
sentimentality of those who would put the welfare of the indi- 
vidual youth above the necessity for protecting society. In the 
last analysis, there is no conflict between the state’s desire to see 
its citizens protected and its parental interest in the health and 
normal development of its young people. We believe that when 
the state aims at the rehabilitation of its erring youth, it is aiming 
also at the surest protection of society in the long run. 
The state has in the past tried many forms of dealing with the 
problem of criminals, including youthful criminals. "Cruel and 
unusual punishment”—branding, whipping and transportation 
overseas—were still found in the United States, England, and the 
British Colonies, as recently as 1840. The growth of the reforma- 
tory movement of the middle nineteenth century paralleled the 
growing realization that punishment had little deterrent value on 
the population generally and was little more effective with those 
who had already violated the law. The State still has its choice of 
many attitudes and procedures which it may apply in its handling 
of the criminal elements within its midst, but if we have learned 
anything from the experience of the first half of this century, in 
which the humanitarian philosophy of the 1800’s has been worked 
out in practice, it has been this one lesson: that the welfare of 
society is safeguarded most surely through the rehabilitation of 
those who run afoul of the law and who are committed to our 
101 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
treatment and training institutions. Side by side with the growth 
of the preventive viewpoint, these years have seen the growth of 
an attitude on the part of professional workers that no form of 
treatment so surely guarantees the future law abidingness of these 
criminals as rehabilitation based on the particular needs, problems 
and antecedents of the individual offender. 
What is required now is the universal adoption of these prin- 
ciples in all of the agencies—the police, the courts, and beyond— 
which deal in any way with youthful offenders. Like the growth 
of any bit of social philosophy, the development of the rehabilita- 
tive non-punitive approach has been slow and spotty. Each new 
"crime wave” created or discovered, each fresh atrocity headlined 
in our daily- papers is sufficient to release a wide protest on the 
part of certain elements in our population that we are coddling 
those who break our laws. We must nevertheless go forward, 
realizing that the state is, in effect, more lenient with its law 
breakers when it punishes them harshly and returns them un- 
changed to the community than when it takes strict reformative 
measures which will insure, to some degree, that the offender has 
been compelled—or coerced—to undergo some fundamental 
change in attitude and ways of behavior. 
102 CHAPTER VI. THE "LESS THAN ADULT" 
OFFENDER IN OTHER JURISDIC- 
TIONS 
The findings and estimates of the preceding chapter regarding 
the adolescent offender, are not new. For many years in this 
country the principle has been recognized that the young offender 
should not be commingled with the hardened recidivist; that 
because of his potentialities and promise, the adolescent was 
deserving of special efforts on the part of society to restore him 
to law-abiding ways; that an experimental attitude was best 
employed in reforming him. 
It has been said that in dealing with the youthful offender the 
need is not so much for a new court or a special procedure as for 
a difference or modification in our thinking and in our approach 
to the problem. The Committee agrees that this is so, but our 
form of social and legal organization requires that in order for a 
new approach to be adopted by any agency of the government, it 
is first necessary to establish, by law, an instrument through which 
the newer ways of thought are to be applied. Our search has 
been for the most effective way in which adolescent violators of 
the law may be prevented from further wrong-doing. 
Historical Antecedents 
of the Wayward Minor JLaic 
The historical antecedents of the present Wayward Minor 
Laws may be found in laws of the eighteenth and nineteenth 
centuries concerning rogues, vagabonds, disorderly persons, mis- 
behaving servants, runaway apprentices and the like. 
103 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
Under the influence of European and Colonial traditions, the 
American poor laws of this period adopted repressive methods 
against certain classes of people who, while they might not be 
criminals, could be—and were—considered and treated as dis- 
honest paupers. Persons of this type, after a summary criminal 
procedure, were committed to jails, bridewells, houses of correc- 
tion, workhouses and similar institutions. 
Thus, in Pennsylvania, the laws on poor relief of 1766 and 
1767 provided that disorderly persons who were likely to become 
public charges, likewise rogues, vagabonds, idle and dissolute 
persons who were found loitering or residing in the City of 
Philadelphia could be committed by a justice of the peace to the 
House of Employment for a term not exceeding three months. 
In the rest of the Colony, such idle and disorderly persons were 
to be committed to the County Workhouse or County Jail. 
Similarly, under two New York State Statutes of 1788 and 
1813, disorderly persons could be brought before a justice of the 
peace and committed to bridewells or houses of correction for 
terms not in excess of sixty days. This category included persons 
who threatened to run away and leave their wives and children a 
burden on the town; persons, who not having wherewith to main- 
tain themselves, lived idly and without employment; professional 
beggars, jugglers; "persons pretending to have skill in physiog- 
nomy, palmestry (sic), or like crafty science, or pretending to tell 
fortunes, or to discover where lost goods may be found”; vaga- 
bonds, prostitutes, etc. 
Under the revised Statutes of New York of 1829, similar treat- 
ment was provided for beggars and vagrants. The latter were 
defined as: 
"All idle persons, who not having visible means to 
maintain themselves, live without employment; all per- 
sons wandering abroad and lodging in taverns, groceries, 
beer-houses, outhouses, market places, sheds, or barns, 
or in the open air, and not giving a good account of 
themselves; all persons wandering abroad and begging 
. . . shall be termed vagrants”. 
104 THE ADOLESCENT OFFENDER IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS 
Parallel provisions are found in the laws of other states during 
this same period. A Massachusetts Act of 1798 and a New Jersey 
Statute of 1799 give very much the same definition for vagrancy 
and provide for commitment in county institutions for brief 
periods of time. 
These early laws were applicable to adults, adolescents, and 
children alike: The Massachusetts Law of 1798 referred expressly 
to—''common pipers, fiddlers, runaways, stubborn servants or 
children, common drunkards, common night-walkers, pilferers, 
wanton and lascivious persons in speech, conduct or behavior; 
common railers or brawlers ...” 
Laws of a more progressive type were passed in New York in 
1820, 1821 and 1824. These laws distinguished children from 
adults and provided for their educational treatment. Children 
caught begging were to be sent to almshouses and houses of 
industry, there to be instructed in "useful labor” and to be "bound 
out” or "indentured” to private persons as apprentices or servants. 
For seventy-five years these indenture laws continued to be used. 
The growing practice of placing children in foster homes made 
these laws obsolete after the turn of the century, and in 1923 they 
were repealed. 
These were the immediate statutory antecedents and models 
for the laws referring to houses of refuge (beginning in 1824) 
to which both delinquent and vagrant children were committed 
for custody and treatment. 
A special category of adolescent offenders during this period 
included the apprentices, clerks, and servants under twenty-one 
years of age (or under eighteen if females), who misbehaved 
against or ran away from their master or mistress. We find these 
provisions in certain statutes of the eighteenth and nineteenth 
centuries which regulated in general the relations between masters 
and their servants or apprentices. These laws not only protected 
the master against misbehavior on the part of his workers, but 
also defended the latter against cruelty, neglect, and abuse on 
the part of their employers. The justices of the peace, either 
singly or as a bench of three, were authorized to intervene in 
either instance. In the case of misbehavior or disobedience on 
105 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
the part of the apprentice or servant, the court could either cancel 
the "indenture” and absolve the master of his responsibilities, or 
it could impose punishment—a short term of imprisonment—or 
some other suitable correction, which probably meant corporal 
punishment. 
These early laws are of interest in connection with the present 
wayward minor law because they emphasize a condition rather 
than an act in giving the court jurisdiction over certain classes of 
cases. The categories in the present wayward minor law are little 
changed from the early statutes cited above: idleness and drunken- 
ness; association with prostitutes, thieves and other unsavory 
persons; wilful disobedience or stubbornness; the patterns of 
behavior which point the way to confirmed criminal behavior in 
later years. Adults are even to-day arrested for loitering, sus- 
picious behavior, disorderly conduct and the like. The treatment 
of these problems is little changed in the last one hundred years— 
fines, short terms of imprisonment or dismissal are the usual court 
order. 
In the treatment of the youthful offender, however, our courts 
have taken a more socialized attitude—the passage of the New 
York Wayward Minor Law in 1923, the first such law in the 
United States, gave to any magistrate, other than a justice of the 
peace, the power to deal with these cases. This statute, carried 
forward from earlier laws, places the emphasis upon condition 
rather than offense, and permits adjudication of a status rather 
than conviction for an offense. The adolescent who requires some 
supervision by the court is thus freed from the stigma of convic- 
tion for a crime. 
Laws of Other Countries 
The English system of Borstal Institutions for convicted 
offenders between the ages of sixteen and twenty-three is described 
in detail in a later chapter (pp. 294-304). We believe it of interest 
to describe here the provisions made by certain other European 
countries for the care and control of the adolescent delinquent. 
This brief summary is given for purposes of illustration: its value 
is chiefly an historical one at the present writing. 
106 THE ADOLESCENT OFFENDER IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS 
FRANCE. The law of July 22, 1912 regarding children and young 
persons in court and on probation was several times amended, 
finally by the decree of January 15, 1929. This last provided for 
the trial of children between thirteen and sixteen years of age who 
have committed a misdemeanor. The criminal courts were empow- 
ered to constitute themselves as special "children’s and youth 
courts’’ for this purpose. Examination and hearing of the cases 
of persons under eighteen years of age were required before 
special magistrates with particular experience in the problems of 
young offenders and methods for dealing with them. The number 
of cases of children and young persons complained of violations 
of law fell from 24,326 in the years 1911 to 1913 to 20,733 in 
the five years from 1920 to 1925. 
BELGIUM. The law of May 15, 1912 regarding the protection of 
children relates to three types: giving the courts power to remove 
certain children from the control of their parents; jurisdiction of 
the courts over offenses committed by young persons; the punish- 
ment of adults charged with offenses against the morals of chil- 
dren. The creation of separate juvenile courts and the placing of 
young offenders on probation was accomplished by the second of 
these three reforms. 
Under Article XI of this law the King may appoint to each 
court of first instance a magistrate to hear the cases of young 
offenders. The jurisdiction of such a juvenile court judge extends 
to begging and vagrancy by persons under eighteen years of age 
and to acts regarded as delinquencies when committed by chil- 
dren under sixteen. The number of children brought before 
juvenile courts decreased from 6,009 in 1913 to 2,418 in 1930. 
GERMANY. Statutes concerning the protection of delinquent 
and neglected children are contained in the juvenile court law 
(Jugendgerichtsgesetz) of February 16, 1923 and the child wel- 
fare law of July 9, 1922. Juvenile courts—up to 1933—had 
jurisdiction over all offenses committed by young persons between 
fourteen and eighteen years of age. Children under fourteen 
were not subject to the criminal law. Acts committed by them 
which were punishable when committed by adults, were referred 
107 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
to the guardianship courts and child welfare bureaus which were 
empowered to take the necessary protective measures. 
The number of youths convicted in the courts of Germany fell 
from 86,051 in 1923 to 21,529 in 1932. During the following 
year, these progressive measures were completely repudiated. 
"Since National Socialist doctrine repudiates the conception 
of training or education in its penology, it was only natural that 
there should be suggestions for changing the rules of procedures 
against youthful offenders established in the law of 1923. Various 
reactionary proposals were made but none of them have been 
enacted into law”. (Kirchheimer, "Recent Trends in German 
Treatment of Juvenile Delinquency”, Journal of Criminal Law 
and Criminology, Vol. 29, No. 3, 1938). 
In the period between Hitler’s accession to power and World 
War II, the Third Reich took, in respect to the treatment of 
juveniles, the same steps backward toward medievalism that 
characterized her attitude toward other social problems. "The 
decree of October 4, 1939, concerning dangerous juvenile delin- 
quents, also merits special attention. Up to the war there was 
some tendency to spare juveniles the harshness of National Social- 
ist criminal policy. The new decree, however, apparently a con- 
sequence of increasing juvenile delinquency, marks a break with 
the previous policy. It exempts juveniles between sixteen and 
eighteen from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court when the 
culprit, in view of his mental and moral development, could jus- 
tifiably be regarded as a person over eighteen, and when the 
offense exhibits a particularly degraded criminal character or if 
the protection of the community requires such a punishment”. 
(Ibid, "Criminal Law in National-Socialist Germaany,” in Studies 
in Philosophy and Social Sciences, 1940). 
AUSTRIA. The law of January 1919 relating to children’s courts 
was superceded by a new Federal statute of July 18, 1928, which 
provided for the reorganization of the criminal law in regard to 
minors and for the development of special juvenile courts. The 
jurisdiction of these courts, attached to the lower criminal courts, 
included all offenses committed by minors: young persons between 
108 1'HE ADOLESCENT OFFENDER IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS 
the fourteenth and eighteenth birthday. As in many European 
countries, children under fourteen were handled by social agencies, 
and were seldom referred to the courts for adjudication. 
The number of cases brought before the juvenile courts totalled 
5,059 in 1929 (4.4 per cent of the cases before the courts; by 
1934 they had fallen to 3,123—2.9 per cent). After "Anschluss” 
in 1938, the German law was extended to Austria. 
Laws of Other States* 
It may be of interest to summarize at this point the statutory 
provisions which are now in effect in other states for the offender 
between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one. The entire juvenile 
court movement, as well as provisions for dealing with youthful 
delinquency, has profited by the fact that since 1900 experimenta- 
tion has been going on with various procedures and administrative 
setups in relation to these two problems. The development of 
special procedures for the older adolescent offender has been by 
no means uniform throughout the country. 
For example, four jurisdictions and part of one other give to the 
juvenile court jurisdiction in delinquency cases between the ages 
of sixteen and twenty-one. These are Alaska and Arkansas 1 (all 
violations of any law) ; California (all except capital offenses; 
under the age of eighteen—all offenses without exception)2; 
Iowa 2 and Denver 3 (all except capital and life imprisonment 
offenses). In California and Nevada, the adult court may transfer 
to the Juvenile Court the case of any minor eighteen to twenty- 
one, with the consent of the accused. The State of Michigan and 
our own Onondaga County have awarded jurisdiction over the 
wayward minor under the age of twenty-one to the Children’s 
Court. 
* Compiled from information furnished by the National Probation 
Association. 
1 The juvenile court’s jurisdiction for all ages is concurrent if the child 
is arrested on a warrant. 
2 The juvenile court’s jurisdiction from 18 to 21 is concurrent with the 
adult criminal court. In Iowa, the statute conferring this 18-21 con- 
current jurisdiction upon the juvenile court is inoperative. 
3 The Denver juvenile court’s jurisdiction over minors from 18-21 is 
criminal: delinquency jurisdiction is up to 18 only. 
109 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
In twenty states and parts of four others, the District of 
Columbia and Hawaii, the juvenile court has jurisdiction over 
delinquent boys up to the age of eighteen. These states are 
Arizona, Colorado (except the City and County of Denver), 
Idaho, Indiana, Maryland (counties having magistrates for juven- 
ile cases, except Allegany and Washington Counties, and except 
Baltimore City), Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, 
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, 
Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina (except Charleston, Green- 
ville and Spartanburg Counties), South Dakota, Tennessee (Car- 
ter County), Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and 
Wisconsin. In the federal system and the Philippine Islands, 
there are no juvenile courts as such, but a special juvenile pro- 
cedure is provided for children under eighteen. 
As to delinquent girls under eighteen, in twenty-five states and 
parts of five others and the District of Columbia and Hawaii, the 
juvenile courts have jurisdiction. These states are Alabama (Jef- 
ferson and Montgomery Counties), Arizona, Colorado (except 
the City and County of Denver), Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, 
Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland (except Baltimore city, and Alle- 
gany and Washington Counties), Minnesota, Mississippi, Mon- 
tana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North 
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina 
(except Charleston, Greenville and Spartanburg Counties), South 
Dakota, Tennessee (Carter County), Texas, Utah, Virginia, 
Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. 
The Juvenile Court in Rhode Island has jurisdiction over way- 
ward minors under this age. Juvenile courts in certain counties 
in South Carolina and Alabama likewise have delinquency juris- 
diction in cases of children under the age of eighteen. 
In twenty of the states having a juvenile court age limit of 
eighteen years, or more, jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court is over 
all offenses without exception. 
Five states and part of one other, in addition to those just listed, 
give to the Juvenile Court delinquency jurisdiction over girls 
under the age of seventeen; and nine states and part of one other 
give such jurisdiction in cases of boys under seventeen. 
110 THE ADOLESCENT OFFENDER IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS 
In the very largest majority of states—thirty and parts of three 
others—the juvenile court may retain delinquency jurisdiction up 
to the age of twenty-one on continuance of the case after the child 
has passed the age limit for acquiring jurisdiction in the first 
instance. 
In four states, the adult criminal courts have concurrent juris- 
diction with the Juvenile Courts in cases of delinquents between 
the ages of eighteen and twenty-one (Arkansas, California, Colo- 
rado and Iowa). 
In twenty-three states the Juvenile Court may waive jurisdiction 
in delinquency cases between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one. 
In all cases under the jurisdiction of the court: Alabama, Arkansas, 
California, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, 
Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, 
Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, 
Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia. Such waiver 
of jurisdiction may only be done in the cases of felonies or offenses 
which are indictable or punishable by sentence to the state prison 
in the District of Columbia, Indiana (child sixteen or more), 
Iowa, Kansas, Maryland (Washington County: capital or "other- 
wise infamous crime,” children under fourteen), Michigan, North 
Carolina (child of fourteen or more charged with a felony pun- 
ishable by no more than ten years), Pennsylvania, Utah, Alaska, 
and in Mississippi, in misdemeanor cases only. Finally in five 
states, Alabama, California (eighteen to twenty-one, except capi- 
tal offenses and attempts to commit them), Mississippi (felonies 
only), Nevada (eighteen to twenty-one in felony cases, except 
capital offenses and attempts to commit them), and Ohio, the 
adult criminal court may waive jurisdiction and allow the Juvenile 
Court to hear the case. 
(N.B. For a description of the Youth Correction Authority Act 
for offenders sixteen to twenty-three, passed in California in 1941, 
see chapter 12, pp. 289-290.) 
Procedure in, Other Cities 
There are three large cities in this country, outside of New 
York, which have experimented with special court procedures for 
111 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
dealing with the adolescent offender. These are, in order of their 
establishment, the Boy’s Court of the Municipal Court of Chicago, 
the Boys Misdemeanant’s Division of the Municipal Court of 
Philadelphia, and the Wayward Minors Department of the Juven- 
ile Court in the Probate Court of Wayne County, Detroit. 
CHICAGO. The Boy’s Court of Chicago was established in 1914, 
quite without special legislative enactment. It is a branch of the 
Municipal Court and has jurisdiction over misdemeanors and 
quasi-criminal offenses committed by boys between the ages of 
seventeen and twenty-one. In some cases the court also takes 
jurisdiction over adults involved with boys in this age group. 
Pre-hearing procedure is little different from the police handling 
which adult offenders experience, although some segregation of 
this age group is made in a part of the County Jail. Rotation of 
judges who preside over the Boy’s Court, as well as the large 
number of cases with which they are daily confronted, hardly 
assures the desirable specialization of supervision or the necessary- 
degree of individualization of treatment. Representatives of 
religious organizations carry the largest share of supervision. 
The probation officers employed in this court also supervise adult 
cases and this fact, coupled with the inadequacy of investigation 
prior to hearing, casts some doubt on the efficacy of the court’s 
procedure. 
While the Boy’s Court receives complaints of parents and others 
regarding cases which may be deemed to be wayward minors, 
who are handled informally by the court and the social agencies 
connected with it without formal court action, the bulk of its 
work is with criminal offenses. Some of these misdemeanors and 
felonies are reduced to lesser offenses in order that they may come 
properly under the jurisdiction of the court. This determination 
is evidently made by an intake officer specially assigned to exam- 
ine the case and to recommend disposition. In most cases, defend- 
ants charged with felonies are held for a preliminary examination, 
and if probable cause is found they are held for the Grand Jury. 
PHILADELPHIA. The Municipal Court of Philadelphia, under 
authority of a legislative act passed in 1915 (P.L. 1017) has 
112 THE ADOLESCENT OFFENDER IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS 
exclusive jurisdiction over cases of incorrigibles—runaway, dis- 
obedient, idle and disorderly youths sixteen to twenty years of 
age. For purposes of administering this jurisdiction, the Court 
created a Men’s and Women’s Misdemeanant’s Division with a 
procedure patterned very closely after that of the juvenile court. 
The Court, in addition to this exclusive jurisdiction, further 
acts as a quasi-paroling authority in the case of ill-advised or 
illegal commitments to the local House of Correction made by 
magistrates who have no facilities for investigation. The judge 
also sits as an ex-officio justice of the peace with power to dispose 
of certain offenders summarily and to hold preliminary hearings 
of youths charged with indictable offenses. Flexibility permits 
criminal charges to be reduced to incorrigibility, when the cir- 
cumstances warrant it. One judge is usually assigned to this 
Division of the Court and in practice presides over it for several 
consecutive years. An assistant district attorney acts as prosecut- 
ing officer to the Division. 
Hearings are conducted informally, and all cases are investi- 
gated prior to the hearing. Physical, psychological and psychia- 
tric examinations are made, where their necessity is indicated, 
for the purpose of assisting the Court in making a sound dis- 
position. Individuals are kept under supervision for indefinite 
terms until there is definite improvement, or it has been demon- 
strated that further control is inadvisable. The philosophy of the 
probation work of this Division is described as "constructive 
rather than disciplinary.” The aim of the Court is to protect the 
community and at the same time to assist in the rehabilitation of 
the youthful offender through sound social treatment. 
Up to September 1939, this Division dealt with cases between 
the ages of sixteen and eighteen as well, but at that time the 
increase in the juvenile court age from sixteen to eighteen became 
effective (Act of June 15, 1939) and these cases were removed 
to the Juvenile Court Division of the Municipal Court and a 
separate session created to deal with them. 
After a youth has been arrested and the police discover that 
he is under eighteen years of age, he is brought directly to the 
Juvenile Court after he has been fingerprinted, but not photo- 
113 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
graphed or otherwise subjected to police investigation. The case 
is then assigned to a probation officer who interviews him, after 
which the judge determines whether or not he should be detained 
in the quarters attached to the court or released to his home or 
under bond. In practice, 70 per cent are so released and the 
remainder held in custody, apart from children. 
Investigation of cases involving minor offenses frequently dis- 
closes problems which can be corrected readily in their incipient 
stages, thereby safeguarding both the offender and the community 
from further acts of delinquency. Likewise, treatment is deter- 
mined by the problem of the offender rather than by the law 
prescribing a specific penalty for a given offense. In short, the 
juvenile court has wider latitude in differentiating the treatment 
accorded to two individuals who have committed an identical 
offense. For example, the court may commit the mentally defec- 
tive boy to an institution for the feeble-minded and the normal 
boy to a correctional school, or place him on probation. The 
time of restraint is determined not by minimum or maximum 
penalties but by the offender’s adjustment and readiness for 
return to the community. The law also permits the commitment 
of any child over sixteen years to any state industrial school or 
home for the reformation and correction of youths above this 
age, with the result that security can be provided in the few cases 
in which it may be needed. Furthermore, the law provides addi- 
tional flexibility by leaving to the discretion of the juvenile court 
judge the right to transfer the very serious offender to the crim- 
inal court for trial. During 1940, 14 boys’ cases and 1 girl’s case 
involving robbery, sex offenses and homicide were so referred. 
The district attorney selects his own tribunal in cases of homi- 
cide; in all other cases of sixteen and seventeen year olds, the 
jurisdiction is originally with the Juvenile Court. This session 
for older children is distinct and separate from the regular 
Juvenile Court and is held in a large court-room. Attendance in 
court is limited to the necessary court personnel, the principals 
involved in the instant case, and representatives of interested 
social agencies. 
114 THE ADOLESCENT OFFENDER IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS 
The judge sits on the bench in his robe, at the left a representa- 
tive of the Probation Department who conveys to the judge per- 
tinent data from the records before him. On the floor level, 
below the bench, sit the clerk of the court, the court stenographer 
and a presenting attorney or court representative. This officer 
performs, in informal fashion, the same function as the district 
attorney—he asks many of the questions and otherwise helps in 
the proceedings. Complainants and the witnesses are sworn in 
by the clerk in typical criminal court fashion. Throughout the 
proceedings the judge adopts a friendly and informal manner, in 
all cases using the child’s first name. 
The attitude of the court is that where its powers include com- 
mitment to an institution, the proceedings necessarily partake of 
the nature of a criminal case and a finding of guilt based on 
the evidence of witnesses is a prerequisite to the taking of so 
drastic a step. Obviously in these cases of older children, the 
hearing is no more a trial for an offense than it is in the cases of 
other juveniles, and the court may hold for treatment any child 
who, while technically not guilty of the charge before him, 
nevertheless reveals by reason of his need and condition the 
advisability of care or treatment by the court. An adjudication 
of delinquency must precede such an order for care or treatment, 
but this finding may of course be made where the child is clearly 
innocent of the offense which brings him—in this instance— 
before the court. The reports which help to guide the judge in 
the hearing and disposition of cases are prepared by the proba- 
tion officers who are directly responsible to the court representa- 
tive and the case supervisor who are present each day in court. 
Almost 3,000 cases of sixteen and seventeen year old offenders 
pass annually through this session of the Juvenile Court. 
It is interesting to compare the number placed on probation or 
committed to institutions in 1940, under juvenile court jurisdic- 
tion, with those in 1938 before the age limit was raised. Figures 
gathered by the Pennsylvania Committee on Penal Affairs show 
that 14 per cent of the total arrested (2,294) resulted in commit- 
ment in 1938, as opposed to 24 per cent of the 1,959 arrests in 
1940, or a 46 per cent increase. The difference in the numbers 
115 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
placed on probation was even more pronounced, 398 or 17 per 
cent in 1938, as compared to 611 boys and girls or 32 per cent in 
1940, or nearly double the ratio. Such comparative results should 
resolve the question that a non-criminal court procedure is too 
lenient for an adequate handling of the older adolescent offender. 
DETROIT. The Michigan Juvenile Court Law of 1907 contained 
no description of the wayward minor, nor did it make any pro- 
vision for handling these cases. This jurisdiction was conferred 
upon the Juvenile Court in 1927 under a law very similar to New 
York’s Wayward Minor Law covering the age group seventeen 
to twenty-one. One additional definition not found in the New 
York Law specifies as a wayward minor a young person who 
"when not disabled from lawful occupation or study habitually 
idles away his or her time”. Proceedings in wayward minor 
cases although conducted in the Juvenile Court are held separate 
from children’s sessions. 
Temporary detention of wayward minor cases may be "to any 
institutions in the State having facilities for such cases”, to 
private homes or to the custody of the county agent or an officer 
of the Juvenile Court. A county jail is in fact used in many 
instances as the law specifies that facilities for the detention of 
children under seventeen shall not be used for wayward minors 
over seventeen, and to date no other facilities are available for 
the detention of this latter age group. 
The hearing of wayward minor cases follows in general the 
procedure employed in children’s cases by the Juvenile Courts 
of the State. Similarly, proceedings in these cases are not to be 
deemed criminal proceedings. The Wayward Minor Court makes 
use of the Mental Hygiene Clinic which serves the Juvenile Divi- 
sion of the Court. Disposition may include probation as well as 
commitment to public institutions, private homes, or the custody 
of certain officers or private persons. 
Following the passage of the Minor Law, the Wayne County 
(Detroit) Juvenile Court established a separate department for 
the hearing of wayward minor cases. As far as known this is 
the only separate session for the hearing of wayward minor cases 
created anywhere in Michigan. THE ADOLESCENT OFFENDER IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS 
Throughout the State, the Wayward Minor Court is part o£ 
the Juvenile Court which in turn is legally designated as a divi- 
sion of the Probate Court in each County of the State. The 
Judge of Probate—elected for a four year term—divides his time 
between hearing matters coming under the general powers of the 
Probate Court and those cases arising in the Juvenile Division. 
In Wayne County there are four judges of Probate, one of whom 
is regularly assigned to the Juvenile Division and devotes his 
entire time to its administration. 
The personnel of the Wayward Minor Department in Detroit 
consists of a director and three probation officers in the depart- 
ment for boys and a director and two probation officers for the 
cases of girls. These two directors act as referees in taking testi- 
mony, examining witnesses, and administering oaths. They sub- 
mit written reports to the judge of Probate, containing a summary 
of the hearings as well as their recommendations for the court’s 
findings and disposition. 
While the Wayward Minors Court has original jurisdiction 
over the cases described in the statute, very few of the cases so 
handled would actually fall into this category. The majority of 
the youths treated by the court have in fact violated the law and 
the regular criminal court could have taken jurisdiction. Due, 
however, to the close cooperation between this court and the 
district attorney’s office, many of the boys with no previous rec- 
ords or with only non-serious records are referred here. This step 
follows only after a conference has been held between the proba- 
tion officer and the district attorney’s office, and a determination 
has been made regarding the possibilities of satisfactory adjust- 
ment of the case under non-criminal court supervision. After 
referral, a thorough investigation into the bcty’s background and 
into the circumstances surrounding the case is made. If this 
investigation confirms the original impression that the boy should 
be treated as a wayward minor, an official complaint is filed in 
the Juvenile Court and proceedings are begun there. 
In view of the fact that the statute defining the wayward minor 
is very specific, the complaint cannot alone allege that the youth 
has committed an offense, it must further charge him with one of 
117 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
the acts or conditions defining a "wayward minor". This pro- 
cedure obviates any further contact with the criminal court unless 
the boy fails to adjust under the court’s supervision, when he may 
be returned to the criminal court for prosecution. A formal com- 
plaint charging him with the commission of an offense then 
brings his case before the regular criminal court. This is not 
interpreted as placing him in double jeopardy, as all proceedings 
in the Juvenile Court are completely non-criminal. 
There is evidently no direct relationship between the Juvenile 
Delinquency Department and the Wayward Minor Department 
except that they are both divisions of the one court, and few 
cases are referred directly from the Juvenile Delinquency Depart- 
ment. By an arrangement with the Detroit Police Department, 
a large proportion of the arrests of non-resident youths between 
the ages of seventeen and twenty-one are referred to the proba- 
tion department for investigation and disposition. 
Neither Wayne County nor the State of Michigan has so far 
provided an institution for the commitment of wayward minors. 
In 1939, "Boysville", a privately operated farm type of institution 
with a vocational training program was established about forty 
miles from Detroit. Its facilities are extremely limited. Since 
the enactment of the Wayward Minor Law, the court has been 
able to use the House of the Good Shepherd, a Catholic operated 
institution for delinquent girls, as well as several boarding homes. 
Michigan authorities feel that this failure to provide a varied 
institutional program has been a serious handicap in the admin- 
istration of the Wayward Minor Act. They also believe that the 
original jurisdiction of the court should be broadened to include 
all first offenders between seventeen and twenty-one who are 
charged with a criminal offense, instead of relying, as they now 
do, upon the prosecutor’s office to refer cases to them. There is 
an obvious parallel between this desire for a direct and com- 
pletely legal jurisdiction over the youthful offender and the senti- 
ment expressed in New York State for clear cut legislative 
sanction as a basis for treating this age group in a socialized 
fashion. 
118 chapter VII. THE YOUTH IN COURT 
In the decade which has elapsed since the first efforts were 
made in New York City to free the adolescent from the full 
rigors of the criminal process, the conviction has steadily grown 
that these measures should be made uniform, and extended 
throughout the State. The Committee has secured sufficient evi- 
dence from all parts of the State to justify it in stating that not 
only is there a widespread desire to deal in noncriminal court 
fashion with the offender who is just beyond children’s court age, 
but this desire has in fact been widely translated into practice. 
As a result, a great diversity of methods are now being used by 
our criminal courts in behalf of the sixteen to nineteen year old 
defendant. 
The courts now using one or another of the special procedures 
or devices which we describe here, recognize that they are work- 
ing outside the strictly legal framework of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure. They recognize further that upon an appeal they 
would have difficulty in justifying some of the steps they are now 
taking in behalf of those whom they consider to be worthy excep- 
tions to the strict operation of the criminal law. The fact that 
no appeal has to date been taken from their dispositions—due to 
the obvious fact that the youthful defendant realizes that his 
welfare is being better conserved by whatever special procedure 
is employed than by a strict criminal procedure—is small comfort. 
Most of the judges and court officers interviewed in the course 
of our inquiries stated their belief that these special procedures 
119 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
are extra-legal. The Committee is well aware of the courage and 
ingenuity displayed by these men in the initiation and continu- 
ance of these procedures. We realize further that there is no 
judge in any court who would not rather work within the law 
than outside of it. 
Present Procedures in County 
and City Courts Upstate 
In the brief description that follows of the plans now in opera- 
tion in the up-state courts, we have intentionally refrained from 
attributing to any court the particular plan which may be in opera- 
tion there. Not only do we desire to protect these courts in the 
unheralded work which they may now be doing, but we further 
realize that the plan itself is of greater interest and importance 
than the precise court in which it may happen to be operative. 
The measure most frequently employed in these courts is the 
reduction of the charge in order to spare the youth a felony record, 
with all the disabilities which accompany that kind of a convic- 
tion. Judges of these courts have frequently stated their opinion 
that sentence to a penal institution is too extreme for most of the 
offenses which these youths commit. Yet in order to hold them 
under some kind of supervision it is necessary first to convict. 
Therefore, in the cases of certain defendants sixteen, seventeen 
or eighteen, awaiting indictment, we find some county court 
judges discharging the youth first from jail and placing him in 
the custody of a probation officer. Were this not done, some of 
these boys would be detained for as long as six months awaiting 
action by a grand jury which may meet only twice a year. After 
indictment and on the date of the hearing the judge then reduces 
a burglary indictment, for example, to a misdemeanor, such as 
unlawful entry, or takes a plea to a lesser offense. The boy is 
thus spared a felony record at the same time that he is held 
accountable in some measure for his offense, and does not entirely 
escape further court supervision. 
Although some judges now employing this method choose to 
describe it as the " County plan”, there is of course nothing 
120 THE YOUTH IN COURT 
unique about it. Judges have always had authority to release from 
jail in custody of an officer of the court and the reduction of 
charges or acceptance of a plea to a lesser offense is as old as the 
realization in the criminal law that its rigors must somehow be 
evaded in certain cases—which is a very long time, indeed. 
Another county has developed its own plan for boys sixteen 
to twenty who have been held for and indicted by the grand jury. 
At a conference of the district attorney, the judge and the chief 
probation officer, the trial list of all those who are sixteen to 
twenty and who are known to be first offenders is reviewed. On 
arraignment, if the youth is not represented, counsel is assigned 
to him, and he is directed to plead "not guilty”. Between the 
hearing and the trial an investigation is made—with the consent 
of the boy and his counsel. This investigation includes some 
reference to the circumstances of the offense. Another meeting 
is then held between the district attorney, the judge, and the pro- 
bation officer, at which time the court determines whether or not 
it will entertain a plea to a misdemeanor. 
The only youths who are refused this privilege are those 
charged with a second felony, with robbery, or with a crime where 
violence is involved. Boys with long misdemeanor records are 
usually denied this procedure, also; otherwise all indictable 
offenses involving youths sixteen to twenty are subject to it. 
The plan has certain obvious advantages: it assures every 
youthful defendant of representation by counsel and spares deserv- 
ing cases a felony conviction. Its weaknesses are also obvious: 
it comes into operation only after indictment; it has no effect 
whatsoever on the processes of apprehension, preliminary hear- 
ing or detention; it encourages hypocrisy by first requiring the 
youth to plead "not guilty” and subsequently to repudiate this 
plea. 
The judge of this court fully admits that his plan is further 
evasive in that the district attorney must by law give a reason for 
allowing a reduced plea, and he should have more than an ordi- 
nary "hunch” for so doing. Furthermore, this plan depends 
entirely on the good will and 'social consciousness of the judge 
and the district attorney, and may be open, in certain instances, to 
121 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
abuse for reasons which may be summed up under the heading of 
"expedient”. 
In a large up-state city court, about one-third of the youthful 
defendants are handled by a special procedure. Upon a plea of 
guilty, where there are special "mitigating circumstances”, and 
with the consent of the complainant, the probation officer makes 
an investigation into the youth’s background. If the results of 
this investigation confirm the initial opinion that the case would 
not best be handled by means of a criminal conviction, the defend- 
ant is then permitted to withdraw his plea, and his case is dis- 
charged. This is done with the overt understanding that he will 
accept "voluntary” or "unofficial” probation upon this discharge, 
which leaves the court, in actuality, no official control over him. 
Such an ending must seem to the youth to be considerable of an 
anti-climax, concluding, as it does, a court process which has 
allowed him-—at least once—to reverse his plea. 
In certain other cases in this same court—just how the differ- 
entiation is made, is not clear—consent is secured from the youth- 
ful defendant or his counsel (where he is represented) to waive 
his right not to be investigated prior to conviction. He further 
agrees to abide by the results of this investigation. The com- 
plainant’s assent to this procedure is secured as a matter of course. 
When the investigation is completed, another hearing is held—in 
open court or in chambers—with the defendant, his counsel and 
parents, the complainant, district attorney and probation officer 
present. At this time the probation report is presented. If it is 
agreed that the case had best be handled "voluntarily” or "uno- 
fficially”, the youth is discharged, after which the probation 
office continues to supervise him. 
It should be stated at this point, that not only are these various 
commendable subterfuges employed in a limited number of cases, 
but the period of time in which the defendant is held for "uno- 
fficial” probation is likewise limited. Courts which have con- 
ceived these various plans are anxious—for obvious reasons—that 
their tenuous control over a discharged defendant not be extended 
for too long a period of time. 
122 THE YOUTH IN COURT 
Another up-state county has evolved its special "system” for 
cases between the ages of sixteen and twenty. The application 
of this plan is limited to offenders who have no prior court 
record and who are not charged with a crime of violence. In a 
typical case, this procedure would operate as follows: A youth 
has been indicted by the grand jury for larceny of an automobile. 
He is brought before the court, and the judge is informed that he 
has no prior record. The case is then put over for a week or ten 
days, the boy being released or continued on bail. Meanwhile he 
is interviewed as to his background, family situation, school and 
employment history, etc. Nothing on the offense in question is 
examined into. When the probation officer files his report and 
it is discovered that there is some domestic difficulty, lack of 
parental supervision, poor companionship or the like, the judge 
suspends trial on the indictment, "to await the results of a final 
investigation”. Then, with the consent of the boy, his parents, 
the district attorney, and usually the complainant, the boy is 
placed on "unofficial” probation. The case is again brought up 
at a later date—not too distant—and if the probation officer 
reports satisfactory conduct, the judge decides whether to accept 
a plea to a misdemeanor, or whether the district attorney will, 
with the consent of the judge, nol pros. If the boy fails on pro- 
bation within what is considered to be—but is not clearly defined 
—a reasonable length of time, the case is tried in the usual 
manner. 
This procedure has been in operation for less than a year and 
although it has not been used for many cases, these represent 
about five per cent of the sixteen to twenty year old defendants 
who are indicted in this particular county. 
One county court up-state, which made a practice in certain 
felonies charged against youthful offenders, of taking reduced 
pleas to a misdemeanor, recently found itself confronted with a 
situation which made this procedure difficult, if not impossible, 
to continue. The district attorney of the county had made a 
ruling that he would no longer recommend reduced pleas on any 
charges against any defendant, youthful or otherwise. This step 
had been taken in order, as he had announced, to throw the YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
responsibility for a reduced charge onto the judges themselves, 
and to avoid any future criticism of his office. Many adolescents 
thus found themselves awaiting action by the grand jury because 
the magistrate could no longer reduce the charge against them 
from a felony to a misdemeanor which came within his juris- 
diction for summary action. It was argued that such boys as 
could not secure bail stood to gain from a jail experience, which 
might "teach them a lesson"—even though the charge against 
them might later be dismissed! 
Such youths now find themselves held for an indictment on two 
counts for the same offense: one charge for a felony and one for 
a misdemeanor. Upon arraignment, the youth is usually per- 
suaded to plead guilty to the latter, after which he is placed on 
probation. 
This plan, with its contradictions of philosophy working at 
cross-purposes with procedure for the avowed benefit of the boy, 
operates actually to his detriment. Because the prosecutor’s 
office desires to free itself from possible—or actual—criticism on 
the part of the electorate, the young defendant finds himself 
confronted with a felony charge, where it is admitted that a mis- 
demeanor complaint could lie; he is committed to jail in order 
that he may be "taught a lesson"—although a different kind of a 
"lesson” is learned from what is intended; and when magistrates, 
jail, grand jury and county court have finally ground out his 
verdict—and him—he finds himself under a term of probation 
and supervision for the misdemeanor which it is admitted could 
have been charged against him in the first instance. 
To the mind of this Committee, the confusions of this plan 
epitomize the conditions to be found in many parts of the State. 
It indicates to us the necessity for introducing without delay a 
state-wide plan for dealing with the youthful offender which will 
be both consistent and uniform. 
The Wayward Minor in the Children’s Court 
The original purpose of the Wayward Minor Law when it was 
passed in 1923 (Section 913, Code of Criminal Procedure) was 
124 THE YOUTH IN COURT 
to enable parents and custodians of disobedient or unmanageable 
children between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one to apply to 
the court for assistance in dealing with them. This was the only 
interpretation of the law up to the time when it was employed by 
some courts for the handling of adolescents originally referred 
to them on a criminal complaint. 
Some courts now use* the Wayward Minor Law as it was 
originally designed, although the number of such cases is very 
small, due to the fact that few such petitions are referred. 
The Children’s Court of Onondaga County is the only Chil- 
dren’s Court in the State which has been granted jurisdiction over 
wayward minors, sixteen to twenty-one years of age. This court 
has received some fifty or sixty wayward minor petitions annually 
since 1936, when the law was passed. In most instances these 
are cases of adolescents who, while they may not have committed 
an unlawful act, can nevertheless be shown to have engaged in 
a course of conduct which meets the conditions of the Wayward 
Minor Law and which clearly shows them to be in need of super- 
vision. 
Excellent cooperation is reported between the Crime Prevention 
Division of the Syracuse Police Department, the office of the 
District Attorney and the Children’s Court. After the police have 
arrested a boy found to be sixteen or over, a district attorney at 
the City Court refers him—in certain instances—directly to the 
Children’s Court. Such cases are not arraigned. Without alleging 
the commission of a criminal offense, the police then file or secure 
the filing of a wayward minor petition. However, the judge of 
the Children’s Court, in his disposition, takes into consideration 
the fact that the original charge could have been a misdemeanor 
or felony. 
Of four cases involved in the same offense heard in the course 
of an afternoon’s business in the Children’s Court two boys were 
brought in as violators of probation in the Children’s Court 
(although they were over sixteen) ; another was a boy over six- 
teen, who was charged with being a wayward minor, and the 
fourth was handled as a straight Children’s Court case. This 
last was under sixteen, and was without any court record. 
125 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
The Court also received a wayward minor petition in the case 
of a seventeen year old girl who was found living in a hotel with 
a twenty year old youth charged with burglary. The girl was 
not needed as a material witness by the district attorney, who 
referred her to the Children’s Court on a wayward minor petition 
signed by a policewoman. The girl was detained in a foster 
detention home until her parents could* appear, and an investiga- 
tion was requested from the probation department in her home 
town. In this instance, the district attorney, was the prime mover 
in referring the case to the Children’s Court as a wayward minor. 
By a recent law (Chapter 366 of the Laws of 1941) all judges 
of children’s courts are now magistrates and can, therefore, take 
jurisdiction of wayward minor cases. These cases must, however, 
first be referred to them. The Committee therefore commends 
to the attention of other children’s courts the procedure in this 
county whereby young people over the age of sixteen, who, while 
not complained of the commission of an offense, are nevertheless 
dealt with by the children’s court because they are proper subjects 
of the court’s concern. Education undertaken in the community, 
as well as the correct understanding of the work of the children’s 
court by district attorneys, police, judges of criminal courts and 
social agencies generally, will assure that the jurisdiction of the 
children’s courts over wayward minor cases will be properly— 
and increasingly—assumed. 
Although the State-wide Children’s Court Act, and the special 
County Children’s Court Acts clearly give to these courts continu- 
ing jurisdiction in children’s cases up to the age of twenty-one, 
this jurisdiction is seldom, if ever, exercised. It cannot, therefore, 
be described as particularly helpful in adolescent cases. The 
reason for this lies chiefly in the fact that the children’s court dis- 
charges cases from its supervision after they have done well for a 
period of time. Nor has any conflict been noted or reported 
throughout the State between the continued jurisdiction of the 
children’s court and the original jurisdiction of the adult courts, 
in criminal matters. 
In actual practice, it falls to the arresting officer to determine 
whether to bring an apprehended youth into the children’s court 
126 THE YOUTH IN COURT 
(if he is on probation to that court) or into the criminal court. 
The police officer cannot be expected to know whether or not he 
has apprehended a youth who is under children’s court control 
and it is understandable that under the circumstances the youth 
will hesitate to divulge anything regarding his previous court 
experiences. It is only when the youth has been arraigned in 
criminal court that the fact may be revealed that he is under the 
jurisdiction of the children’s court, but by this time the criminal 
complaint has already been filed. Few magistrates care to dis- 
charge a case back to the children’s court at this point in the pro- 
cedure, and the value of such a step would, in fact, be ques- 
tionable. 
The Justices of the Peace 
In any consideration of the criminal court system of the State, 
it is essential that some attention be paid to the justices of the 
peace. In the last analysis, these men are the representatives of 
the judicial system in the non-urban districts of the State. The 
bulk of all criminal complaints originating within these areas 
must first pass through their hands. In 1931 the Department of 
Correction listed 3,670 justices of the peace holding office in 1932 
towns. There were as a rule four justices in each town. Of the 
total number only some 1,500 actually held court and heard crim- 
inal cases. The other justices considered themselves only as mem- 
bers of the Town Board under which they had some administra- 
tive functions; some of them also presided at the hearing of cer- 
tain civil matters. 
These figures have been reduced as a result of laws passed in 
1932, 1939 and 1940 which attempted to curtail the number, 
making two justices of the peace, instead of four, the rule for 
each town. 
Justices of the peace have jurisdiction in criminal cases, hold- 
ing in fact, Courts of Special Sessions when they so sit. Their 
powers parallel those of city judges and magistrates. They have 
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine certain misdemeanors 
including, among others: petty larceny—first offense, assault in 
127 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
the third degree, disorderly conduct, gambling, indecency, intoxi- 
cation, vagrancy and violations of traffic, public health and wel- 
fare laws. 
Justices of the peace may hold preliminary hearings only in 
cases of felonies and indictable misdemeanors in order to deter- 
mine whether or not to hold for the grand jury. The Wayward 
Minor Law specifically exempts them from any jurisdiction over 
these cases. 
The Commission which recommended the State-wide Children’s 
Court Act said, regarding the inadequate handling of children’s 
cases by justices of the peace in 1922: 
"While sometimes one finds among these officials men 
who show a sympathetic and constructive interest in 
the children arraigned before them, unfortunately such 
justices are the exception rather than the rule. Official 
and private investigations have conclusively shown the 
unfitness of many of them to handle the delicate situa- 
tions involved in the trial of children charged with 
delinquency or who lack proper guardianship. Most of 
these justices are untrained in the law and lack the 
qualifications needed in officials upon whom rests the 
responsibility of working out a plan for providing for 
some neglected child or for one who has gone wrong 
less through any fault of his own than through the 
failure of the community to meet properly his natural 
desires for self expression.” (Legislative Document 
No. 84, pp. 9-10.) 
In 1928 and again in 1929 the State Crime Commission urged 
that the rural courts should be relieved of their criminal juris- 
diction, and that district judges, appointed by local boards of 
supervisors should take over this duty. It was recommended 
that these judges should be compensated on an adequate, annual 
basis, that they should be lawyers, and that their terms should 
extend for not less than five years. In 1929 a constitutional 
amendment was proposed by concurrent resolution of the Senate 
and Assembly which was submitted to and approved by the people. 
128 THE YOUTH IN COURT 
The proposal specified that—. . the powers or duties now exer- 
cised by justices of the peace may be transferred by law to inferior 
local courts of criminal jurisdiction . . (New York State Const., 
Article VI, Section 17). 
The 1934 Committee on the Administration of Justice in New 
York State reported on certain defects in the present system of 
justices courts, especially with regard to criminal matters. Because 
of the decentralization of their courts, and the lack of any 
coordination or supervision, "the work done by justices of the 
peace ranges from extremely good to unbelievably bad”. (New 
York State Legislative Document No. 50, p. 674.) Great ine- 
qualities in case load, haphazard record keeping, ignorance of 
the law—with consequent reliance upon lawyers or the complain- 
ing state trooper, dependence upon the outmoded fee system, fur- 
ther hamper these rural courts in their administration of crim- 
inal justice. The Committee further stated: 
"The criminal work of justices varies somewhat with 
the community, but in practically every case violations 
of the vehicle and traffic laws head the list, with dis- 
orderly conduct, third degree assault, public intoxica- 
tion, or petty larceny usually appearing in second place. 
Traffic cases are so far in the lead that they occupy more 
than half of the docket-books of most justices. Some 
idea of the volume of the justices’ work of this nature 
may be obtained from the fact that the State Police 
alone make about 30,000 such arrests each year. Prac- 
tically all of these are tried before a justice of the peace.” 
(p. 567) 
Although certain traffic offenses have been reduced by the Leg- 
islature to "infractions”, many serious violations of the motor 
vehicle laws still remain misdemeanors—such as operating with- 
out a license. Justices of the peace also hear large numbers of 
"conservation cases”, violations of hunting and fishing laws, 
offenses committed against the rules and regulations of the State 
Parks, and the like. In these instances, the Committee has dis- 
covered, a game warden, state trooper or other officer brings the 
129 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
young defendant directly before the justice and states the charges 
against him. If he is guilty, the youth usually does not hesitate 
to admit to it; he is anxious only to learn the extent of the costs 
and to dispose of the matter on the spot. 
In effect the adolescent often pleads guilty to a misdemeanor 
even before the justice has had an opportunity to remind him 
that he is pleading guilty to a crime, that upon conviction a crim- 
inal record will stand permanently against him. There is noth- 
ing that the magistrate can do to wipe out this conviction once 
the youth has, in effect, admitted his guilt. Thereafter, he may 
fine or suspend the sentence or impose any other condition which 
the law allows him in these instances. 
The very largest percentage of the justices of the peace now 
sitting in the State are not lawyers and are without any special 
training for the judicial functions which they administer. Recent 
years have seen measures properly taken to reduce their criminal 
jurisdiction and to place some control over their income from 
fees. The Committee commends these steps, and believes that 
it is time for Article VI, Section 17 of the State Constitution to 
be more fully applied. 
To this end, the draft act which we submit with this report 
(see pp. 186-200) exempts justices of the peace from any juris- 
diction over youthful offenders, as they are now excluded from 
any control over the wayward minor. 
Facilities available to these justices in the way of investigation 
and supervision are completely lacking in almost all parts of the 
State. We believe that by depriving justices of the peace of any 
jurisdiction over the offenses committed by youths sixteen, seven- 
teen, and eighteen, we will be achieving an important forward 
step in socializing and unifying the criminal court procedure 
throughout the State. The arguments raised twenty years ago 
against continued jurisdiction by justices courts over the cases of 
children are just as valid today in relation to the cases of youth- 
ful offenders. It is our earnest opinion that a higher degree of 
successful treatment of the adolescent will come about by giving 
original jurisdiction in these cases to a youth court associated 
with the children’s court. Such youth courts, having initial 
130 THE YOUTH IN COURT 
jurisdiction in all offenses committed by youths under nineteen, 
with power as committing magistrates to hold for the grand 
jury, will replace the present ineffective treatment of this age 
group by our present justices of the peace. 
Present Procedures in Netv Ports, City 
In New York City no such great diversity exists in the pro- 
cedures for youthful offenders as is found up-state. The plans 
outlined in the preceding section may be described as attempts 
to skirt the criminal procedure in order to exempt adolescents 
from its harsher provisions. The New York City plans, on the 
other hand, largely throw the criminal procedure overboard, and 
utilize in its place, in one way or another, the Wayward Minor 
Law of 1923 (Section 913, Code of Criminal Procedure). 
In all, the Committee has discovered three separate procedures 
which are employing some adaptation of the Wayward Minor 
Law to their purpose. These will be discussed in succeeding sec- 
tions of this chapter, 
THE ADOLESCENT’S COURTS IN BROOKLYN AND 
QUEENS. It is generally acknowledged that the first application 
of the Wayward Minor Law for the treatment of youthful 
offenders was begun in Kings County as a result of the work 
done by the Courts Committee of the Brooklyn Bureau of Char- 
ities. As early as 1929 this Committee had drawn up a statement 
for submission to its Board of Directors setting out the problem 
of youthful criminality and pointing to the inadequacy of exist- 
ing criminal court procedures. However, the use of the wayward 
minor procedure in place of a criminal complaint was to wait 
some six years before it found its way into the Magistrates’ Court 
system. 
In the interim the Magistrates’ Court in Manhattan created— 
unofficially—"a special term for adolescent boys” to deal with 
two special types of cases. The first consisted of those charged 
with serious offenses whose cases were dismissed for want of 
evidence or because the complainant refused to prosecute. In 
131 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
these instances, the magistrate requested officers attached to the 
Crime Prevention Bureau of the Police Department to bring in a 
wayward minor complaint in order that these boys might still 
undergo some supervision by the court even though jurisdiction 
was lacking because the complaint had to be dismissed. The 
second group dealt with by this special term consisted of youths 
referred by workers in private agencies when they felt that contact 
with the judge would be of value for these boys. 
The unwillingness of the complainant to press charges or to 
hmffie the Wayward Minor Law against a boy because of his 
youth had resulted in many cases of youths being dismissed by 
the Magistrates’ Court. The magistrate at this time felt that the 
dignity of the law was impaired because these boys were allowed 
to go scott free with no further court control, and the fear arose 
that the deterrent effect of the court hearing would be seriously 
weakened. 
The first session of this term was held in the magistrates’ 
chambers in September of 1932. Thereafter hearings were con- 
ducted informally one afternoon a week. The judge had the 
assistance of the chief probation officer, a psychiatrist, a repre- 
sentative of the Crime Prevention Bureau and agency representa- 
tives. Although less than one hundred cases altogether were 
handled by this procedure before it was discontinued, it had 
paved the way for the creation of a special adolescent’s court 
fitted into the structure of the Magistrates’ Court system. 
Pursuant to a resolution adopted by the Board of City Magis- 
trates on October 30, 1934, the Adolescent’s Court was begun in 
Brooklyn on January 1, 1935 with a formal dedication by Mayor 
LaGuardia. One week later the first cases of youths were heard 
by this newly created court. The procedure in these courts has 
changed from time to time, but essentially it has remained the 
same since its inception. In the first place it is limited to boys 
sixteen, seventeen and eighteen years of age who come to the 
attention of the court by means of a formal complaint filed by 
an arresting officer or other complainant. Detention is in a sep- 
arate wing of the old Raymond Street Jail. Nothing in this pro- 
cedure alters the police handling of these cases although some 
132 THE YOUTH IN COURT 
attempts, not always successful, are made to keep them separate 
and apart from adults. On the day of his arraignment—usually 
not longer than forty-eight hours after arrest—the offender is 
brought from the jail where he has been remanded or comes into 
court freely if he has been released on bail on his own recog- 
nizance. Jail cases await the arraignment in a special pen 
attached directly to the court. 
All hearings are conducted in chambers—a small inadequate 
room leading off from what was a court-room and which now 
serves as waiting room and for clerk’s quarters. (At this writing, 
large and adequate space is being prepared for the use of the 
Court, which will relieve overcrowding, and add dignity to the 
Court, without reducing the degree of informality which has 
hitherto prevailed.) Present at the hearing in addition to the 
judge is a clerk, one of the two probation officers attached to the 
court, a representative of the district attorney’s office and a court 
stenographer. The boy, the complainant, witnesses and usually 
the boy’s parents are likewise present. 
Two different forms of the same procedure are found in the 
Adolescent’s Courts. Under the first of these, the decision of the 
court—whether or not to hold for special sessions or for the grand 
jury, on the one hand, or to allow the substitution of a wayward 
minor complaint, on the other—is frequently made without 
benefit of any preliminary investigation. This is perhaps the 
greatest weakness of the wayward minor procedure in Brooklyn. 
If the boy waives examination he is held in jail or on bail for 
the Court of Special Sessions or the Grand Jury and the papers in 
the case are forwarded to the proper authorities. If it is deter- 
mined that he shall be held as a wayward minor, the procedure 
is explained to him and a return date is set for hearing on this 
new complaint. 
The parent has already signed a complaint that the youth is a 
wayward minor and evidence is taken on this point at the way- 
ward minor hearing. The mother or father then swears under 
oath that their son is "morally depraved or in danger of becoming 
so”, or is persistently disobedient to their lawful commands; 
whereupon the judge adjudicates the youth to be a wayward 
133 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
minor, and either suspends sentence or places him on probation. 
The length of this probation period is usually not specified, but 
does not generally run much beyond a year. 
In the first years of its development, the Adolescent’s Court 
depended almost entirely upon private agencies for supervision of 
cases placed on probation. The Brooklyn Bureau of Charities, 
Catholic Charities Bureau, Jewish Board of Guardians and the 
Urban League were assigned cases on a religious or racial basis. 
When the case loads borne by these agencies became excessive, a 
larger staff of probation officers was transferred from the other 
Magistrates’ Courts to supervise probationers, the agencies con- 
tinuing their co-operation in an advisory and auxiliary relation- 
ship. 
If at the completion of what the court thinks should be the 
length of his probation term, the youth responds well, he is dis- 
charged from probation and thus finds himself free from any 
criminal record. Adjudication as a "wayward minor” is compar- 
able to finding a juvenile "delinquent” in the children’s court: 
it is an adjudication of a status, not a conviction for a crime. If 
he violates the terms of his probation or commits a new offense, 
the youth may then be committed to an institution by the court. 
It will be noted that the procedure in the Adolescent’s Courts 
is limited entirely to boys. Cases of wayward minor girls— 
between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one are handled by the 
Wayward Minor Court for Girls in Manhattan, which has juris- 
diction over the five New York Counties. A description of this 
procedure will be found in a succeeding section. 
Under the alternative procedure used in these Courts, when the 
defendant is arraigned, he is informed of his rights and asked 
whether he wishes to proceed on the hearing or whether he 
desires an adjournment. When the defendant is ready, the 
hearing proceeds in the same manner as a hearing in any one of 
the City Magistrates’ Courts. At the end of the Peoples’ case, 
a motion is made by the Court for the defendant that the com- 
plaint be dismissed on the grounds that a prima facie case against 
the youth has not been proved. Decision on this motion is then 
134 THE YOUTH IN COURT 
reserved by the Court, and the youth is asked whether or not he 
wishes to take the stand, or to make a statement. 
After this procedure the complainant is asked if he has any 
objection to having the youth held for wayward minor treatment 
which is explained to him. A wayward minor complaint is then 
drawn and the youth is arraigned on this new complaint. He is 
asked whether he is ready to proceed on it, and his affirmative 
answer results in a regular hearing on the charge. Upon com- 
pletion of the Peoples’ side of the case, a motion to dismiss is 
made on behalf of the defendant. This is denied by the Court. 
The youth is then informed of his rights and asked if he desires 
to testify in language similar to the following; 
"You can take the stand and testify in your own behalf, you 
can call any witnesses that you desire to call, if you decline to 
take the stand, the fact that you declined to take, the stand cannot 
be used against you, but if you do take the stand you will be 
cross-examined by the District Attorney.” 
At the end of the entire case a motion is again made by the 
Court, for the defendant, to dismiss the wayward minor charge 
on the ground that it has not been established beyond a reason- 
able doubt. Decision on this motion is reserved by the Court. 
The youth and his parents or guardian are then asked if they 
are willing to consent to having an investigation made by a proba- 
tion officer. Upon their consent, the wayward minor charge and 
the original complaint are adjourned for sufficient time to enable 
an investigation to be made. On the adjourned date, when the 
report is made to the Court, the motion to dismiss the criminal 
charge is granted and the motion to dismiss the wayward minor 
complaint is denied. The youth is then adjudged a wayward 
minor and he is either placed on probation, committed or given 
a suspended sentence. 
The Queens Adolescent’s Court was started in 1936, one year 
after the original experiment in Brooklyn. The procedure here 
has changed during the course of years, but since June of 1940, 
it has become fairly standardized. 
Up to May of 1941, this Court treated by the wayward minor 
procedure the cases of boys between the ages of sixteen and 
135 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
twenty-one. Upon the passage of the bill legalizing the work of 
this Court and the Court in Brooklyn, the two upper ages of 
nineteen and twenty were excluded from the jurisdiction of this 
Court, which is now concerned only with the sixteen, seventeen 
and eighteen year olds, paralleling the Brooklyn Court. 
Five judges rotate in this Court, each of whom presides in 
rotation at the regular Friday morning session for wayward 
minors. Because the problem of crime is not so serious in Queens 
as it is in Kings, this Court has not found it necessary to reserve 
more than one day a week for the hearing of these cases. This 
has occasioned many delays in the hearing of youthful cases, 
because a boy may be held for as long as six days before his case 
is heard. 
Initially, this Court received cases on transfer from the Magis- 
trates’ Court in which the cases of youths were first arraigned. 
Since the issuance of an order by the Chief City Magistrate in 
June of 1940, all cases of adolescents are now brought initially 
into this Court instead of first being arraigned elsewhere. 
Original cases of youthful defendants in this Court were heard 
in the regular court-room, but in recent years this session has 
been transferred to chambers, a room scarcely adequate for the 
large number of persons necessary for the conduct of the session. 
Two features of the Queens Court procedure commend them- 
selves: An investigation precedes any decision by the Court to 
hold the youth as a wayward minor instead of on the criminal 
complaint, and at the time the wayward minor complaint is being 
entertained, no testimony in relation to it is taken from the par- 
ents, the proof of the commission of an offense being considered 
sufficient evidence to permit the court to adjudicate the boy as a 
wayward minor. 
The wayward minor procedure as here outlined has many 
advantages over the regular criminal procedure employed in the 
Magistrates’ Courts for youths sixteen, seventeen and eighteen 
who are charged with a criminal complaint. In the Adolescent’s 
Courts, these young defendants are brought before a court of 
first instance which operates under a jurisdiction allowing it to 
dispose of cases without the many delays which now confound 
136 THE YOUTH IN COURT 
the criminal court process in other places. During the period of 
detention, these youths are usually segregated from adult crim- 
inals. They are, furthermore, given the benefit of a private hear- 
ing instead of being heard in the regular criminal court where 
they sit with adult defendants in open pens, subject to the embar- 
rassment of being on view before a full court-room of adult 
curiosity seekers. .Finally, and most important, youthful defend- 
ants handled by the wayward minor procedure have a chance to 
be dealt with under a form of socialized treatment in which the 
particular offense which first brought them to the attention of 
the court is minimized, if not completely eliminated, and the 
disposition made on the basis of the youth’s need and condition. 
A great deal of discussion has been printed regarding follow-up 
figures and success rates for individuals who have passed through 
certain special procedures for adolescent offenders. Proponents 
of these newer methods have cited proportions of successes run- 
ning to nine-tenths of all cases disposed of by the courts; critics 
and opponents have urged that the true figures show the very 
reverse. Neither side has offered to describe in any special terms 
just what such rates of success or failure actually measure or 
evaluate. If the offender has spent an extensive period of time in 
jail prior to his arraignment and was then discharged by the 
court, do these follow-up figures appraise the brief court appear- 
ance or do they estimate the deteriorative effect of the period 
spent in jail? If the court later places him on probation, and 
his after-career is followed, does success or failure measure the 
effect of the court procedure, or does it evaluate the kind of 
supervision he has received while he was on probation? 
The Committee urges a truly scientific approach to the study 
and analysis of the results of present efforts with delinquents. 
Only by a relentless testing of present methods in this field can 
progress be made. But in the application of scientific criteria, 
a proper understanding of the method employed, as well as an 
appraisal of the validity of the material subjected to that method, 
are essential for reliable and valid results. The value of the way- 
ward minor procedure can be neither affirmed nor denied on the 
basis of the figures brought forward by those who seek either to 
defend or abolish it. 
137 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
The fact remains that in all the courts of New York City, 
outside of the Adolescents’ Courts in Brooklyn and Queens, the 
Wayward Minor Court for Girls, and the wayward minor pro- 
cedure in the Court of General Sessions, all other defendants in 
the age group sixteen through eighteen are handled as adult 
criminals, with all the disadvantages which accrue to this process 
in the determination of guilt or innocence as well as in the treat- 
ment and rehabilitation of youthful offenders. Evidence to date 
has amply confirmed the fact that this criminal court procedure, 
through its emphasis on offense rather than condition, has failed 
to prevent the development of youthful criminal careers. 
Because of the difficulty of getting a consistent picture of the 
work of the Brooklyn Adolescent’s Court during any one year, 
the Committee was interested in making a case by case tabulation 
of the docket book of this Court. The year 1939 was selected 
because it was considered typical by court officials and further- 
more because all the cases arraigned during that year were dis- 
posed of at the time this tally was made in the fall of 1941. 
Such a tally reveals a total of 1516 arraignments of individuals 
in this court during the year. This figure excludes offenders who 
may have been twice before the court on different charges, as 
well as more than one charge against a single defendant. Of 
this number, 40 per cent were of youths sixteen years old, the 
balance of the cases was very nearly equally divided between 
those seventeen and eighteen. Three cases of nineteen year olds 
and one twenty year old were brought before the court but were 
transferred elsewhere when their exact age was discovered. May 
and June of this year saw a total of 309 defendants brought before 
the court, a total slightly more than one-fifth of the total arraign- 
ments during that year. The low point was reached in November 
with slightly over 5 per cent of the arraignments. 
The following chart shows the complaints which brought 
these youths before the court and the disposition which was made. 
Almost one-half of the complaints fell into the category of 
offenses against public order. This is an indication of the juve- 
nile type of offense committed by these youths and is an indica- 
tion of the value which would inhere to a socialized treatment of 
138 THE YOUTH IN COURT 
these cases. Practically 40 per cent of the complaints were for 
offenses against property. The 37 cases of wayward minors refer 
to cases continued from the preceding year—in this instance these 
cases represent final disposition. The group entitled "straight 
wayward minors" refer to petitions brought by parents or others 
against youths under the wayward minor law. It will be noted 
that almost one-half of these latter cases were discharged by the 
court. 
Chart No, 1. Complaint and Disposition 
Per cent 
Total 
SEX 
VIOLENCE 
MINOR 
STRAIGHT 
WAYWARD 
WAYWARD 
MINOR 
PUBLIC 
ORDER 
PROPERTY 
COMPLAINT 
34.8 
Ol 
oo 
t . 
to 
oo 
to 
24 
O' 
to 
oo 
oo 
4^ 
DISCHARGED1 
O' 
to 
ot 
to 
Ol 
FINE 
to 
p 
oo 
O 
to 
00 
SUSP. SENT. 
D 
o 
to 
O' 
00 
oo 
to 
H-H 
to 
•oj 
4^ 
oo 
WAYWARD 
cn 
"0 
O 
to 
►—* 
to 
4^ 
MINOR 
O 
oj 
to 
oo 
4^ 
o 
to 
oo 
to 
PROBATION 
co 
o\ 
oo 
Ol 
4^ 
i—i 
H 
o 
i—■ 
4^ 
vO 
TRANSFER TO 
►—H 
O' 
bo 
4^ 
oo 
oo 
to 
OTHER COURTS2 
o 
to 
o\ 
oo 
vO 
oo 
OO 
— 
JAIL SENT. 
O 
O' 
O' 
to 
oo 
COMMITTED3 
p 
to 
oo 
— 
to 
WARRANT 
, , 
o 
p 
Ol 
Oj 
N-Tl 
oo 
oo 
Vl 
to 
o\ 
00 
Total 
o 
O' 
N 
V| 
Oi 
"O 
O' 
4^ 
O 
o 
oi 
to 
to 
4^ 
00 
oo 
00 
Per cent 
o 
O 
bo 
OO 
4^ 
O 
orx 
1 Includes: Discharged 161; dismissed 335; complaint withdrawn, 32. 
2 Includes: 45 cases held for the Court of Special Sessions, 110 for the 
Grand Jury, and 9 transferred to other courts, such as children’s. 
3 Includes: 5 to Children’s Village, 1 to Hawthorne, 4 to State Voca- 
tional Institution, 1 to State School of Industry. 
139 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
In fact, over one-third of the total number of cases were dis- 
charged. This is a further indication of the value of a procedure 
which would handle in non-criminal court fashion a large per- 
centage of the relatively unimportant complaints brought to its 
attention. In such a court, discharges would in all likelihood not 
be made without some kind of a preliminary investigation by the 
probation department in order to ascertain that no serious social 
condition was being overlooked. 
Suspended sentences in this group amounted to an exact fifth 
of all dispositions and less than 5 per cent were placed on proba- 
tion without first being adjudicated as wayward minor. Slightly 
over 10 per cent were transferred to other courts (which includes 
the grand jury). 
The most important finding of this chart is the fact that 27 
per cent of the total arraignments received wayward minor sub- 
stitutions. The percentage of arraignments receiving this kind of 
disposition has increased steadily since 1937: 13 per cent were 
so held during that year, 22 per cent in 1938, 27 per cent in 1939 
and 31 per cent in 1940. 
In this and subsequent charts complaint categories include 
offenses as follows; Property—burglary, conspiracy, forgery, 
fraud, grand larceny, larceny of auto, receiving stolen goods, 
unauthorized use, unlawful entry. Public Order—assault and 
battery, bookmaking, disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, 
evading fare, gaming, loitering, lottery, malicious mischief, pol- 
icy, runaway, slot machines, trespass, vagrancy. Violence— 
abduction, arson, assault to rob, burglar’s tools, carnal abuse of 
a minor, dangerous weapon, felonious assault, impairing morals, 
rape, robbery. Sex—incest, indecent exposure, sodomy. 
The following chart analyzes the dispositions of the total 
arraignments, by age. It will be noted that in the case of defend- 
ants sixteen and seventeen years of age, the proportion of cases 
discharged runs over one-third, while in the case of the eighteen 
year olds this drops to approximately 30 per cent. A decrease 
in the use of the wayward minor reduction procedure is also 
noted as the age of the defendant increases: 30 per cent of the 
sixteen year olds, 25 per cent of the seventeen year olds and 24 
140 THE YOUTH IN COURT 
per cent of the eighteen year olds are so disposed of by this 
Court. There is a corresponding, though slight, increase in trans- 
fers from the Adolescent’s Court to other courts and the grand 
jury as the age of the defendant rises. 
Chart No, 2, Disposition and Age 
DISPOSITION 
16 
AGE 
17 18 
19 
20 
Total 
Per 
cent 
DISCHARGED1 
218 
176 
134 
528 
34.8 
FINE 
12 
6 
7 
25 
1.6 
SUSPENDED SENTENCE 
101 
91 
109 
301 
20.0 
WAYWARD MINOR 
181 
120 
106 
407 
27.0 
PROBATION 
12 
10 
13 
3 
38 
2.5 
TRANSFERRED TO 
OTHER COURTS2 
49 
56 
57 
1 
1 
164 
10.8 
JAIL SENTENCE 
COMMITTED3 
14 
9 
12 
1 
13 
1 
39 
11 
2.5 
0.6 
WARRANT 
2 
1 
3 
0.2 
Total 
596 
474 
441 
4 
1 
1516 
100.0 
Per cent 
39.3 
31.3 
29.2 
0.2 
100.0 
1 Includes; Discharged 161; dismissed 335; complaint withdrawn 32. 
2 Includes: 45 cases held for the Court of Special Sessions; 110 for the 
Grand Jury; and 9 transferred to other courts, such as children’s. 
3 Includes: 5 to Children’s Village; 1 to Hawthorne; 4 to State Voca- 
tional Institution; 1 to State School of Industry. 
The following chart which compares initial and final disposi- 
tions, shows the final disposition of the 406 cases which were 
held as wayward minors. It will be noted that two-thirds (68.9 
per cent) of these wayward minors were placed on probation and 
almost, a tenth (9.7 per cent) committed to institutions. Between 
141 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
the time of the original determination to substitute a wayward 
minor charge and the date of the final hearing, all but nine of 
these cases were adjudicated as wayward minors, the remainder 
being either discharged (5 cases), given a suspended sentence 
(3 cases), or committed (1 case). Almost a fifth (18.0 per cent) 
were given a suspended sentence upon the second hearing in the 
court; it is understood that this disposition does not necessarily 
carry probation. 
Chart No, 3, Disposition, and Final Disposition 
FINAL DISPOSITION 
sus- 
DIS- PENDED PRO 
DISPOSITION CHARGED1 SENTENCE BAT I ON 
COM- 
MITTED2 
Total 
Per 
cent 
DISCHARGED - 1 1 
3 
5 
1.0 
WAYWARD MINOR 13 68 277 
39 
397 
98.3 
SUSPENDED 
SENTENCE 1 2 
3 
0.7 
NEW YORK STATE 
VOCATIONAL 
SCHOOL 1 
1 
Total 14 71 279 
42 
406 
100.0 
Per cent 3.4 18.0 68.9 
9,7 
100. 
1 Includes; 11 dismissed; 3 discharged. 
2 Includes: 6 Children’s Village. 16 New York State Vocational School, 
12 New York City Reformatory, 3 to Wassaic, 1 Nassau State Hos- 
pital, 1 New York State Reformatory, 2 Returned as parole violators, 
1 New York State Training. 
A comparison between the following chart which shows the 
final disposition of the complaints which brought these youths 
before the court, and chart No. 1, reveals some rather interesting 
results. It will be noted that the property offenses which make 
142 THE YOUTH IN COURT 
up almost 40 per cent of the complaints in chart No. 1 have 
doubled (83.2 per cent) here. In other words, the wayward 
minor procedure is used in the largest percentages of instances 
for offenses against property, chiefly larceny and associated 
offenses. 
Offenses against public order which made up almost a half 
(48 per cent) in chart No. 1 are here reduced to less than one- 
tenth (7.7 per cent). These offenses, largely of a regulative or 
ordinance nature have been disposed of in so large a proportion 
of instances at the original hearing that very few of them remain 
to be disposed of at the final hearing. Final disposition of 
offenses in the categories of "violence” and "sex” vary very little 
from the original disposition at the time of the first hearing. 
Chart No, 4, Complaint and Final Disposition 
COMPLAINT 
FINAL DISPOSITION 
sus- 
DIS- PENDED PRO- COM- 
CHARGED1 SENTENCE BAT I ON MITTED2 Total 
Per 
Cent 
PROPERTY 
12 
49 
237 
40 
338 
83.2 
PUBLIC ORDER 
2 
13 
14 
2 
31 
7.7 
WAYWARD MINOR 
1 
1 
2 
0.5 
VIOLENCE 
5 
8 
13 
3.2 
SEX 
3 
19 
22 
5.4 
Total 
14 
71 
279 
42 
406 
100. 
Per cent 
3.4 
18.0 
68.9 
9.7 
100. 
1 Includes; 11 dismissed; 3 discharged. 
2 Includes: 6 to Children’s Village, 3 to Wassaic State School, 1 to 
Nassau State Hospital, 16 to State Vocational Institution. 1 to State 
School of Industry, 1 to Elmira Reformatory, 12 to New York City 
Reformatory, 2 returned as parole violators. 
143 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
The following chart which shows the days between complaint 
and disposition is an index of the amount of time which elapses 
between the original arraignment and the final court order dis- 
posing of the case. The largest number of elapsed days is in 
the category of property offenses and runs well over one month. 
The "straight wayward minor" complaints show the next largest 
number of elapsed days due, perhaps, to the court’s desire to 
straighten out these differences between parent and son without 
resorting to any drastic court action. 
Chart No. 5. Days Between Complaint and 
Disposition 
DAYS BETWEEN 
COMPLAINT 
NUMBER 
TOTAL 
DAYS 
AVERAGE 
DAYS 
PROPERTY 
584 
' 22882 
39.1 
PUBLIC ORDER 
726 
7252 
10.0 
WAYWARD MINOR 
37 
414 
11.1 
STRAIGHT 
WAYWARD MINOR 
35 
1148 
32.8 
VIOLENCE 
57 
1368 
23.0 
SEX 
77 
2340 
30.0 
Total 
1516 
35404 
23.4 
The final chart lists the amount of bail required by the court 
for cases held for Special Sessions or the Grand Jury, the fines 
imposed, and the length of jail commitments. Discrepancy 
between the totals in each of the first two categories listed here 
and in chart No. 1 may be accounted for by the fact that the 
remaining cases were released on their own recognizance or to 
that of their parents. The average amount of bail for defendants 
held for Special Sessions ran slightly above $500, those bound 
14 4 THE YOUTH IN COURT 
over to the Grand Jury were asked to post double this amount. 
Our inquiries did not go to the point of discovering in what per- 
centage of the instances bail was actually posted, and how large 
a proportion of cases were actually remanded to jail. 
Chart No.fi. Hail and Jail 
NO. OF 
AMOUNT OF 
CASES 
BAIL 
GRAND JURY 2 
$ 100 
2 
200 
3 
300 
33 
500 
37 
1,000 
4 
1,500 
4 
2,000 
4 
2,500 
1 
3,500 
4 
5,000 
Total 94 
Total $102,000 
Average $1,085.10 
SPECIAL SESSIONS 2 
100 
1 
200 
2 
300 
24 
500 
4 
1,000 
Total 33 
Total 
$17,000 
Average $515.15 
FINES 18 
1 
4 
2 
1 
5 
1 
10 
1 
25 
Total 25 
Total 
$66 
Average $2.64 
JAIL SENTENCE 22 
1 day 
13 
2 
2 
3 
1 
5 
1 
30 
Total 39 
Total 
89 days 
Average 2.28 days 
145 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
Fines were imposed in less than 2 per cent (1.6 per cent) of the 
total number of arraignments before the court, and it will be 
noted that the average of these was less than $3. Of the 25 
lines imposed, only two ran above $10; two-thirds of the fines 
were for the very nominal amount of $1. 
Similarly, a very small percentage (2.5) of the total disposi- 
tions consisted of commitment to jail. Of these a sizable num- 
ber were in default of a fine imposed by the court. Almost two- 
thirds of these commitments ran to a day; the average slightly 
over two days. 
A brief bibliography on the problem of the adolescent offender 
in New York City is here appended: 
The Adolescent Offender: A Study of the Age Limit of the Chil- 
dren’s Court. Criminal Courts Committee, Charity Organiza- 
tion Society, New York, 1923. 
Report of the Crime Commission. Legislative Document No. 114, 
Albany, 1932. 
Proceedings of the Governor’s Conference on Crime, the Crim- 
inal and Society. Albany, 1935. 
Report of a Study of the Adolescent’s Court of the Magistrates’ 
Court of New York City, State Division of Probation, Albany, 
1936. 
Brill and Payne: The Adolescent Court and Crime Prevention. 
New York, 1938. 
Harrison and Grant: Youth in the Toils. New York, 1938. 
The Forgotten Adolescent: A Study of the Pre-trial Treatment 
of Boys Charged with Crime in New York City. New York 
Law Society, New York, 1940. 
The Adolescent Boy and the Detention Prison: Committee on 
Crime Prevention. City Club of New York, 1940. 
Blanshard and Lukas: The Adolescents’ Court Problem in New 
York City, a Preliminary Survey of Existing Procedure and an 
Emergency Plan. Society for the Prevention of Crime. New 
York, 1941. 
146 THE YOUTH IN COURT 
THE WAYWARD MINORS’ COURT FOR GIRLS. Since the 
spring of 1936, there has been functioning as a separate part of 
the Women’s Court in the Magistrates’ Court system of New York 
City, a special session for girls between the ages of sixteen and 
twenty-one. The jurisdiction of this Court is city-wide and it 
operates under the straight wayward minor procedure contained 
in section 913 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 
The headquarters of this sessions are in the Women’s Court, 
but a special day each week is set aside for the hearing of girls’ 
cases in the new criminal courts building on Centre Street. During 
the year 1940, six justices presided over this Court; the presiding 
magistrate conducting the largest number of sessions during the 
year. Of 330 cases received by the Court in the year 1940, 264 
(80 per cent) were referred for court action. This number varies 
but slightly from the number of cases received by the Court in 
1939. 
One of the interesting features of this Court is the "Intake 
Bureau’’ to which all complaints and petitions are initially 
referred. Like the Bureau of Adjustment in the Children’s Court, 
this Bureau through its provision for preliminary investigation 
diverts to other agencies those cases where it is believed that an 
adjustment can be made without formal court action. 
The Wayward Minor Court for Girls has made an important 
contribution to the problem of dealing with the adolescent 
offender, through its provisions for temporary detention in pri- 
vate agencies, some of which are equipped with special facilities 
for handling venereally infected and pregnant girls. The facil- 
ities of these private agencies are provided rather strictly on the 
basis of the girl’s religious affiliations; as a result it is too often 
necessary, especially in the case of negro girls, to make use of 
the detention facilities for women. 
All of the cases referred for action to this Court are handled 
as straight wayward minors. That is, they are not complained 
of for a violation of the criminal law, which may then be set 
aside and a wayward minor charge substituted, as is done in 
Brooklyn and Queens. The conditions for which these girls are 
referred to the Court are those clearly specified in the Wayward 
147 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
Minor Law. They include disobedience, runaway, sex misconduct, 
and other problems originating chiefly in the family, and repre- 
senting in many instances, a conflict between parents and 
daughter. 
Wayward minor petitions are referred in the largest propor- 
tion of cases by parents, and where this is not possible the peti- 
tion may be signed by a policewoman, a member of the Juvenile 
Aid Bureau of the Police Department, or an interested social 
agency. In this connection it may be noted that the private 
agencies play a larger part in the procedure of this Court than 
in that of any other special court for adolescents discovered any- 
where in the State. In the early days of the Brooklyn Adolescent’s 
Court, as noted above, the private agencies served as the unoffi- 
cial probation arm of the court, but this was largely discontinued 
after the number of cases referred to these agencies became exces- 
sive. The private institutions to which the court now commits 
have been cooperating with the court since its establishment and 
have continued to take difficult and stubborn cases steadily 
through the five and a half years of the court’s existence. It is 
doubtful whether, without these aids, the court could have con- 
tinued to handle these cases, in the light of the paucity of public 
institutional facilities for girls between sixteen and twenty-one. 
A necessary part of the court procedure is the physical and 
and psychiatric services upon which it must rely for the diagnosis 
of the medical, emotional and intellectual make-up of its clients. 
By obtaining the consent of the girl, the period of detention may 
be extended beyond the three-day period allowed by law, and 
this interval is used to make extensive examinations and to check 
further infection. 
There is a special advantage to having a court of this type, 
specialized in the cases of girls, and city-wide in its jurisdiction. 
Because it is a court of first instance, and because it cooperates 
with the socialized branches of the Police Department, girls com- 
ing before this court are spared being booked at the police sta- 
tion and in the very largest percentage of cases, detention in the 
Women’s Jail. Transportation is in all instances provided by 
other than official police vehicles. The manner in which the 
148 THE YOUTH IN COURT 
case first comes to the court’s attention takes it completely out 
of criminal court procedure and setting and makes its features 
parallel many of those found in the children’s court. 
There is little question but what this procedure has demon- 
strated the value and effectiveness of a socialized and individual- 
ized approach in behalf of the adolescent girl delinquent. 
THE WAYWARD MINOR PROCEDURE IN THE COURT 
OF GENERAL SESSIONS. In. the following words the District 
Attorney of New York County, Thomas E. Dewey, described the 
plan introduced by him in the Court of General Sessions in 
November of 1940: 
"For youths between the ages of sixteen and eighteen, 
inclusive, who are without criminal records and who 
are not charged with crimes of violence, the probation 
department will, with the consent of counsel for the 
defendant, make a probation investigation before any 
trial is had. The defendant also will attend the psychia- 
tric clinic before trial, instead of after conviction. 
"If the facts ascertained during investigation indicate 
strong possibility of reform, the offender may be placed 
on probation as a wayward minor, and the indictment 
dismissed. Names of the offenders thus dealt with are 
not disclosed, and police records of their offenses are 
destroyed, providing they make good. If they fail to 
make good they are committed as wayward minors’’. 
The wayward minor procedure in the Court of General Sessions 
is a pre-pleading procedure. All of the cases for whom this form 
of treatment is being considered are out on parole—the magis- 
trate has so released them, or they are paroled by the court after 
it has received them on indictment. No one appears in the 
Court of General Sessions without an attorney. If he is not rep- 
resented, the Court assigns counsel, and this applies, as well, in 
the cases of youths. 
The procedure is used only where the defendant is prepared 
to plead guilty. After he has consented so to plead, no plea is 
asked on the wayward minor complaint because youths so held 
149 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
are adjudicated and not convicted. The Court states that it has 
had no problem with any youth held for the wayward minor 
treatment who was not ready to plead guilty to the offense for 
which he stood indicted. 
When the indictment is received from the Grand Jury and the 
offender is discovered to be a youth, he is continued on parole 
and referred to the Probation Department for investigation. The 
defendant-through counsel—gives his verbal consent on the 
record to waive his immunity not to have the circumstances of 
the instant offense investigated. This waiver is entered on the 
court order. From this point on the usual intensive probation 
investigation is made, including a physical, psychometric and 
psychiatric examination. The probation report is particularly 
detailed as to prior criminal record—name and fingerprints are 
cleared through police departments, the children’s court, magis- 
trates court, the department of correction, City and State parole 
departments, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, etc. 
When the report is completed, the chief probation officer and 
the social service representative from the District Attorney’s 
office discuss it and determine whether or not the youth should 
be treated as a wayward minor, taking only those adolescents 
whom they believe will make good on probation. 
After this determination is made, a date is then set for hearing 
the case in chambers. At this time the probation officer and the 
District Attorney’s representative hold a conference with the 
judge. The boy, his counsel and his parents are then called in, 
the case is discussed and the judge states the reasons for the 
decision to handle the case as a wayward minor. He then sits 
as a magistrate, the hearing and adjudication taking place 
informally. A day or two thereafter, the District Attorney asks 
for the dismissal of the indictment in open court. All of this 
procedure is centralized in Part I of the Court where arraign- 
ments are heard; the same judge who holds the wayward minor 
hearing presides at this Part. 
From this point, the case is handled on probation under super- 
vision or treatment as is any other case handled by the General 
Sessions Probation Department, in accordance with the following 
steps: 
150 THE YOUTH IN COURT 
1. an order is received from the court adjudicating the offender 
as a wayward minor and placing him on probation; 
2. the court attendant delivers the youth to the Probation Depart- 
ment where he is turned over to the investigation division; 
3. he is then interviewed by a case supervisor or by the chief of 
supervision in order to assure that his first contact will be 
made with an executive; 
4. he is then introduced to the officer who will supervise him on 
probation; 
5. a brief outline is written up of the case plus whatever has been 
learned from the boy; 
6. the probation supervisor must within three months develop a 
program for the probationer, based on his needs, liabilities and 
assets. Every few months thereafter a summary of progress 
and revision of the treatment program is made; 
7. upon completion of his probation term, the youth is discharged 
by the judge. 
In this Department, great reliance is placed on long periods 
of probation: three years are usually given for a misdemeanor, 
five years for a felony, and terms may even run as long as ten 
years. It is in this kind of a setting that the probation conditions 
for the wayward minor are decided and his case supervised. 
Because individualization of the offender determines whether 
or not he will be treated as a wayward minor, more offenders in 
this age group have been rejected than accepted for this pro- 
cedure. Of 325 indictments of youths sixteen, seventeen or 
eighteen years of age, 145 pre-pleading investigations were made 
by the Probation Department. Of these, forty-two (29.0 per cent) 
were finally made wayward minors, which represented 12.1 per 
cent of the total age group. The balance were handled as regu- 
lar criminal cases. 
In a recent group of 56 cases held for pre-pleading investiga- 
tions between the ages of sixteen and nineteen; 
(a) 41 were paroled 
(b) 8 were held on bail 
(c) 7 were detained in jail 
151 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
(a) of these, only 15 were held finally as wayward minors, 24 
took a plea, of whom 16 were placed on probation and 8 
were committed (2 to Napanoch) ; 1 was dsicharged on his 
own recognizance, and 1 case is still pending; 
(b) all of these were handled as wayward minors; 
(c) of these 5 pleaded guilty to petty larceny (3 of whom went 
to Coxsackie, 1 to New York City Reformatory, and 1 to 
Children’s Village); 2 pleaded guilty to assault in the 
second degree (of whom 1 went to Elmira and 1 to State 
Prison). 
The thorough investigation which precedes the determination 
to treat as a wayward minor, and the intensive probation over- 
sight which follows in those cases which are so adjudicated, com- 
mends this procedure. These advantages, however, hardly com- 
pensate for its unfavorable features: the youth is treated by this 
plan only after the process of police, lower court, grand jury and 
perhaps the jail has had its effect. Functionally speaking, and in 
a court less generously furnished with provisions for detailed 
investigations and intensive supervision, there would be little to 
differentiate this plan from the plans now in operation in other 
county courts. There is nothing in this plan which could not be 
done, as this Committee believes it should be done, in a court of 
first instance, as soon after the commission of the offense as the 
arresting officer can bring the youth before such a court. 
THE NEW YORK COUNTY "YOUTH COUNSEL BUREAU". 
In this report we have quoted figures from a New York Crime 
Commission Report to the effect that approximately 60 per cent 
of the youths, who are now run through the mill of our crim- 
inal courts, are finally found innocent or dismissed with no fur- 
ther supervision by the court. This number includes cases dis- 
missed in the lower courts, cases in which "no bill" has been 
returned, as well as acquittals by the upper courts. Although 
these defendants may be completely innocent or are found not 
guilty, technically, of any offense, it is undeniable that the fact 
of their apprehension may be some evidence of their need for 
help. 
152 TH2 YOUTH IN COURT 
For this reason a Bureau has recently been created in the office 
of the District Attorney of New York County to receive referrals 
of cases between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one which have 
been dismissed by the Court of Special Sessions, or where the 
Grand Jury has failed to indict or where there has been an 
acquittal by the Court of General Sessions. 
The Youth Counsel Bureau was set up in June 1941, with a 
staff consisting of a director—on leave from the Bureau of 
Adjustment of the Children’s Court—and one representative 
each from the Community Service Society, the Catholic Char- 
itable Bureau and the Jewish Board of Guardians. 
These three case work representatives were appointed after 
interviews by the Governing Board of the Bureau. Their salaries 
are paid by their respective agencies; that of the director as well 
as certain incidental expenses are covered by private donations. 
Rent and telephone are supplied by the office of the District 
Attorney, secretarial services by the National Youth Adminis- 
tration. 
As of October 15th, 1941 the Bureau has handled approxi- 
mately eighty cases. This number by no means represents an 
estimate of the total work which the Bureau can—and eventually 
may—do. In some of the cases included in this total the Bureau 
had no contact with the clients themselves, who were directly 
referred to outside agencies for help. 
When a youth is not indicted by the Grand Jury or is acquitted 
after a hearing, he is given a slip by the clerk of the court and 
referred to the office of the Bureau. Here his first question is 
as to the purpose of his visit. He suspects that perhaps there 
may be papers to sign, or that this is an indirect form of proba- 
tion or other supervision. Because he is referred just after the 
court has terminated its control over him, he usually reports 
as he is told. 
The attitude of the Bureau worker is one of voluntary assist- 
ance: the youth is told at the first interview that he is completely 
free either to accept or reject this help as he chooses. Because 
of the relief which the released or acquitted defendant feels as 
a result of his discharge by the Grand Jury or by the court, he 
153 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
may leave with some unexpressed resentment toward the Bureau, 
and this first interview may be the last. In those cases where 
the young man is accompanied by his parent or where he clearly 
wishes some definite help, such as securing a job, and he accepts 
the proffered assistance of the Bureau, he has been found more 
likely to make a contact with the agency to which the Bureau 
then refers him. The work of the Bureau consists entirely in 
referring the youth to the community agency best equipped to 
render him the special service which he may require. Being 
entirely voluntary, the Bureau does not supervise or otherwise 
attempt to control or direct the youth in any way. 
Bureau workers have been experimenting with a procedure 
which commits neither them nor the client—to the effect that 
"this is a thing you are expected to do’’—which may delay the 
young man’s reaction until he has made an initial contact with 
the agency which can then be of help to him. The youth referred 
by the court wishes to forget his court experience and the fear 
associated with it as rapidly as possible and if these reactions 
can be delayed for a short period, the Bureau feels that it can 
then be of greater help. There is the additional fact that in 
many cases which are not indicted or which are discharged, there 
may be some degree of culpability despite the fact that the Grand 
Jury or the Court may not have considered the evidence sufficient 
to establish it. 
The Bureau has had several instances of youths who rejected 
its aid when it was first proffered but who later returned to ask 
for assistance. 
One of the values of this Bureau seems to be its influence on 
the socialization of the court process, particularly in the treat- 
ment and rehabilitation of the adolescent offender—in this case 
the offender who has been found not guilty. It is a leaven in 
the criminal court procedure and in time should come to have 
a definite effect on the attitude of youthful offenders generally 
toward the court, as well as upon the court itself. 
The Bureau has been in existence for too short a time for its 
work properly to be evaluated. Beginning as it did during the 
summer recess, most of its time has been devoted to staff train- 
154 THE YOUTH IN COURT 
ing and to developing policy. The Bureau needs further time 
to adapt itself to the functions and processes which comprise the 
criminal court procedure. Regardless of what else is done in 
the way of altering this court procedure for adolescents, there 
is little question but what the principle of the Youth Counsel 
Bureau is a commendable one. It is crime preventive in its 
ultimate purpose: to help correct those elements in his environ- 
ment and personal situation which brought the offender into 
court—even though he was found innocent. The fact that this 
is done on a voluntary level, through the referral of cases to 
agencies which stand ready to help, does not minimize the value 
of the Bureau’s work as helping to prevent the return of the 
young defendant to court on another complaint. 
There is a close parallel between this procedure and the way- 
ward minor technique as first introduced in the Magistrates’ 
Courts of New York in 1932. In the latter instance, the court 
sought for some way of securing jurisdiction over a youth who, 
though discharged—for want of evidence or otherwise—was in 
need of some supervision. 
The Youth Counsel Bureau, on the other hand, extends a 
purely voluntary help to the discharged or acquitted youth, 
which he may accept or reject as he chooses. The difference 
between these two procedures epitomizes the change which has 
taken place in social work thinking in the past decade. 
With the non-criminal procedure which we have recommended 
for the hearing and adjudication of the cases of youthful offend- 
ers, there will be a greater opportunity for the introduction of 
all kinds of social services in connection with the work of the 
court. Among these should be included some measure of atten- 
tion to the youth who, though discharged by the court, is never- 
theless in need of further help. To this end we commend the 
plan of the Youth Counsel Bureau to the attention of the youth 
courts which will be created upon the enactment of the bills 
proposed in this report. 
155 CH.PXBK VIII. DRAFT ACTS FOR 
A YOUTH COURT 
introductory 
One o£ the great difficulties confronting the administration 
of the criminal law is that the statutes under which our courts 
must operate are—to say the least—decades behind the advance 
of social theory and the status of public opinion. Each time that 
we attempt to narrow the breach between the demands of the 
criminal law and the accepted attitude of society in these mat- 
ters, we find that meanwhile theory and public opinion have 
again advanced and our law is almost as backward as it was 
before being amended. 
It is a truism that in any field of social legislation there exists 
a certain lag between what has come to be accepted and what 
our laws say about it. Innumerable examples may be cited from 
our legislative experience—both State and Federal—especially in 
the last decade. But in the realm of criminal law this lag seems 
always to be greater than in any other field. The reason for 
this may, perhaps, be found in the fact that our criminal law 
precedents go back to the very taproots of English law and in 
the further fact that we hesitate to disturb these precedents for 
fear of weakening the safeguards which have been thrown up 
about the liberties of the individual defendant. 
The experience with capital offenses has been that the courts 
have in fact discontinued the imposition of the death penalty for 
many of these offenses long before they are removed from the DRAFT ACTS FOR A YOUTH COURT 
capital class by legislative enactment. As only one example: 
transportation as a form of sentence was abandoned in England 
at least twenty years before it was outlawed by statute. 
The efforts made in the juvenile institution field between 1825 
and 1900, heralded a new approach to the treatment of the 
delinquent child. Yet our criminal courts continued to have 
jurisdiction over these same delinquents and it was not until 
1924 that all the children’s courts of the State were freed from 
any association with the criminal court process. The fact that 
we are not yet thoroughly consistent in our treatment of children 
in chancery rather than criminal court fashion is seen by the 
remaining vestiges of criminal court terminology and procedure 
in the laws governing the operation of our excellent children’s 
courts. 
Any attempt on the part of courts to impose the harsh penal- 
ties permitted by the law is met by an attitude on the part of 
juries and others to mitigate this harshness. The best example 
of this is seen in the operation of the Baumes Law by which 
juries hesitate to find an offender guilty if his record showed three 
previous convictions for a serious offense. 
On the other hand, the public generally has applauded rather 
than condemned the judge or the court which uses its discretion 
to shield deserving cases from the full rigors of the criminal law 
provisions. It is an interesting commentary upon our courts and 
upon the state of public opinion that not a single appeal has 
been taken from any of the extra-legal procedures employed by 
our courts to spare the youthful offender a conviction for a crime, 
when some such procedure as that of the Wayward Minor Law 
could be substituted in its place. A strict interpretation of any 
of the procedures employed by the courts described in the pre- 
ceding chapter would immediately rule out the meritorious work 
which they have been doing. This has not occurred because 
of the realization that the criminal courts are behind the social 
thinking of the times and, therefore, any measures which they 
may themselves introduce to bridge this gap will receive only 
commendation. YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
English and American criminal courts, since time unknown, 
have had the power to reduce serious charges to less serious, 
in order that true justice may be done in the case of a defend- 
ant who, while he may be strictly held by the terms of a felony 
complaint, is nevertheless deserving—by reason of various miti- 
gating circumstances—of a less rigorous conviction. 
Likewise for many centuries, the factor of youth has been one 
of the most important of these "mitigating circumstances”. The 
common law has held rather strictly to the magic number seven 
—and its multiples—in considering the cases of young offenders. 
Children under seven are considered incapable of committing a 
criminal offense, while in the case of those between seven and 
fourteen, the presumption of full accountability is waived, except 
as the prosecution may establish it. The age of twenty-one as 
the dividing line between minority and majority is the final 
expression of this rule of seven. 
Whatever special measures for the treatment of youthful 
offenders may now exist, or be contemplated by the Legislature, 
are the direct result of the pioneering work which the children’s 
courts have done. They have demonstrated for all the world 
to see that a non-criminal procedure is more effective than that 
of the criminal court in determining those measures which will, 
at the same time, most surely safeguard society and the future 
well-being of the child. This philosophy and this procedure 
underlie the special measures which, quite without legislative 
sanction, are now being employed by our courts in the case of 
offenders above children’s court age. 
This Committee is moved to make the recommendation con- 
tained in this report and drafted in the form of the two separate 
bills which follow, by its conviction that the time has come to 
legalize in forthright fashion and to make uniform throughout 
the State the best that is now being done for the youthful defend- 
ant. 
Some criminal courts in the State have in the past reduced 
either to a lesser offense or to a charge of "wayward minor” 
those criminal complaints against youths which were referred 
to them. This is at best an evasive, dangerous, not to say, extra- DRAFT ACTS FOR A YOUTH COURT 
legal process. The fact that the Legislature has enacted a bill 
allowing the Adolescent’s Courts, so-called, of Kings and Queens 
County to continue their procedure up to July 1, 1942 does not 
legalize the work of these Courts, strictly speaking, prior to the 
enactment of this bill. The sole purpose of this stop-gap meas- 
ure was to give this Committee and the Legislature an extension 
of time in which to determine finally the steps which our State 
should undertake. (See Chapter 10, pp. 217 and 218.) 
Experience has proven that no amount of careful individual- 
ized dealing by a socialized court can successfully offset the harm 
done to the youthful offender through the demoralizing and some- 
times brutalizing methods of police apprehension and investiga- 
tion, and of detention prior to arraignment. It is imperative, 
therefore, that as soon as a youth is taken into custody that he 
be brought at once before the court which will hear his case, 
and this requires that it be a court of first instance. The Com- 
mittee has so provided in the acts which it has drafted, and which 
it submits herewith. 
These bills contain another fundamental principle which 
reverses the irregular procedure which has existed hitherto in 
the cases of adolescents. Instead of having the cases of youths 
presented to the courts by means of a criminal complaint, which 
must then somehow be set aside, these bills provide that such 
cases shall first be presented upon petition, in much the same 
manner as the cases of delinquent children now come before the 
children’s courts. Instead of allowing the judge to make a deter- 
mination as to whether or not a criminal complaint or a wayward 
minor complaint shall lie, as is now done, frequently without the 
benefit of an investigation into the offender’s history, background 
and condition, these bills specify that the probation report shall 
precede any such decision; that the youth shall have an oppor- 
tunity to convince the court that the protective rather than the 
criminal procedure shall be followed, and that the district attor- 
ney’s recommendation in the matter shall also be heard. If the 
court determines, as a result of this hearing and on the basis of 
reports before it, that the offender shall be held as a youthful 
offender, the procedure remains entirely on a chancery basis. If YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
the court is persuaded that the welfare of society and the condi- 
tion of the youth require that he be held on the criminal side, 
the case may then be summarily disposed of—if it is a matter 
coming under the jurisdiction of a magistrate—or the youth may 
be held for a higher court or for indictment by the grand jury. 
This is the essence of the bills which are submitted below. 
The Committee believes that it has enunciated in them an impor- 
tant principle—that all youthful offenders who now come before 
the court shall first have an opportunity to be treated as the chil- 
dren’s court now treats them—as young people "in need of aid, 
encouragement, and guidance.” This is not sentimentality; the 
Committee is not here urging that a tender and careless procedure 
be introduced into our courts for the handling of the cases of 
youthful offenders. But it is convinced that the time has come 
to place in the court system of our State a protective procedure 
which will give no special favor to anyone, because the granting 
of this protection is the privilege and right of every youthful 
defendant on his initial appearance before the court. At the 
same time, the interests of the public are safeguarded by permit- 
ting the case of a youthful defendant who requires to be treated 
by that method, to fall back into the stricter channels of the 
criminal law and criminal court procedure. 
These bills have been carefully drafted and thereafter sub- 
jected to critical examination prior to submission to the Legis- 
lature. The Committee recommends their enactment, confident 
that their passage and application will assure to the young people 
of the State a greater measure of equitable and protective care 
and treatment than has been granted to them hitherto. 
The Committee suggests to judges, probation officers, institu- 
tional personnel, educators, psychiatrists and social workers gen- 
erally that they maintain a critical and evaluative attitude toward 
the Youth Courts which will be established under the terms of 
the bills which we here propose. We further recommend that 
this question be discussed not only at statewide conferences of 
these professional groups but also in the larger national bodies 
with which they are affiliated to the end that there may be a 
mutual exchange of ideas regarding the treatment of the adoles- DRAFT ACTS FOR A YOUTH COURT 
cent offender, and amendments offered from time to time such 
as may be necessary to render these laws more effective in the 
area to which they now apply. 
jin • ict TO AMEND THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS 
COURT ACT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, IN RELATION TO 
THE DISPOSITION OF CASES INVOLVING MINORS UNDER 
NINETEEN YEARS OF AGE 
The People of the State of New York, 
represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 
Section 1. There is hereby added to section two of chapter 
four hundred eighty-two of the laws of nineteen hundred thirty- 
three, entitled "An act to establish in and for the city of New 
York a court of domestic relations, to be known as the domestic 
relations court of the city of New York, and defining its powers, 
jurisdiction and procedure and providing for its organization,” a 
new subdivision to read as follows: 
13-a. Youth means any person, of either sex, who shall have 
attained his or her sixteenth birthday but shall not have attained 
his or her nineteenth birthday. 
§ 2. There is hereby added to section two of such chapter, a 
new subdivision to read as follows: 
15-a. Youthful offender means a youth who is delinquent in 
that he has violated any law of this state or any ordinance of the 
city of New York, except where such violation (1) is punishable 
by death or life imprisonment, or (2) is a violation of any traffic 
law, traffic ordinance or traffic regulation, which is not a felony 
or misdemeanor. 
§ 3. Subdivision fourteen of section two of such chapter 
is hereby amended to read as follows: 
explanation: Matter in italics is new; matter in brackets [ } is old 
law to be omitted. YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
14. Adult means a person [sixteen] nineteen years of age 
or older. 
§ 4, Section five of such chapter is hereby amended to read 
as follows: 
5. Divisions of the court. The court shall comprise [two] 
three divisions to be known as the "Children’s Court,” the "Youth 
Court” and the "Family Court,” respectively. 
§ 5. Section nine of such chapter, as amended by chapter 
three hundred sixty-two of the laws of nineteen hundred thirty- 
four, is hereby amended to read as follows: 
§ 9. Additional justices. Upon the receipt by him of a certi- 
ficate signed by two-thirds of the justices stating that in their 
opinion the business of the court requires it, the mayor may, 
from time to time, either, appoint additional justices for such 
time as said certificate states to be necessary, but in no case longer 
than for a full term of ten years; or, with the approval of the 
chief city magistrate assign any duly appointed city magistrate 
having all of the qualifications sped fed in section six of this 
act to the work of the court. During such assignment, however, 
a city magistrate shall exercise all of the powers and be subject 
to all of the limitations of this act provided, however, that he 
shall serve without additional compensation. Upon the expira- 
tion of the term of any city magistrate during his assignment to 
the work of the court the mayor may appoint such magistrate a 
justice of the court if he has shown himself to be especially 
qualified for the court’s work. 
§ 6. There is hereby added to such chapter a new section as 
follows: 
AG-a. Separation of buildings and facilities. All of the activ- 
ities of the youth court division shall be carried on in buildings 
which shall be physically separate and apart from the building 
used or occupied by any other division of the court, or any other 
court, except that tvhere this is not practicable all rooms and 
facilities used by youths shall be physically separate and apart 
so as to be inaccessible from other parts of the same building in 
tvhich any such other court or division shall be in session and 
shall have separate entrances; provided however that hearing 
162 DRAFT ACTS FOR A YOUTH COURT 
rooms used by the childrens division or the family division may 
also be used for the hearing of youths if at the time of such use 
such rooms, their approaches, waiting rooms and all other facili- 
ties used by such youths are not accessible to children or to adults 
charged with criminal offenses. 
§ 7. There is hereby added to such chapter a new section as 
follows; 
48-a. Rooms for youths. So far as possible a waiting room 
with a competent person in charge shall be provided for the care 
of youths brought before the youth court division. Unless 
directed by the court, youths shall not be permitted in the court 
room of the youth court division, except ivhere the proceedings 
are in relation to the youth. 
§ 8. Section fifty-two of such chapter, amended by chapter 
three hundred forty-six of the laws of nineteen hundred thirty- 
six -and chapter nine hundred forty-three of the laws of nineteen 
hundred forty-one is hereby amended to read as follows: 
52. Privacy of records. The records of any case, including 
fingerprints and photographs in either the children’s court, the 
youth court or the family court shall not be open to inspection 
[except to members of the Bar.], except that the [The] peti- 
tion, process, formal motions and other papers appropriate to a 
judgment roll on a case on appeal [however] shall be open 
to inspection by the parent, guardian, next friend or attorney of 
the child or youth in a proceeding in the children’s court or the 
youth court and to the petitioner and respondent or their respect- 
ive attorneys in a proceeding in the family court. However, the 
court in its discretion, upon the application of an interested party 
and after proper inquiry, may permit the inspection of any papers 
or records ti in any particular case if it is made to appear that 
the interests of the yo'uth or of the child or of the family may be 
served thereby; provided, however, that any social agency [Any] 
duly authorized and approved by the court [agency, association, 
society or institution to which a child is committed] may cause 
an inspection of the record of investigation to be had and may 
in the discretion of the court obtain a copy of the whole or part 
of such record. 
163 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
§ 9. There is hereby added to such chapter a new title, Title 
II-A, to read as follows: 
TITLE II-A 
Article 1. Jurisdiction. 
2. Preliminary procedure. 
3. Hearings; adjudications. 
4. Validity; time o£ taking effect, et cetera. 
§ 90-a. Jurisdiction. 1. There shall be a youth court division 
in each county of the city, which court shall have exclusive orig- 
inal jurisdiction within such county to hear and determine all 
cases or proceedings involving the hearing, trial, parole, proba- 
tion, remand or commitment of youthful offenders. 
2. When jurisdiction shall have been obtained by the court 
in the case of any youth, such youth shall continue for the pur- 
poses of this act under the jurisdiction of the court until he 
attains his twenty-first birthday unless committed, held to answer 
a criminal charge in another court or discharged prior thereto. 
3. The youth court division shall, except as herein otherwise 
provided, have exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases against 
persons charged with a failure to obey any order of the court 
made pursuant to the provisions of this section, and any violation 
of an order made pursuant to the provisions of this section shall 
be punishable as a misdemeanor, but the court may, in its dis- 
cretion, proceed with and adjudicate upon it as a contempt of 
court. 
4. The court shall also have power to punish any person guilty 
of a criminal contempt as prescribed by article nineteen of the 
judiciary law. 
5. Justices of the domestic relations court sitting in the youth 
court division shall have all the powers granted to city magistrates 
by the New York city criminal courts act. 
90-b. Venue. All petitions or complaints over which the 
youth court division has jurisdiction shall be heard within the 
county where the offense is alleged to have been committed. 
THE YOUTH COURT DIVISION 
164 DRAFT ACTS FOR A YOUTH COURT 
ARTICLE II 
PRELIMINARY PROCEDURE 
Section 90-c. Petition. 
90-d. Issuance of summons and other processes. 
90-e. Service of summons. 
90-f. Arrests; transfers from other courts. 
90-g. Procedure. 
90-h. Hearings; how held. 
90-c. Petition. Any person may institute a proceeding respect- 
ing a youth by filing with the court a petition, verified by affidavit, 
stating such facts as will bring the youth within the jurisdiction 
of the court. The petition shall include the name and street 
address of the youth and a prayer to the court for such action or 
relief as the law provides. The title of the proceedings shall 
be "Court of Domestic Relations of the City of New York, 
Youth Court Division, County of , In the Matter of 
, a youth over the age of sixteen years and 
under the age of nineteen years.” 
90-d. Issuance of summons and other processes. Upon the 
filing of a petition the justice may, either forthwith or after an 
investigation which he may direct to be made, cause a summons 
to be issued, which shall be signed by him or by the clerk of the 
court, requiring the youth to appear at the court at a time and 
place named to show cause why such youth should not be dealt 
with according to law, or in his discretion, the justice may issue 
a warrant for the arrest of the youth. The court may also issue 
a subpoena, or in a proper case a warrant or other process, to 
secure or compel the attendance of any person whose testimony 
or presence at a hearing or proceeding is deemed by the court 
to be necessary; and any person who wilfully fails or refuses to 
obey any process of the court shall be guilty of a contempt of 
court, and, except as otherwise herein provided, may be punished 
therefor as prescribed by article nineteen of the judiciary law. 
90-e. Service of summons. Service of a summons shall be 
made by delivery of a true copy thereof to the person summoned. 
165 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
In case the summons cannot be served, or the person or persons 
served fail to obey the same, and in any case where the court 
believes that a summons might be ineffectual, or that the welfare 
of a youth requires that such youth shall be brought forthwith 
into the custody of the court, a warrant may be issued by the 
court against the youth. All papers, warrants, or other process 
shall be served by any peace officer of the city of New York, or 
of the county in which the court is located, when such officer is 
directed so to do by the court or a justice thereof. 
90-f. Arrests; transfers from other courts. 1. Whenever any 
youth is arrested for any offense specified in subdivision fifteen-a 
of section two of this chapter with or without a warrant, it shall 
be the duty of the officer having such youth in charge imme- 
diately to notify the parent, guardian or other person responsible 
for its custody or control, or the person with whom such youth 
is domiciled, that such youth has been taken into custody; and 
forthwith with all convenient speed the officer shall directly and 
without his being first taken to the police precinct station house, 
take such youth to the youth court division located in the county 
in which the offense, if any, was committed, if the court is in 
session, and if not in session, then to the rooms, office, shelter 
or other place of detention designated by the board of justices 
for the reception of youths and the officer making the arrest 
shall immediately make and file a petition as hereinbefore pro- 
vided. Nothing herein contained shall be held to prohibit the 
acceptance of bail or recognizance as provided in subdivision 
four of section five hundred and fifty-four of the code of criminal 
procedure. A youth court division shall be organized in the 
counties of New York, Bronx, Richmond, Kings and Queens 
and shall be open for the purpose of entering and receiving peti- 
tions every day of the year. In the event a petition or complaint 
shall be filed on a day when the court is not in session, a parent, 
guardian, attorney or friend of the youth may obtain a copy of 
such petition and apply at the nearest police precinct station for 
the fixing of bail and have bail fixed for the appearance of said 
youth at the next session of the youth court division. 
2. In no event shall any youth be at any time detained in any 
166 DRAFT ACTS FOR A YOUTH COURT 
room, office, shelter or other place wherein are also detained at 
the same time either children or adults. 
3. When any person is brought before any magistrate or other 
court for arraignment, hearing or trial, and it is found that such 
youth is over the age of sixteen years and under the age of nine- 
teen years, such magistrate or court shall immediately by order 
transfer the case or proceeding to the part of the youth court 
division located in the county having jurisdiction of the case, and 
shall direct that the youth shall forthwith be brought before and 
delivered to this court, if it be in session, and if it is not in session, 
then to the rooms, office, shelter or other place of detention 
designated by the board of justices for the reception of youths. 
90-g. Procedure. Where the method of procedure in a case, 
action or proceeding in which the court has jurisdiction is not 
prescribed by this act, such procedure shall be the same as pro- 
vided by law for other courts exercising like jurisdiction, or by 
the rules adopted by the board and the court shall have such 
jurisdiction as may be necessary to enable it to carry out and 
enforce the provisions of this act. The presiding justice may 
provide for holding in any county of New York city such special 
parts of the youth court division for any specified classes of 
offenders to be held at such times and places subject to the pro- 
visions of this title as he shall determine. 
90-h. Hearings; how held. All cases in which youths are 
involved, shall be heard separately and apart from the trial or 
hearing of cases against adults or children. The court shall 
have power upon the hearing of any case involving any youth, 
to exclude the general public from the room wherein the said 
hearing is held, admitting thereto only such persons as may have 
a direct interest in the case. 
ARTICLE III 
hearing; adjudications 
Section 90-i. Custody of youth; release. 
90-j. Place of detention. 
90-k. Hearings and judgments. 
90-1. Criminal proceedings. 
167 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
Section 90-m. Right of youth to be dealt with as an adult. 
90-n. Immunity. 
90*o. Adjudication not to serve as a disqualification. 
90-p. Mental and physical examination; treatment. 
90-q. Modification, setting aside or vacating of judgment. 
90-r. Visits to institutions. 
90-s. Religion of custodial persons and agencies. 
90-t. Additional expenses made necessary by act. 
90-u. Construction of act. 
90-i. Custody of youth; release. If it appears from the peti- 
tion that the interests of justice require the immediate apprehen- 
sion of a youth, a justice may endorse or cause to be endorsed 
upon the summons an order that the officer serving the same 
shall at once take such youth into custody or he may issue a 
warrant as provided by law. 
Any youth in custody may be discharged by the court, or pend- 
ing final action in his case the youth may be released on bail or 
paroled in the custody of a parent, guardian, probation officer 
or other person, or remanded to the custody of a duly authorized 
agency, association, society or institution designated by the court 
which may direct that such youth shall be brought before the 
court at a time specified. 
90-j. Place of detention. No youth coming within the provi- 
sions of this act shall be placed in or committed to any prison, 
jail, lockup or other place or shall be transported in any vehicle 
where such youth can come in contact at any time or in any 
manner with any adult or child who has been found neglected 
or delinquent, or been convicted of a crime, or who is under 
arrest, or who is awaiting action on a petition, complaint or 
indictment. Unless suitable accommodations for the detention 
of youths, held for hearing or disposition or as material witnesses 
shall have been provided, the presiding justice generally, or the 
justice in the specific case presiding, may, for the purpose of 
carrying into effect the provisions of this act, arrange for such 
youth or youths temporarily to board or lodge in a private home 
or in the custody of some fit person, subject to the supervision 
of the court; or the court or a Justice may, by order, direct any 
168 DRAFT ACTS FOR A YOUTH COURT 
duly authorized association, agency, society or institution main- 
taining, in accordance with the law, a suitable place of detention 
for youths, to provide temporary care in such place of detention 
for any youth detained under the jurisdiction of the court or 
subject to its orders or supervision. The reasonable cost of such 
maintenance, and the maintenance of youths committed by the 
court, shall be provided by the city of New York. 
90-k. Hearings and judgments. Upon the return of a sum- 
mons or other process, or after any youth has been taken into 
custody, he shall immediately be taken before a justice of the 
court, if the court be in session, or if it is not in session, at the 
next session, for preliminary hearing. If, upon such preliminary 
hearing, the court shall find that the youth is subject to its juris- 
diction, the court shall set a time for a final hearing and shall 
refer the case to an appropriate officer of the court who shall 
inquire into the habits, surroundings, conditions and tendencies 
of the youth so as to enable the court to render such order or 
judgment as shall best conserve the welfare of the youth and 
carry out the objects of this act. The court may in its discretion 
order the fingerprinting and photographing of any youth. The 
court may from time to time adjourn the hearing and pending 
final action place the youth in the custody of a parent, guardian, 
relative or other fit person and, if the court so directs, under the 
supervision of a probation officer. 
The court, having before it a report including the results of 
such examinations as the court in its discretion may order, and 
after the district attorney has had an opportunity to recommend 
to the court whether or not the youth should be prosecuted for 
the crime or offense which he is#alleged to have committed, shall 
determine whether the youth is a youthful offender within the 
meaning of section fifteen-a of this act, and, if it so finds, shall 
determine whether it will best conserve the welfare of the youth 
and of society, and best accomplish the objects of this act to 
relieve the youth from criminal prosecution. If the material 
facts alleged in the petition are not sustained by the preponder- 
ance of competent evidence, the petition shall be dismissed and 
the youth discharged. If the youth is found to be a youthful 
169 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
offender who should be relieved from criminal prosecution, the 
court shall render judgment in one of the following ways: 
a. Place the youth in his own home or in the custody of a 
relative or other ht person subject, however, to the super- 
vision of a probation officer and to the further orders of 
the court; 
b. Commit the youth to the care and custody of a suitable 
institution maintained by the state or any subdivision there- 
of, or to the care and custody of a duly authorized associa- 
tion, agency, society or institution; 
c. Require the youth to make restitution from the youth’s own 
earnings, in such manner as the court may determine, to 
anyone injured by a violation of law for which the court 
finds the youth to be responsible or, in the alternative, 
remand, commit or place on probation as herein provided; 
d. Suspend judgment; 
e. Render such other and further judgment, or make such 
other order or commitment as the court may be authorized 
by law to make. 
A youth may be placed and continued on probation for such 
time as the court may deem proper, but such period shall not 
extend in any case beyond his twenty-first birthday. In any case 
of a violation of the probationary conditions, the court may 
impose upon the probationer, at any time prior to his twenty-first 
birthday and irrespective of his age at the time of such violation, 
any penalty or penalties which it might have imposed before 
placing him on probation. 
90-1. Criminal proceedings. In the event that the court shall 
determine that the youth should not be relieved from prosecu- 
tion, it shall immediately direct that a formal complaint be filed 
charging the youth with the crime or offense which he is alleged 
to have committed and shall fix a time for a hearing on such 
complaint. At such hearing a justice of the court, sitting as a 
magistrate, shall determine, as otherwise provided by law, 
whether there is sufficient evidence to hold the youth to answer 
criminal charges in the appropriate court; or, if the charge be 
one over which a magistrate has summary jurisdiction, as con- 
170 DRAFT ACTS FOR A YOUTH COURT 
ferred by the New York city criminal courts act, the court shall 
render final judgment as provided for by law. 
If the court finds that there is sufficient evidence, the youth 
shall be held to answer to the grand jury or to the court of 
special sessions as the nature of the court’s finding may require, 
and the court shall by order direct that the record of the pro- 
ceeding before the judge sitting as a committing magistrate be 
forwarded to the district attorney and the court may fix the 
amount of bail to be furnished by or on behalf of the youth or 
may parole him for his appearance to answer the charges pend- 
ing against him. 
90-m. Right of youth to be dealt with as an adult. At any 
time after the filing of a petition and before the court has 
rendered judgment after final hearing the youth may demand 
that the charges against him be determined in accordance with 
the provisions of law as if he were an adult. Whereupon the 
court shall dismiss the petition and proceed in the same manner 
as provided for in section ninety-1 of this title. 
90-n. Immunity. Upon the court’s determination that a youth 
is a youthful offender who should be relieved from criminal 
prosecution such youth shall be immune from any prosecution 
or penalty except as provided in this act, for the crime or offense 
alleged in the petition or which he is adjudged to have committed 
and discharge from probation shall immunize him from further 
prosecution or penalty until and unless a new offense is com- 
mitted. 
90-o. Adjudication not to serve as a disqualification. No deter- 
mination made under the provisions ninety-k of this title shall 
operate as a disqualification of any youth subsequently to hold 
public office or as a forfeiture of any right or privilege or to 
receive any license granted by public authority; and no youth 
shall be denominated a criminal by reason of such determination, 
nor shall such determination be deemed a conviction. Neither 
the fact that a youth has been before the youth court for hearing 
nor any confession, admission or statement made by him to the 
court or to any officer thereof before he shall have attained his 
nineteenth birthday, shall ever be admissible as evidence against 
171 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
him or his interest in any other court, except where the proceed- 
ings in the youth court were held in pursuance of sections ninety-1 
and 90-m of this title. Nothing in this section contained, how- 
ever, shall be construed to prevent any court in imposing sentence 
upon an adult after conviction from receiving and considering the 
records and information on file in the youth court with reference 
to such adult when he was a youth, or shall be construed to pre- 
vent this court from considering the same upon a subsequent 
occasion. 
90-p. Mental and physical examination; treatment. The court 
in its discretion, during or after a hearing, may cause any youth 
within its jurisdiction to be examined by a physician duly licensed 
as such by the state of New York or by a psychologist or psychi- 
atrist appointed or designated for the purpose by the court, or 
during or after a hearing, may remand such youth for physical 
or psychiatric study or observation to the department of hospitals 
of the city of New York for a period not to exceed a total of 
thirty days. If at any time it shall appear to the court that any 
youth within its jurisdiction is mentally defective, the court may 
cause such youth to be examined and if such youth shall be found 
to be mentally defective, the court may commit such youth. When- 
ever a youth within the jurisdiction of the court and under the 
provisions of this act appears to the court to be in need of sur- 
gical or medical care, a suitable order may be made for the treat- 
ment of such youth in his home, in a hospital or other suitable 
institution, and the reasonable expenses thereof shall be a charge 
upon the city of New York. 
90-q. Modification, setting aside or vacating of judgment. 
1. Any order or judgment made by the court in the case of any 
youth committed by virtue of any proceeding may be vacated or 
set aside or modified as permitted by law. 
2. In any proceeding affecting a youth, the court may stay 
execution, set aside or arrest judgment, or grant a new trial 
or hearing, on any of the grounds, authorizing any court of 
criminal jurisdiction so to do. The court may entertain an appli- 
cation to that effect by a duly authorized agency, association, 
society or institution, or by any interested person acting on behalf 
172 DRAFT ACTS FOR A YOUTH COURT 
of the youth, or may act on its own motion on giving proper 
notice to interested parties or to any agency, association, society 
or institution having custody of the youth. 
3. The court may at any time during the progress of a pro- 
ceeding arising under any provision of this act vacate any com- 
mitment previously made where it can be shown to the satisfac- 
tion of the court that a mistake of fact was made in adjudicat- 
ing the youth’s religion or may on its own motion or on applica- 
tion, after giving reasonable notice to interested parties and to 
the agency, association, society or institution having custody of 
the youth, proceed with judgment, consistent with the religion 
of the youth, as if such erroneous commitment had not been 
made, or may make such other or further order or commitment 
as shall to the court seem just. 
90-r. Visits to institutions. At least once each year it shall be 
the duty of the justices to cause each institution to which a youth 
shall have been committed by the court during the year to be 
visited and inspected by at least one of the justices. 
90-s. Religion of custodial persons and agencies. 1. When- 
ever a youth is remanded or committed by the court to any duly 
authorized association, agency, society or institution, other than 
an institution supported and controlled by the state or a sub- 
division thereof, such commitment must be made, when prac- 
ticable, to a duly authorized association, agency, society or insti- 
tution under the control of persons of the same religious faith 
or persuasion as that of the youth. 
2. Whenever any youth thus committed is placed by any such 
association, agency, society or institution in a family, or in the 
home, or in the custody, of any person other than that of its 
natural or adopted parent or parents, or when so placed or 
paroled directly by the court, such placement or parole must, 
when practicable, be with or in the custody of a person or persons 
of the same religious faith or persuasion as that of the youth. 
3. The provisions of subdivisions one and two of this section 
shall be interpreted literally, so as to assure that in the care, pro- 
tection, guardianship, discipline or control of any youth his 
religious faith shall be preserved and protected by the court. But 
173 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
this section shall not be construed so as to prevent the remanding 
o£ a youth, during the pendency of a proceeding, to a duly 
authorized society or place of detention designated by the board 
of justices, nor to the placing of a youth in a hospital or similar 
institution for necessary treatment. 
4. The words "when practicable” as used in this section shall 
be interpreted as being without force or effect if there is a proper 
or suitable person of the same religious faith or persuasion as that 
of the youth available to be designated as custodian or to whom 
control may be given; or if there is a duly authorized association, 
agency, society or institution under the control of persons of the 
same religious faith or persuasion as that of the youth, at the 
time available and willing to assume the responsibility for the 
custody of or control over any such youth. 
5. If a youth is placed in the custody, or under the supervision 
or control, of a person or of persons of a religious faith or per- 
suasion different from that of the youth, or if a youth is remanded 
or committed to a duly authorized association, agency, society or 
institution, or to any other place, which is under the control of 
persons of a religious faith or persuasion different from that of 
the youth, the court shall state or recite the facts which impel 
it to make such disposition and such statement shall be made a 
part of the minutes of the proceeding. 
6. Any youth placed or committed under order of the court 
shall be subject to such visitation, inspection and supervision as 
any duly authorized state department, board or bureau shall 
provide for or require. 
90-t. Additional expenses made necessary by act. The salaries 
and other expenses made necessary by any provision of this act 
shall be paid out of the treasury of the city of New York. Such 
payments shall be made in such manner as proivded by law upon 
the certificate of the presiding justice certifying that the addi- 
tional salaries and expenses have been made necessary by any 
provision or provisions of this act. The number of additional 
probation officers which the presiding justice shall certify to have 
been made necessary by this act shall be based upon an estimated 
case load of fifty cases for each probation officer, plus seven inves- 
tigations per calendar month. 
174 DRAFT ACTS FOR A YOUTH COURT 
90-u. Construction of act. This act shall be so construed 
that the care, guidance, training, control and discipline of the 
youths brought before the court shall be in a manner calculated 
to guard them from association with crime and criminals, to the 
end that they may be corrected and rehabilitated and the protec- 
tion of society more surely safeguarded. 
ARTICLE IV 
validity; time of taking effect; et cetera 
Section 90-v. Effect of other laws. 
90-w. Validity of act. 
90-x. Time of taking effect. 
90-v. Effect of other laws. All laws and parts of laws, whether 
general, local or special, which are inconsistent with or in con- 
flict with, or repugnant to any provision of this act shall be 
deemed not to apply. 
90-w. Validity of act. If any provision of this act is held by 
any court to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity 
of any other provision of this act. 
90-x. Time of taking effect. This act shall take effect July 
first, nineteen hundred forty-two. 
Analysis of the Youth Court Act 
for New , York City 
(by amendment of the domestic relations court act 
OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK) 
In order to accomplish the purposes for which this Act was 
drafted, it is submitted in two parts: The first of these amends 
seven sections of the Domestic Relations Court Act of New York 
City, the second establishes a Youth Court Division in the Domes- 
tic Relations Court. 
The first amendment (p. 161, lines 17-19) adds to the Domestic 
Relations Court Act a new definition—that of a "youth”. This 
definition includes persons who are sixteen, seventeen and eigh- 
teen years of age. The reason for limiting the application of this 
Act to youths in these three years is because existing procedures 
175 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
in New York City for dealing with the adolescent offender have 
demonstrated that this is a fairly homogeneous group, contain- 
ing a not over-large proportion of offenses of a violent nature. 
The second section of the Domestic Relations Court Act to be 
amended (p. 161, lines 22-27) defines a new status—that 
of "youthful offender”. In order to bring this Act into con- 
formity with the children’s court section of the Domestic Rela- 
tions Court Act it was necessary to define a youthful offender, 
further, as "delinquent”. This word was also added in order 
to meet the State constitutional provision (Article VI, section 
18) empowering the Legislature to ". . . establish children’s 
courts, and courts of domestic relations, as separate courts, or as 
parts of existing courts, or courts hereafter to be created, and 
may confer upon them such jurisdiction as may be necessary for 
the correction, protection, guardianship and disposition of delii2- 
quent, neglected or dependent minors. . .” 
Offenses which if committed by adults would be punishable 
by death or life imprisonment are exempt from the jurisdiction 
of this new court, as they have been in the children’s court. These 
offenses are so definitely and seriously criminal in nature and 
the penalties are so severe that they should not be included in 
the jurisdiction of a court which will be mainly non-criminal in 
its proceedings and will have no jury facilities. 
At the other end of the scale, traffic offenses are also excluded 
because they are entirely regulative in nature and no moral ele- 
ment is involved. These now make up approximately two-thirds 
of all the offenses for which youths .sixteen, seventeen and 
eighteen years of age are arrested, according to reports of the 
Police Commissioner. 
Other infractions of regulations and ordinances are included 
because—as in the case of peddling, gambling, begging and sim- 
ilar violations—there may be some need for socialized treatment 
by the court of the conditions underlying such activity. 
The third amendment (p. 162, lines 1 and 2) defines an adult 
as a person over nineteen years of age, in order to bring this 
definition into conformity with the new definition of a youth— 
from sixteen to nineteen. 
176 DRAFT ACTS FOR A YOUTH COURT 
The fourth amendment (p. 162, lines 5-7) creates in the Court 
of Domestic Relations a new division—the "Youth Court’’ in 
addition to the existing Children’s Court Division and Family 
Court Division. 
The next amendment, (p. 162, lines 11-26) adds to the present 
provisions in the Domestic Relations Court Act relative to the 
appointment of justices, ten additional lines permitting the Mayor 
to appoint to the justices of this Court such city magistrates as 
may be qualified for this work in accordance with the provisions 
of Section 6 of the Domestic Relations Court Act: "... Persons 
who because of their character, personality, tact, patience and 
common sense are specially qualified for the Court’s work’’. 
The reason for the inclusion of this section is to allow to the 
newly created Youth Court the appointment of such judges now 
in the magistrates’ courts as have demonstrated unusual ability 
and fitness in the handling of adolescent offenders. The Adoles- 
cent’s Courts in New York City have been in existence for the 
last six years during which time they have gained much valuable 
experience in the handling of this particular age group. Estab- 
lishment of the Youth Court Division in the Court of Domestic 
Relations will result in certain difficulties and it has been thought 
best to provide for the transfer of certain specially qualified city 
magistrates to the Domestic Relations Court with the under- 
standing that they would be assigned to Youth Court work in 
order to facilitate the administration of this court and the special 
problems with which it will be called upon to deal. 
The next amendment (p. 162, lines 29 through p. 163, line 5) 
provides that separate buildings, quarters and facilities shall be 
assigned to the Youth Court and that these must be completely dis- 
tinct and apart from the quarters now used for the hearing of 
cases of children and adults. 
One of the most important and valid objections to the present 
criminal court dealing with youthful offenders is that such youths 
are commingled with adult criminals. This section insulates such 
youths entirely from any adult coming into the family court. 
Furthermore, because the offenses committed by youths are more 
serious and their conditions more difficult than those of children 
177 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
brought before the court, youths are segregated from this younger 
group as well. We regard this section as one of the most impor- 
tant in this Act. 
The following amendment to the Domestic Relations Court Act 
(p. 163, lines 8-13) relative to facilities for the court establishes 
a waiting room for youths and specifies that only the young per- 
son involved in a proceeding may be permitted in the court-room. 
This parallels section 48 of the Domestic Relations Court Act. 
The next amendment (p. 163, lines 18-37) revises existing sec- 
tion 52 of the Domestic Relations Court Act, which has been 
several times previously amended. In the opinion of the Com- 
mittee, this section now fully safeguards the privacy of records 
relating to children, youths and families coming before the Court 
of Domestic Relations, and at the same time insures that legitimate 
and responsible persons and agencies will have access to these 
records. 
The balance of this Act—Title II A—refers entirely to the 
new Youth Court Division and comprises the provisions necessary 
to describe its jurisdiction, powers and procedure. This Title 
is inserted in the Domestic Relations Court Act, between the 
Title referring to the Children’s Court Division and the Title 
referring to the Family Court Division. 
Subdivision 1 of the first section—90-A (p. 164, lines 11-15) 
creates a Youth Court Division for each of the five counties of 
New York City, and gives it exclusive and original jurisdiction 
over the cases of youthful offenders. 
Subdivision 2 of this section (p. 164, lines 16-20) gives the 
court continuing jurisdiction, once obtained, until the youth’s 
twenty-first birthday. This provision precisely parallels corre- 
sponding section 83, paragraph 3 in the Domestic Relations Court 
Act. 
Subdivision 3 (p. 164, lines 21-28) parallels the corresponding 
section 61, subdivision 4, of the Domestic Relations Court Act. 
Subdivision 4 of this section (p. 164, lines 29-31) parallels 
section 61, paragraph 5 of the Domestic Relations Court Act. 
Subdivision 5 (p. 164, lines 32-34) gives to the judges 
of the Domestic Relations Court, sitting in the Youth Court 
178 DRAFT ACTS FOR A YOUTH COURT 
Division, the powers of city magistrates. This is done in order 
to empower them to preside at the criminal procedure outlined in 
section 90-L, following. These judges are hereby enabled to 
sit as committing magistrates, to preside at preliminary hearings, 
to set bail, etc. By chapter 366 of the Laws of 1941, which 
added an additional subdivision to section 147 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure, judges of children’s courts were made magis- 
trates, a status which they were not considered to have prior to 
the enactment of this law. As magistrates, judges of this court 
will also have jurisdiction over wayward minors. 
Section 90-B (p. 164, lines 35-37) limits the jurisdiction of the 
court to offenses committed within its particular county. This 
provision was included in order to forestall motions before the 
court for a change of venue. 
Section 90-C (p. 165, lines 9-18) permits "any person” to 
initiate a proceeding in the Youth Court by filing a petition. 
Filing of a petition rather than a complaint has been speci- 
fied in order to bring a youth to the attention of the court by 
a non-criminal route. This definitely establishes the court’s 
initial interest on the equity or chancery side, as in the children’s 
court. This is one of the most essential features of this Act. 
In all the existing procedures for dealing with the adolescent 
offender in New York City—and up-state—cases of youths are 
referred to the court initially by means of a regular formal crim- 
inal complaint. The steps which these courts now take consist 
in the reduction of the complaint—by one questionable means 
or another—to the status of a wayward minor or some such other 
non-criminal basis. 
The method specified in this bill is the very reverse of that 
found in existing procedures for adolescent offenders. All cases 
of youths brought to the attention of the Youth Court come in 
originally via non-criminal petitions. It will be seen later that 
where the court determines that such a petition shall not lie, 
the directing of the filing of a criminal complaint may be sub- 
stituted. (See pp. 183 and 184 below). It will be noted that 
the proceedings are titled "in the matter of” rather than "Vs”. 
Section 90-D (p. 165, lines 19-33) refers to the issuance of a 
179 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
summons, warrant, subpoena or other process to bring the youth 
before the court as well as to secure the attendance of witnesses 
and others. This parallels section 72 of the Domestic Relations 
Court Act with the exception that parents are not specifically 
included. 
Section 90-E (p. 165, line 34 through p. 166, line 9) parallels 
section 73 of the Domestic Relations Court Act relative to the 
service of a summons. 
Subdivision 1, section 90-F (p. 166, lines 10-36) parallels sec- 
tion 74, subdivision 1, of the Domestic Relations Court Act, with 
the exception that places of detention are all subject to designa- 
tion by the Board of Justices, and no particular society or agency 
is mentioned. This subdivision also specifies that the court be 
organized for the reception of petitions and the holding of 
preliminary hearings every day of the year, as is now provided in 
the magistrates’ courts. 
Subdivision 2, section 90-F (p. 166, line 37 through p. 167, line 
2) specifies that youths shall be detained separately from both 
children and adults. This recommendation parallels the provi- 
sion above regarding separate quarters, apart from both children 
and adults in the hearing of cases of youthful offenders. 
Subdivision 3, section 90-F (p. 167, lines 3-12) provides that 
when persons discovered to be youths between the ages sixteen and 
nineteen are brought into any other criminal court in the City, 
such youths shall immediately be transferred to the Youth Court 
Division in that county. This provision implements section 90-A 
above, giving the court exclusive original jurisdiction over the 
cases of youthful offenders. It parallels section 74, paragraph 2 
of the Domestic Relations Court Act. 
Section 90-G (p. 167, lines 13-23) describes certain procedural 
steps. It provides that the procedure in the Youth Court, when 
not otherwise prescribed in this Act, shall be according to the 
procedure and rules in the children’s court. It further gives the 
Board of Justices power to adopt rules to govern the Youth Court 
procedure. Lines 19-23 regarding the holding of special parts 
of the Youth Court for specified classes of offenders are included 
in the event that the court experience merits such separate parts 
180 DRAFT ACTS FOR A YOUTH COURT 
for the hearing, for example, of wayward minor cases, certain 
regulative offenses, the cases of girls, etc. 
Section 90-H (p. 167, lines 24-30) parallels section 77 of the 
Domestic Relations Court Act and further implements one of the 
important provisions of this Act, namely, that the cases of youths 
be completely separate and apart in every particular, from those 
involving adults or children. 
Section 90-1 (p. 168, lines 10-15) parallels section 81 of the 
Domestic Relations Court Act, with no important change. 
Section 90-J (p. 168, line 16 through p. 169, line 7) parallels 
section 82 of the Domestic Relations Court Act, practically ver- 
batim, The only addition is the requirement that youths shall not 
be transported in any vehicle with an adult or a child who is under 
court control. This section effectively removes youths not only 
from association with adults or children but, more important, 
permits the detention of such youths on a non-penal level through 
provision for remand to private homes, agencies or societies or 
in the custody of private persons. 
The first paragraph of section 90-K (p. 169 lines 8-24) is based 
upon, and is a detailed expansion of section 83 of the Domestic 
Relations Court Act. This paragraph provides that the youth 
must be taken before a justice of the court immediately upon the 
return of a summons or immediately upon being taken into cus- 
tody. This provision reduces to a minimum the amount of time 
which a youth may spend in detention even though such deten- 
tion no longer includes, as it did formerly, jails, lockups or other 
places where adults are confined. Police questioning, line-ups, 
fingerprinting and photographing, and possible brutality are all 
obviated by this provision. 
The first paragraph of section 90-K, furthermore permits the 
court to refer the case for an investigation by a probation officer. 
In the various schemes now used throughout the State for special 
dealing with youths, the necessity for an investigation prior to 
any disposition has been handicapped by the fact that the youthful 
defendant has a right not to be investigated, and not to have the 
circumstances of the instant offense examined into by the court 
until after he has pleaded or been found guilty, and sentence is 
181 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
to be imposed. Courts using these various schemes at the present 
time are correct in their requirement that the youthful defendant 
either directly or through counsel must waive this right. Under 
the procedure outlined in this Act, where the case does not come 
in on a criminal complaint and where a criminal conviction cannot 
follow directly, because the chancery procedure must first be used, 
this obstacle to a full investigation of all the circumstances in the 
youth’s background, including the offense which he is alleged to 
have committed, is completely obviated. 
This paragraph also permits the court, in its discretion, to 
fingerprint or photograph the youth in order to clear for a pos- 
sible prior record through other courts, parole boards, police 
departments, etc. 
The second paragraph of this section (p. 169, line 25 through 
p. 170, line 2) is actually the nub of this Act. It provides for the 
court to make an important decision: whether the circumstances 
of the offense committed and of the youth’s background merit his 
relief from criminal prosecution and his continuance on the peti- 
tion that he is a youthful offender, or whether he shall not be so 
relieved and thereafter held on a criminal complaint. In its 
determination of a specific course among the several which it is 
authorized to make, the court is guided by the report of the pro- 
bation officer, the results of other investigations—medical, psy- 
chological or psychiatric—and the recommendation of the district 
attorney. Once the district attorney has concurred in the decision 
that the youth should be relieved of criminal prosecution and 
continue to be held as a youthful offender, he and his role dis- 
appear entirely from this procedure. Through him the People 
have had their opportunity to decide whether or not the youth 
shall be held as a criminal, and once waived, no further element 
of the criminal process enters into the procedure or deliberations 
of the Youth Court. 
Adjudication as a "youthful offender” is tantamount to a find- 
ing that a child is a "juvenile delinquent”. The various judg- 
ments which the court may then make, (p. 170, lines 3-19) are 
largely drawn from section 83 of the Domestic Relations Court 
Act. DRAFT ACTS FOR A YOUTH COURT 
Subdivision a—see Domestic Relations Court Act, section 83, 
subdivision (b). 
Subdivision b—section 83 (c). 
Subdivision c—section 83 (d). The Youth Court Act further 
provides that a youth may be required to make restitution from 
his earnings. 
Subdivision d—section 83 (a). 
Subdivision e—section 83 (g). 
Unlike section 83 (e) of the Domestic Relations Court Act, 
this section of the Youth Court Act does not specifically provide 
for continuing the proceeding. This provision was excluded 
because, although any court may, in its discretion, continue the 
hearing from time to time, it was not thought necessary to specify 
this power, in order thus to emphasize the value of speedy hearing 
and adjudication of the cases of youths. The criminal court proc- 
ess, especially in its dealing with youths, permits a large number 
of continuances and postponements, all of which combine to per- 
mit the defendant many opportunities to elude court action. 
Paragraph 4 of section 90-K (p. 170, lines 20-27) parallels the 
delinquent child provisions of paragraph 3 of section 83 of the 
Domestic Relations Court Act relative to placing and continuance 
on probation up to the twenty-first birthday. 
Section 90-L (p. 170, line 28 through p. 171, line 2) specifies 
the alternative procedure which the court may employ in the event 
that the youth is not continued on the youthful offender petition 
and it is decided that he shall be held for criminal prosecution. 
In this case the court is empowered to direct the filing of a formal 
complaint. 
At the hearing on this complaint, the court is given several fur- 
ther alternatives: to exercise summary jurisdiction and render final 
judgment in accordance therewith, if the charge is one over which 
a magistrate has jurisdiction; to hold the youth for the court of 
special sessions; to bind him over to the grand jury; to discharge 
the case. 
It is to be expected that the justice presiding at a hearing on 
the formal complaint will not be the same justice who presided 
at the hearing at which it was determined that a complaint should 
183 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
be filed in place of the youthful offender petition. However, this 
provision was not made mandatory in the law because it may 
not always be possible for the court to follow it. There are 
many instances in which a judge sits twice in the same case with- 
out in any way jeopardizing a particular defendant’s right to an 
unbiased and unprejudiced trial. 
This section further provides (p. 171, lines 3-11) that in those 
instances where the youth is held for a higher court or for the 
grand jury, only such part of the record of the proceedings as was 
before the judge when he sat as a committing magistrate shall be 
forwarded to the district attorney. This provision was included in 
order to avert the possibility that any part of the record—proba- 
tion officer’s report; prior criminal record; mental, physical or 
psychiatric examination; inquiry into the instant offense, shall go 
up to the prosecutor’s office, with the likelihood that the right 
of the youthful defendant to a fair trial would thereby be preju- 
diced or endangered. 
Section 90-M (p. 171, lines 12-18) permits the youth at any 
time in the proceeding to demand his right to be treated under 
the provisions of the criminal law, as if he were an adult. This 
is done to insure against the rare event of an appeal from the 
initial non-criminal procedure in the court, and to preserve the 
right to a trial by jury. 
Section 90-N (p. 171, lines 19-26) relieves the youth from any 
further prosecution or penalty for the offense alleged in the 
petition upon which he was adjudicated a youthful offender. This 
procedure is clearly included in order to meet the constitutional 
safeguard against double jeopardy. 
Section 90-0 (p. 171, line 27 through p. 172, line 9) is based on 
section 84 of the Domestic Relations Court Act, with only the 
necessary changes included to bring the latter into conformity 
with this Youth Court Act. 
Section 90-P (p. 172, lines 10-27) is based upon a parallel 
provision in section 85 of the Domestic Relations Court Act. 
Provisions relating to physically handicapped children are excluded 
as well as the provision empowering the Court of Domestic Rela- 
tions to order the child’s parent or rightful guardian to pay for 
184 DRAFT ACTS FOR A YOUTH- COURT 
medical, surgical or hospital care, because their criminal liability 
for such care ceases after the child reaches his sixteenth birthday. 
Section 90-Q (p. 172, line 28 through p. 173, line 14) parallels 
the important provision from corresponding section 86 of the 
Domestic Relations Court Act. 
Subdivision 1, of section 90-Q (p. 172, lines 28-31) differs from 
the Domestic Relations Court Act by its elimination of the pro- 
vision contained in the latter Act relative to petitions to the 
court for the release, or discharge, or placing on probation in 
lieu of institutional' commitment, of a child committed by the 
court to an institution, society, agency, etc. 
Subdivision 2 (p. 172, line 32 through p. 173, line 3) is in all 
important respects the equivalent of section 86, subdivision 2, of 
the Domestic Relations Court Act. 
Subdivision 3 (p. 173, lines 4-14) parallels section 86, subsec- 
tion 3, of the Domestic Relations Court Act verbatim. 
Section 90-R (p. 173, lines 15-18) follows section 87 of the 
Domestic Relations Court Act. 
Section 90-S (p. 173, line 19 through p. 174, line 27) parallels 
section 88 of the Domestic Relations Court Act, except insofar 
as the provisions in this latter Act relative to guardianship and 
adoption are inapplicable to the Youth Court Act. 
Section 90-T (p. 174, lines 28-38) relates to the interpretation 
which shall be placed upon the entire Act, the purpose of which 
is the rehabilitation of youth and the protection of society. 
Section 90-U (p. 175, lines 1-6) frees any provision of this 
Act from other laws which may be inconsistent with, or contra- 
dictory or repugnant to any provision of this Act. 
Section 90-V (p. 175, lines 12-15) is a "saving clause" which 
prevents the invalidation of the entire Act if any provision of it 
shall be found invalid. 
Section 90-W (p. 175, lines 16-18) provides for the taking 
effect of this Act on July 1, 1942, at which time the Adolescent’s 
Courts, so-called, in the Magistrates’ Courts of Kings and Queens 
Counties, shall discontinue operation, under the provisions of 
chapter 940 of the Laws of 1941. 
185 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
• ##f Jlct TO AMEND THE CHILDREN’S COURT 
ACT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, IN RELATION TO THE 
DISPOSITION OF CASES INVOLVING MINORS UNDER NINE- 
TEEN YEARS OF AGE 
The People of the State of New York, 
represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 
Section 1. Subdivision one of section two of chapter five hun- 
dred forty-seven of the laws of nineteen hundred twenty-two, 
entitled "An act establishing children’s courts, defining their 
jurisdiction, power and duties, and regulating procedure, therein,” 
as last amended by chapter three hundred ninety-three of the laws 
of nineteen hundred thirty, is hereby amended to read as follows 
1. When usecf in this act unless otherwise expressly stated or 
unless the context or subject matter requires a different interpreta- 
tion "court” without modification means the children’s court; 
"judge” means the judge of the children’s court established by this 
act; "child” means a person less than sixteen years of age; "youth” 
means any person, of either sex, who shall have attained his or her 
sixteenth birthday but shall not have attained his or her nineteenth 
birthday; "adult” means a person [sixteen] nineteen years of age 
or older; "child” or "children” may be held to mean one or more 
children, "youth” or "youths” may be held to mean one or more 
youths, and "parent” or "parents” may be held to mean one or 
more parents. 
§ 2. Section two of such chapter as amended is hereby amended 
by adding thereto, after subdivision seven, a new subdivision, to 
be subdivision seven-a, to read as follows: 
7-a. "Youthful offender” means a youth who is delinquent in 
that he has violated any law of this state or any duly enacted ordi- 
nance of a political subdivision thereof, except where such viola- 
tion (1) is punishable by death or life imprisonment, or (2) is a 
explanation: Matter in italics is new; matter in brackets f ] is old 
law to be omitted. DRAFT ACTS FOR A YOUTH COURT 
violation of any traffic law, traffic ordinance or traffic regulation, 
which is not a felony or misdemeanor. 
§ 3. Section four of such chapter, as amended, is hereby 
amended by adding thereto, after subdivision seven, a new sub- 
division, to be subdivision eight, to read as follows: 
8. In any county, except in the city of New York, the board of 
supervisors of the said county, with the concurrent vote of the 
judge of the children’s court of said county, may on or before the 
first day of August in a given year file a certificate with the secre- 
tary of state to the effect that in their opinion the business of the 
court requires an additional judge and that such additional judge 
should be elected within the said county and the electors of said 
county shall at the next general election following the filing of said 
certificate choose an additional judge of the children’s court of 
such county who shall serve for such term and be paid such 
salary and whose successor or successors shall be chosen in the 
same manner and for the same term and be paid the same salary 
as the law provides for the judge of the children’s court of such 
county. 
§ 4. Such chapter is hereby amended by adding thereto a new 
article, to be article three-a, to read as follows; 
ARTICLE 11I-A 
THE YOUTH COURT DIVISION; JURISDICTION; PRELIMINARY 
PROCEDURE; HEARINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS 
Section 30. Jurisdiction. 
30-a. Petition. 
30-h. Issuance of summons and other processes. 
30-c. Service of summons. 
30-d. Arrests; transfers from other courts. 
30-e. Procedure. 
30-f. Hearings; how held. 
30-g. Custody of youth; release. 
30-h. Place of detention. 
30-i. Hearings and judgments. 
30-j. Criminal proceedings. 
30-k. Right of youth to be dealt with as an adult. 
187 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
Section 30-1. Immunity. 
30-m. Adjudication not to serve as a disqualification. 
30-n. Mental and physical examination; treatment. 
30-o. Modification, setting aside or vacating of judgment. 
30-p. Visits to institutions. 
30-q. Religion of custodial persons and agencies. 
30-r. Separation of facilities. 
30-s. Construction. 
§ 30. Jurisdiction. 1. There shall be a youth court division of 
the children’s court in each county of the state, except in the city of 
New York, which court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction 
within such county to hear and determine all cases or proceedings 
involving the hearing, trial, parole, probation, remand or commit- 
ment of youthful offenders; and the provisions of this article as 
well as the provisions of subdivision eight of section four and 
other parts of this act affecting the youth court division of the 
children’s court, or as the same may be amended, shall also apply 
with full force and effect to the children’s courts heretofore estab- 
lished by special act or acts in any counties outside the city of 
New York to which this act is not made generally applicable, 
notwithstanding the provisions of sections one and forty-six of 
this act. 
2. When jurisdiction shall have been obtained by the court in 
the case of any youth, such youth shall continue for the purposes 
of this act under the jurisdiction of the court until he attains his 
twenty-first birthday unless committed, held to answer a criminal 
charge in another court or discharged prior thereto. 
3. The youth court division shall, except as herein otherwise 
provided, have exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases against 
persons charged with a failure to obey any order of the court 
made pursuant to the provisions of this section, and any violation 
of an order made pursuant to the provisions of this section shall 
be punishable as a misdemeanor, but the court may, in its discre-> 
tion, proceed with and adjudicate upon it as a contempt of court. 
4. The court shall also have power to punish any person guilty 
of a criminal contempt as prescribed by article nineteen of the 
judiciary law. 
188 DRAFT ACTS FOR A YOUTH COURT 
Jj. Judges of the children’s court sitting in the youth court 
division shall have all the powers granted to magistrates by the 
code of criminal procedure. 
§ 30-a. Petition. Any person may institute a proceeding respect- 
ing a youth by filing with the court a verified petition stating such 
facts as will bring the youth within the jurisdiction of the court. 
The petition shall include the name and street address of the yduth 
and a prayer to the court for such action or relief as the law 
provides. The title of the proceedings shall be "Children’s Court 
of the county of , Youth Court Division, In 
the Matter of , a youth over the age of 
sixteen years and under the age of nineteen years.’’ 
§ 30-b. Issuance of summons and other processes. Upon the 
filing of a petition the judge may, either forthwith or after an 
investigation which he may direct to be made, cause a summons 
to be issued, which shall be signed by him or by the clerk of the 
court, requiring the youth to appear at the court at a time and 
place named to show cause why Juch youth should not be dealt 
with according to law, or in his discretion, the justice may issue a 
warrant for the arrest of the youth. The court may also issue a 
subpoena, or in a proper case a warrant or other process, to secure 
or compel the attendance of any person whose testimony or pres- 
ence at a hearing or proceeding is deemed by the court to be nec- 
essary; and any person who wilfully fails or refuses to obey any 
process of the court shall be guilty of a contempt of court, and, 
except as otherwise herein provided, may be punished therefor as 
prescribed by article nineteen of the judiciary law. 
§ 30-c. Service of summons. Service of a summons shall be 
made by delivery of a true copy thereof to the person summoned. 
In case the summons cannot be served, or the person or persons 
served fail to obey the same, and in any case where the court 
believes that a summons might be ineffectual, or that the welfare 
of a youth requires that such youth shall he brought forthwith 
into the custody of the court, a warrant may be issued by the 
court against the youth. All papers, warrants, or other process 
shall be served by any peace officer of the county in which the 
court is located, when such officer is directed so to do by the court 
or a judge thereof. 
189 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
§ 30-d. Arrests; transfers from other courts. 1. Whenever any 
youth is arrested for any offense specified in subdivision seven-a 
of section two of this act with or without a warrant, it shall be 
the duty of the officer having such youth in charge immediately to 
notify the parent, guardian or other person responsible for its 
custody or control, or the person with whom such youth is domi- 
ciled, that such youth has been taken into custody; and forth- 
with with all convenient speed the officer shall directly take such 
youth to the youth court division of the children’s court of the 
county in xvhich the offense, if any, was committed, if the court 
is in session, and if not in session, then to the rooms, office, shelter 
or other place of detention designated by the court for the recep- 
tion of youths and the officer making the arrest shall immediately 
make and fie a petition as hereinbefore provided. Nothing herein 
contained shall be held to prohibit the acceptance of bail or 
recognizance as provided in subdivision four of section fve hun- 
dred and ffty-four of the code of criminal procedure. In the 
event a petition or complaint shall be fled on a day when the 
court is not in session, a parent, guardian, attorney or friend of 
the youth may obtain a copy of such petition and apply for the 
fixing of bail and have bail fixed for the appearance of said 
youth at the next session of the youth court division. 
2. In no event shall any youth be at any time detained in any 
room, office, shelter, or other place wherein are also detained at 
the same time either children or adults. 
3. When any person is brought before any magistrate or other 
court for arraignment, hearing or trial, and it is found that such 
youth is over the age of sixteen and under the age of nineteen 
years, such magistrate or court shall immediately by order trans- 
fer the case or proceeding to the youth court division of the 
childrens court of the county, and shall direct that the youth 
shall forthwith be brought before and delivered to such court, if 
it be in session, and if it is not in session, then to the rooms, 
office, shelter or other place of detention designated by the court 
for the reception of youths. 
§ 30-e. Procedure. When the method of procedure in a case, 
action or proceeding to which the court has jurisdiction is not 
190 DRAFT ACTS FOR A YOUTH COURT 
prescribed by this act, such procedure shall be the same as pro- 
vided by latv for other courts exercising like jurisdiction, or by 
the rules adopted by the court and the court shall have such 
jurisdiction as may be necessary to enable it to carry out and 
enforce the provisions of this act. 
§ 30-f. Hearings; how held. All cases in which youths are 
involved, shall be heard separately and apart from the trial or 
hearing of cases against adults or children. The court shall have 
power upon the hearing of any case involving any youth, to 
exclude the general public from the room wherein the said hear- 
ing is held, admitting thereto only such persons as may have a 
direct interest in the case. 
§ 30-g. Custody of youth; release. If it appears from the peti- 
tion that the interests of justice require the immediate appre- 
hension of a youth, the judge may endorse or cause to be endorsed 
upon the summons an order that the officer serving the same 
shall at once take such youth into custody or he may issue a war- 
rant as provided by law. 
Any youth in custody may be discharged by the court, or pend- 
ing final action in his case the youth may be released on bail or 
paroled in the custody of a parent, guardian, probation officer 
or other person, or remanded to the custody of a duly authorized 
agency, association, society or institution designated by the court 
which may direct that such youth shall be brought before the 
court at a time specified. 
§ 30-h. Place of detention. No youth coming within the pro- 
visions of this act shall be placed in or committed to any prison, 
jail, lockup or other place or shall be transported in any vehicle 
where such youth can come in contact at any time or in any 
manner with any adult or child who has been found neglected or 
delinquent, or been convicted of a crime, or who is under arrest, 
or who is awaiting action on a petition, complaint or indictment. 
Unless suitable accommodations for the detention of youths held 
for hearing or disposition or as material witnesses shall have been 
provided, the judge may, for the purpose of carrying into effect 
the provisions of this act, arrange for such youth or youths tem- 
porarily to board or lodge in a private home or in the custody of 
191 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
some fit person, subject to the supervision of the court; or the 
court or a judge may, by order, direct any duly authorized asso- 
ciation, agency, society or institution maintaining, in accordance 
with law, a suitable place of detention for youths, to provide 
temporary care in such place of detention for any youth detained 
under the jurisdiction of the court or subject to its orders or 
supervision. The reasonable cost of such maintenance, and the 
maintenance of youths committed by the court, shall be provided 
by the county. 
§ 30-i. Hearings and judgments. Upon the return of a sum- 
mons or other process, or after any youth has been taken into 
custody, he shall immediately be taken before the judge, if the 
court be in session, or if it is not in session, at the next session, 
for preliminary hearing. If, upon such preliminary hearing, the 
court shall find that the youth is subject to its jurisdiction, the 
court shall set a time for a final hearing and shall refer the case 
to an appropriate officer of the court who shall inquire into the 
habits, surroundings, conditions and tendencies of the youth so 
as to enable the court to render such order or judgment as shall 
best conserve the welfare of the youth and carry out the objects 
of this act. The court may in its discretion order the fingerprint- 
ing and photographing of any youth. The court may from time 
to time adjourn the hearing and pending final action place the 
youth in the custody of a parent, guardian, relative or other fit 
person and, if the court so directs, under the supervision of a 
probation officer. 
The court, having before it a report including the results of 
such examinations as the court in its discretion may order, and 
after the district attorney has had an opportunity to recom- 
mend to the court whether or not the youth should be prosecuted 
for the crime or offense which he is alleged to have committed, 
shall determine whether the youth is a youthful offender within 
the meaning of subdivision seven-a of section two of this act, 
and, if it so finds, shall determine whether it will best conserve 
the welfare of the youth and of society, and best accomplish the 
objects of this act to relieve the youth from criminal prosecution. 
If the material facts alleged in the petition are not sustained by 
192 DRAFT ACTS FOR A YOUTH COURT 
the preponderance of competent evidence, the petition shall be 
dismissed and the youth discharged. If the youth is found to he 
a youthful offender who should be relieved from criminal prose- 
cution, the court shall render judgment in one of the following 
ways: 
a. Place the youth in his own home or in the custody of a 
relative or other fit person subject, however, to the supervision 
of a probation officer and to the further orders of the court; 
b. Commit the youth to the care and custody of a suitable insti- 
tution maintained by the state or any subdivision thereof, or to 
the care and custody of a duly authorized association, agency, 
society or institution; 
c. Require the youth to make restitution from the youth’s own 
earnings, in such manner as the court may determine, to anyone 
injured by a violation of law for tvhich the court finds the youth 
to be responsible or, in the alternative, remand, commit or place 
on probation as herein provided; 
d. Suspend judgment; 
e. Render such other and further judgment, or make such other 
order or commitment as the court may be authorized by law to 
make. 
A youth may be placed and continued on probation for such 
time as the court may deem proper, but such period shall not 
extend in any case beyond his twenty-first birthday. In any case 
of a violation of the probationary conditions, the court may impose 
upon the probationer, at any time prior to his twenty-first birth- 
day and irrespective of his age at the time of such violation, any 
penalty or penalties which it might have imposed before placing 
him on probation. 
§ 30-j. Criminal proceedings. In the event that the court shall 
determine that the youth should not be relieved from prosecution, 
it shall immediately direct that a formal complaint be filed charg- 
ing the youth with the crime or offense which he is alleged to 
have committed and shall fix a time for a hearing on such com- 
plaint. At such hearing the judge of the court, sitting as a 
magistrate, shall determine as otherwise provided by law, whether 
there is sufficient evidence to hold the youth to answer criminal 
193 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
charges in the appropriate court; or, if the charge be one over 
which a magistrate has summary jurisdiction, the court shall 
render final judgment as provided for by law. 
If the court finds that there is sufficient evidence, the youth shall 
be held to answer to the grand jury or court of special sessions 
as the nature of the court’s finding may require, and the court 
shall by order direct that the record of the proceeding before the 
judge sitting as a committing magistrate be forwarded to the 
district attorney and the court may fix the amount of bail to be 
furnished by or on behalf of the youth or may parole him for his 
appearance to answer the charges pending against him. 
§ 30-k. Right of youth to be dealt with as an adult. At any 
time after the filing of a petition and before the court has rendered 
judgment after final hearing the youth may demand that the 
charges against him be determined in accordance with the pro- 
visions of law as if he were an adult. Whereupon the court shall 
dismiss the petition and proceed in the same manner as provided 
for in section thirty-j of this act. 
§ 30-1. Immunity. Upon the court’s determination that a youth 
is a youthful offender who should be relieved from criminal prose- 
cution such youth shall be immune from any prosecution or 
penalty, except as provided in this act, for the crime or offense 
alleged in the petition or which he is adjudged to have committed 
and discharge from probation shall immunize him from further 
prosecution or penalty until and unless a new offense is committed. 
§ 30-m. Adjudication not to serve as a disqualification. No 
determination made under the provisions of section thirty-i of 
this act shall operate as a disqualification of any youth subsequently 
to hold public office or as a forfeiture of any right or privilege 
or to receive any license granted by public authority; and no 
youth shall be denominated a criminal by reason of such determi- 
nation, nor shall such determination be deemed a conviction. 
Neither the fact that a youth has been before the youth court for 
hearing nor any confession, admission or statement made by him 
to the court or to any officer thereof before he shall have attained 
his nineteenth birthday, shall ever be admissible as evidence 
against him or his interest in any other court, except where the 
194 DRAFT ACTS FOR A YOUTH COURT 
proceedings in the youth court were held in pursuance of sections 
thirty-] and thirty-k of this act. Nothing in this section contained, 
however, shall he construed to prevent any court in imposing sen- 
tence upon an adult after conviction from receiving and consider- 
ing the records and information on file in the youth court with 
reference to such adult when he was a youth, or shall he construed 
to prevent this court from considering the same upon a subsequent 
occasion. 
§ 30-n. Mental and physical examination; treatment. The court 
in its discretion, during or after a hearing, may cause any youth 
within its jurisdiction to he examined by a physician duly licensed 
as such by the state of New York or by a psychologist or psy- 
chiatrist appointed or designated for the purpose by the court, 
or during or after a hearing, may remand such youth for physical 
or psychiatric study or observation for a period not to exceed a 
total of thirty days. If at any time it shall appear to the court 
that any youth within its jurisdiction is mentally defective, the 
court may cause such youth to be examined and if such youth 
shall be found to be mentally defective, the court may commit 
such youth. Whenever a youth within the jurisdiction of the court 
and under the provisions of this act appears to the court to be in 
need of surgical or medical care, a suitable order may be made 
for the treatment of such youth in his home, in a hospital or other 
suitable institution, and the reasonable expenses thereof shall be 
a charge upon the county. 
§ 30-o. Modification, setting aside or vacating of judgment. 
1. Any order or judgment made by the court of any youth com- 
mitted by virtue of any proceeding may be vacated or set aside 
or modi fed as permitted by law. 
2. In any proceeding affecting a youth, the court may stay 
execution, set aside or arrest judgment, or grant a new trial or 
hearing, on any of the grounds authorizing any court of criminal 
jurisdiction so to do. The court may entertain an application to 
that effect by a duly authorized agency, association, society or 
institution, or by any interested person acting on behalf of the 
youth, or may act on its own motion on giving proper notice to 
195 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
interested parties or to any agency, association, society or institu- 
tion having custody of the youth. 
3. The court may at any time during the progress of a proceed- 
ing arising under any provision of this article vacate any commit- 
ment previously made where it can be shown to the satisfaction 
of the court that a mistake of fact was made in adjudicating the 
youth’s religion or may on its own motion or on application, after 
giving reasonable notice to interested parties and to the agency, 
association, society or institution having custody of the youth, 
proceed with judgment, consistent with the religion of the youth, 
as if such erroneous commitment had not been made, or may make 
such other or further order or commitment as shall to the court 
seem just. 
§ 50-p. Visits to institutions. At least once each year it shall 
be the duty of the judge to visit and inspect each institution to 
which a youth shall have been committed by the court during the 
year and the fiscal authorities of the county shall be authorized 
and required to approve and pay the necessary traveling expenses 
incurred by the judge in making such visits. 
§ 30-q. Religion of custodial persons and agencies. 1. When- 
ever a youth is remanded or committed by the court to any duly 
authorized association, agency, society or institution, other than 
an institution supported and controlled by the state or a sub- 
division thereof, such commitment 772ust be made, when prac- 
ticable, to a didy authorized association, agency, society or insti- 
tution under the control of persons of the same religious faith or 
persuasion as that of the youth. 
2. Whenever any youth thus committed is placed by any such 
association, agency, society or institution in a family, or in the 
home, or in the custody, of any person other than that of its 
natural or adopted parent or parents, or when so placed or paroled 
directly by the court, such placement or parole must, when prac- 
ticable, be with or in the custody of a person or persons of the 
same religious faith or persuasion as that of the youth. 
3. The provisions of subdivisions one and two of this section 
shall be interpreted literally, so as to assure that in the care, pro- 
tection, guardianship, discipline or control of any youth his reli- 
196 DRAFT ACTS FOR A YOUTH COURT 
gious faith shall be preserved and protected by the court. But 
this section shall not be construed so as to prevent the remanding 
of a youth, during the pendency of a proceeding, to a duly author- 
ized society or place of detention designated by the court, nor to 
the placing of a youth in a hospital or similar institution for 
necessary treatment. 
4. The words "when practicable” as used in this section shall 
be interpreted as being without force or effect if there is a proper 
or suitable person of the same religious faith or persuasion as 
that of the youth available to be designated as custodian or to 
whom control may be given; or if there is a duly authorized 
association, agency, society or institution under the control of 
persons of the same religious faith or persuasion as that of the 
youth, at the time available and willing to assume the responsi- 
bility for the custody of or control over any such youth. 
3. If a youth is placed in the custody, or under the supervision 
or control, of a person or of persons of a religious faith or per- 
suasion different from that of the youth, or if a youth is remanded 
or committed to a duly authorized association, agency, society or 
institution, or to any other place, which is under the control of 
persons of a religious faith or persuasion different from that of 
the youth, the court shall state or recite the facts which impel it to 
make such disposition and such statement shall be made a part of 
the minutes of the proceeding. 
6. Any youth placed or committed under order of the court 
shall be subject to such visitation, inspection and supervision as 
any duly authorized state department, board or bureau shall pro- 
vide for or require. 
§ 30-r. Separation of facilities. So far as is practicable, all 
rooms and facilities used by youths shall be physically separate 
and apart so as to be inaccessible from other parts of the same 
building in which any other court or other part of the children’S 
court shall be in session and shall have separate entrances; pro- 
vided, however, that hearing rooms used by the court other than 
for the purposes of the youth court division may also be used for 
the hearing of youths if at the time of such use such rooms, their 
approaches, waiting rooms and all other facilities used by such 
197 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
youths are not accessible to children or to adults charged with 
criminal offenses. 
So far as possible a waiting room with a competent person in 
charge shall be provided for the care of youths brought before 
the youth court division. Unless directed by the court, youths 
shall not be permitted in the court room of the youth court divi- 
sion, except where the proceedings are in relation to the youth. 
This section shall be construed liberally in so far as practicable 
with the physical set-up of the court. 
§ 30-s. Construction. This act shall be so constructed that the 
care, guidance, training, control and discipline of the youths 
brought before the court shall be in a manner calculated to guard 
them from association with crime and criminals, to the end 
that they may be corrected and rehabilitated and the protection 
of society more surely safeguarded. 
§ 5. Section forty-five of such chapter, as amended by chapter 
three hundred ninety-three of the laws of nineteen hundred thirty, 
is hereby amended to read as follows: 
§ 45. General provisions; court records; construction. In the 
hearing of any case coming within the provisions of this act the 
general public shall be excluded and only such persons and the 
representatives of authorized agencies admitted thereto as have 
a direct interest in the case. All cases in which children are 
directly involved or appear shall be heard separately and apart 
from the trial of cases against adults. A room separate and apart 
from the regular courtroom shall be provided for the use of the 
childrens court, together with suitable quarters for the use of 
the judge, the probation officers and other employees of the court. 
The court shall devise and cause to be printed such forms for 
records and for the various petition, orders, processes and other 
papers for the use of the court or in the cases or proceedings 
instituted under or pursuant to provisions of this act as shall 
be deemed necessary to meet the requirements of the court. 
The court shall maintain a full and complete record of all cases 
brought before it. The county shall provide a separate place for 
the filing of all papers in a manner similar to filing papers of a 
198 DRAFT ACTS FOR A YOUTH COURT 
county court. [All such records may be withheld from indis- 
criminate public inspection in the discretion of the judge, but such 
records shall be open to inspection by the parent, guardian, next 
friend or attorney of the child. Any authorized agency to which 
a child is committed may examine the record of investigation and 
may in the discretion of the court obtain a copy of the whole or 
a part of such record.] The records of any case, including finger- 
prints and photographs, in the children's court, including the 
youth court division thereof, shall not be open to inspection, except 
that the petition, process, formal motions and other papers appro- 
priate to a judgment roll on a case on appeal shall be open to 
inspection by the parent, guardian, next friend or attorney of the 
child or youth in the proceeding. However, the court in its dis- 
cretion, upon the application of an interested party and after 
proper inquiry, may permit the inspection of any papers or records 
in any particular case if it is made to appear that the interests 
of the child or youth may be served thereby; provided, however, 
that any social agency duly authorized and approved by the 
court may cause an inspection of the record of investigation to 
be had and may in the discretion of the court obtain a copy of 
the whole or part of such record. 
No adjudication under the provisions of this act shall operate 
as a disqualification of any child subsequently to hold public office 
or as a forfeiture of any right or privilege or to receive any license 
granted by public authority; and no child shall be denominated a 
criminal by reason of such adjudication, nor shall such adjudica- 
tion be denominated a conviction. Neither the fact that a child 
has been before the children’s court for hearing, nor any confes- 
sion, admission or statement made by him to the court or to any 
officer thereof while he is under the age of sixteen years, shall 
ever be admissible as evidence against him or his interests in any 
other court. 
All provisions of the penal law or code of criminal procedure 
or other statutes inconsistent with or repugnant to any of the 
provisions of this act shall be considered inapplicable to the cases 
arising under this act. All statutes and laws, not inconsistent 
199 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
with these provisions, relating to courts exercising general juris- 
diction shall apply with full force and effect, except as herein 
otherwise specifically provided. Chapter four hundred and eighty- 
nine, laws of nineteen hundred fifteen, is hereby repealed. 
The judge of said court shall have the power officially to visit 
any institution to which a child may be remanded or committed 
by the children’s court of his county. 
Any child placed out, boarded out or committed under order 
of the court shall be subject to the visitation and supervision of 
the state board of social welfare in accordance with the provisions 
of the [state charities] social welfare law. 
This act shall be construed to the end that the care, custody 
and discipline of the children brought before the court shall 
approximate as nearly as possible that which they should receive 
from their parents, and that as far as practicable they shall be 
treated not as criminals but as children in need of aid, encourage- 
ment and guidance. 
§ 6. This act shall take effect July first, nineteen hundred 
forty-two. 
Analysis of the Youth Court Act 
for Netv York State 
(BY AMENDMENT OF THE STATE-WIDE CHILDREN’S COURT ACT) 
The Youth Court Act for Up-state New York follows in all 
important particulars the New York City Act on which it has 
been based. The Youth Court is made a division of the Chil- 
dren’s Court in each Up-state County; the age limits, offense juris- 
diction, as well as the procedure, parallel the corresponding 
features of the New York City Act. 
Two considerations are worth noting. In the first place, the 
Act applies to every county of the State outside of New York 
City—including Onondaga, Monroe, Chautauqua and Ontario, 
counties which arc covered by separate Children’s Court Acts 
as far as the delinquent under sixteen is concerned. Secondly, 
200 DRAFT ACTS FOR A YOUTH COURT 
in order to provide for additional judges to hear the cases which 
will come before the Youth Division of the Children’s Court, this 
Act specifies that each county may elect such additional judges in 
a manner similar to that permitted by law for the election of 
children’s court judges in Section 4, sub-section 1 of the State- 
wide Children’s Court Act. 
In every other important respect, this Act and the New York 
City Act are identical. 
201 PART FOUR CHAPTER IX. LEGISLATION SUBMITTED 
NOT ENACTED 
AND NOT RE-INTRODUCED 
Two types of bills submitted to the Legislature as a result of 
the work of this Committee, have not been enacted into law. .One 
group consists of bills introduced with no hope of passage, but 
for the sake of the publicity value which their introduction might 
have. Debate centering around these bills with the Senate or 
Assembly Chamber as a forum for public discussion, accomplished 
in some instances, we believe, results which could not have been 
guaranteed by the passage of the bills themselves. In a succeed- 
ing Chapter will be found draft acts previously submitted by the 
Committee which were not enacted, and which are again pro- 
posed. Below will be found bills which it is not intended to 
re-submit. 
J. The first of these, Senate No. 390, Assembly No. 658, 
was introduced in the Senate on January 26, 1939- It was felt 
by some members of the Committee, that while judges of chil- 
dren’s courts had the official power to visit any institution to which 
children were remanded or committed, that few of them actually 
availed themselves of this power, or viewed such visits as an 
important function. The Committee felt that this resulted in a 
grave injustice to the children so committed. The function of 
the children’s court is protective and not punitive, commitments 
to institutions are for the purpose of treatment and not of retri- 
bution. Yet the majority of children’s court judges did not 
willingly assume the responsibility—which is assumed by physi- 
205 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
dans for example—that they should have some acquaintance, 
however slight, with the centers to which they were committing 
children for treatment. 
The children’s court judges of the City of New York are 
required to make at least one annual visit to and inspect each 
institution to which delinquents are committed, while the State- 
wide Children’s Court Act merely gives the judges of these latter 
courts the power so to visit. We have set out above a proposal 
to make the provision of the New York City Children’s Court 
Act applicable to all the Children’s Courts of the State in this 
regard. 
Meanwhile, though this bill failed of passage—was, in fact, 
never voted out of Committee—we still believe its fundamental 
philosophy to be correct—that judges of courts—children’s or 
criminal—should not expect to make use of treatment and cor- 
rectional facilities without having had some first hand observa- 
tion of those facilities. The publicity which the bill received, due 
to the clamor that went up at its introduction, served, we believe, 
a worthy purpose, and it is as a reminder of that purpose that it 
is reprinted here. 
Jin Jtct TO AMEND THE CHILDREN’S COURT 
ACT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND THE PENAL LAW, 
IN RELATION TO OFFICIAL VISITS BY JUDGES 
The People of the State of New York, 
represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 
Section 1. Section forty-five of the children’s court act of the 
state of New York, as last amended by chapter three hundred 
ninety-three of the laws of nineteen hundred thirty, is hereby 
amended to read as follows: 
§ 45. General provisions; court records; construction. In the 
hearing of any case coming within the provisions of this act the 
explanation: Matter in italics is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old 
law to be omitted. 
206 LEGISLATION NOT ENACTED 
general public shall be excluded and only such persons and the 
representatives of authorized agencies admitted thereto as have 
a direct interest in the case. All cases in which children are 
directly involved or appear shall be heard separately and apart 
from the trial of cases against adults. A room separate and apart 
from the regular courtroom shall be provided for the use of the 
children’s court, together with suitable quarters for the use of 
the judge, the probation officers and other employees of the court. 
The court shall devise and cause to be printed such forms for 
records and for the various petitions, orders, processes and other 
papers for the use of the court or in the cases or proceedings insti- 
tuted under or pursuant to provisions of this act as shall be 
deemed necessary to meet the requirements of the court. 
The court shall maintain a full and complete record of all cases 
brought before it. The county shall provide a separate place for 
the filing of all papers in a manner similar to filing papers of a 
county court. All such records may be withheld from indiscrimi- 
nate public inspection in the discretion of the judge, but such 
records shall be open to inspection by the parent, guardian, next 
friend or attorney of the child. Any authorized agency to which 
a child is committed may examine the record of investigation and 
may in the discretion of the court obtain a copy of the whole or 
a part of such record. 
No adjudication under the provisions of this act shall operate 
as a disqualification of any child subsequently to hold public office 
or as a forfeiture of any right or privilege or to receive any license 
granted by public authority; and no child shall be denominated 
a criminal by reason of such adjudication, nor shall such adjudica- 
tion be denominated a conviction. Neither the fact that a child 
has been before the children’s court for hearing, nor any con- 
fession, admission or statement made by him to the court or 
to any officer thereof while he is under the age of sixteen years, 
shall ever be admissible as evidence against him or his interests 
in any other court. 
All provisions of the penal law or code of criminal procedure 
or other statutes inconsistent with or repugnant to any of the 
provisions of this act shall be considered inapplicable to the cases 
207 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
arising under this act. All statutes and laws, not inconsistent 
with these provisions, relating to courts exercising general juris- 
diction shall apply with full force and effect, except as herein 
otherwise specifically provided. Chapter four hundred and eighty- 
nine, laws of nineteen hundred and fifteen, is hereby repealed. 
The judge of said court shall [have the power] officially [to] 
visit any institution to which a child may be remanded or com- 
mitted by the children’s court of his county. 
Any child placed out, boarded out or committed under order 
of the court shall be subject to the visitation and supervision of 
the state board of social welfare in accordance with the pro- 
visions of the state charities law. 
This act shall be construed to the end that the care, custody 
and discipline of the children brought before the court shall 
approximate as nearly as possible that which they should receive 
from their parents, and that as far as practicable they shall 
be treated not as criminals but as children in need of aid, encour- 
agement and guidance. 
§ 2. The penal law is hereby amended by inserting therein 
a new section, to be section twenty-one hundred ninety-nine, to 
read as follows: 
§ 2199. Judges liable to forfeiture of office. If any judge of 
any children’s court fails to officially visit any institution to 
which a child has been remanded or committed by him within one 
year thereof, such failure involves as a consequence a forfeiture 
of his office; and disqualifes him from ever afterwards holding 
such office in this state. 
§ 3. This act shall take effect September first, nineteen hun- 
thirty-nine. 
Senate No. 2372 of 1940, introduced on March 18, 
1940, was submitted to appraise public reaction to the proposal, 
to increase the upper age limit of children’s court jurisdiction 
from the sixteenth birthday to the eighteenth. From the reac- 
tions reaching Senators and Assemblymen, a large majority of 
the people of New York State opposed the age increase pro- 
208 LEGISLATION NOT ENACTED 
posed by this measure. The bill never came within any pros- 
pect of passage. Its demise led the Committee to request a 
further extension of time in order to arrive at a measure which 
would at the same time adequately meet the problem of the older 
adolescent offender, and secure a larger measure of public sup- 
port. 
jMn Jlet TO AMEND THE CHILDREN’S COURT 
ACT, IN RELATION TO THE DEFINITION OF JURISDICTIONAL 
AGE LIMITS OF CERTAIN PERSONS 
The People of the State of New York, 
represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 
Section 1. Subdivision one of section two of chapter five hun- 
dred and forty-seven of the laws of nineteen hundred twenty-two 
entitled "An act establishing children’s courts, defining their 
jurisdiction, power and duties, and regulating procedure therein,” 
as amended by chapter three hundred and ninety-three of the 
laws of nineteen hundred thirty, is hereby amended to read as 
follows: 
1. When used in this act unless otherwise expressly stated or 
unless the context or subject matter requires a different interpreta- 
tion "court” without modification means the children’s court; 
"judge” means the judge of the children’s court established by 
this act; "child” means a person less than [sixteen] eighteen 
years of age; "adult” means a person [sixteen] eighteen years of 
age or older; "child” or "children” may be held to mean one 
or more children, and "parent” or "parents” may be held to 
mean one or more parents. 
§ 2. This act shall take effect immediately. 
explanation: Matter in italics is new; matter in brackets [ } is old 
law to be omitted. 
209 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
3 Senate Bill No. 2073 of 1941 was not reported out of 
Committee because of the controversy it aroused as to whether 
the purposes which it aimed to accomplish were not already 
attained under the present law. Under the section which this 
bill would have added to the Code of Criminal Procedure, judges 
were given the power in criminal cases to parole defendants 
under the age of nineteen, without bail. 
The Committee has given this matter further attention since 
the close of the last legislative session. It is our conclusion that 
there is now no necessity for its enactment, since the bill estab- 
lishing courts for youthful offenders throughout the State cares 
adequately, in our opinion, for the problems of remand, deten- 
tion and release on bail and parole of the offender between the 
ages of sixteen and nineteen to whom the following bill referred. 
TO AMEND THE CODE OF CRIMINAL 
PROCEDURE, IN RELATION TO PAROLE OF DEFENDANTS 
UNDER NINETEEN YEARS OF AGE WITHOUT BOND 
The People of the State of New York, 
represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 
Section 1. The code of criminal procedure is hereby amended 
by inserting therein, after section five hundred and fifty-seven, a 
new section, to be section five hundred and fifty-four-d, to read 
as follows: 
§ 334-d. In any case of a felony, misdemeanor or offense where 
a magistrate or a judge or a justice has the power to fix and accept 
bail he may, in his discretion, parole the defendant without bond 
if the defendant is less than nineteen years old. 
§ 2. This act shall take effect September first, nineteen hundred 
forty-one. 
explanation: Matter in italics is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old 
law to be omitted. 
210 LEGISLATION NOT ENACTED 
4: The following bill, Senate No. 2075 of 1941 was vetoed 
by the Governor after its passage by both Houses, on the grounds 
that it conflicted with Chapter 940 of the Laws of 1941 (Senate 
No. 2108 of 1941) which continued the Adolescent’s Court in 
the Counties of Kings and Queens, New York City, until July 
1, 1942. This measure would allow criminal courts to follow 
the procedure inaugurated and followed by the Adolescent’s 
Courts of these two counties. With the bills proposed by this 
Committee to allow the establishment of youth courts through- 
out the State, this bill is no longer appropriate. 
Yin Jlet TO AMEND THE CODE OF CRIMINAL 
PROCEDURE, IN RELATION TO ADJUDGING CERTAIN PER- 
SONS CHARGED WITH CRIMES AS WAYWARD MINORS 
The People of the State of New York, 
represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 
Section 1. The code of criminal procedure is hereby amended 
by adding thereto a new section, to be section two hundred and 
fifty-two-a, to read as follows: 
§ 252-a. Recommendation by grand jury and district attorney 
for determination of certain infants as wayward minors. In any 
case where a grand jury has found an indictment or where the 
court has approved the filing of an information by the district 
attorney by direction of the grand jury, pursuant to section seven 
hundred and forty-two of the code of criminal procedure, where 
it shall appear that the defendant is between the ages of sixteen 
and nineteen years and has not theretofore been convicted of a 
crime, the grand jury and the district attorney may recommend 
to the court for which the grand jury was drawn that the defend- 
ant, if he consents, be examined to determine whether he may 
be adjudged a wayward minor pursuant to title seven-a of the 
explanation: Matter in italics is new; matter in brackets [ } is old 
law to be omitted. 
211 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
code of criminal procedure. If the defendant consent to such 
examination and the court approve the recommendation, the 
indictment or information shall not be filed, and no further action 
shall be taken in connection with such indictment or information 
against the defendant. Examination and investigation is then to 
be made of the defendant and his conduct, as the court may direct, 
and if a complaint is then fled pursuant to title seven-a of the 
code of criminal procedure, and after a hearing, and the court 
should adjudge such defendant to be a wayward minor, then the 
indictment or information shall be dismissed and no record or 
entry of such indictment or information shall be made. If the 
court do not approve such recommendation of the grand jury 
and the district attorney, or should not adjudge the defendant 
to be a wayward minor, then the indictment or information shall 
be deemed fled as of the day the grand jury voted the indictment 
or directed the fling of the information, regardless of whether 
or not that grand jury had been discharged or be still in session. 
§ 2. This act shall take effect immediately. 
5 On March 17, 1941 there were introduced in the Sen- 
ate by the Chairman of this Committee, two bills, Senate No. 
2074 and Senate No. 2076, which, though differing slightly in 
their terminology, sought to achieve the same purpose. That 
purpose was to legalize and allow throughout the criminal courts 
of the State a procedure which had been followed in the Adoles- 
cent’s Courts of Kings and Queens Counties, New York City 
since 1935, namely, to dismiss a criminal complaint, in the case 
of certain defendants between the ages of sixteen and eighteen, 
inclusive, and to substitute, with the written consent of the Dis- 
trict Attorney, a charge of wayward minor. 
Both of these bills remained in legislative committees during 
the session, in order that this Committee might make a further 
study of the problem and introduce to the Legislature in 1942, 
other bills based on that examination. The two bills reprinted 
below are submitted therefore simply as part of the legislative 
history of this Committee. 
212 LEGISLATION NOT ENACTED 
*in , ivt TO AMEND THE CODE OF CRIMINAL 
PROCEDURE, IN RELATION TO DISPOSITION OF CASES IN- 
VOLVING MINORS UNDER NINETEEN YEARS OF AGE UPON 
EXAMINATION BEFORE MAGISTRATE 
The People of the State of New York, 
represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 
Section 1. Section two hundred and eight of the code of crim- 
inal procedure is amended to read as follows: 
§ 208. When and how to be committed. If, however, it 
appear from the examination that a crime has been committed 
and that there is sufficient cause to believe the defendant guilty 
thereof, the magistrate must, in like manner, indorse on the depo- 
sitions and statement, an order, signed by him, to the following 
effect: "It appearing to me by the within depositions (and state- 
ment, if any, that the crime therein mentioned(or and other 
crime according to the fact, stating generally the nature there- 
ofm; has been committed, and that there is sufficient cause 
to believe the within named guilty thereof, I order that he be 
held to answer the same.’’ In any case in which the defendant 
is less than nineteen years old, the magistrate may, with the writ- 
ten consent of the district attorney, instead of making such order, 
dismiss the complaint and on the same facts adjudge the defend- 
ant a wayward minor. 
§ 2. This act shall take effect September first, nineteen hundred 
forty-one. 
explanation: Matter in italics is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old 
law to be omitted. 
213 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
TO AMEND THE CODE OF CRIMINAL 
PROCEDURE, IN RELATION TO DISPOSITION OF CASES IN- 
VOLVING MINORS UNDER NINETEEN YEARS OF AGE UPON 
EXAMINATION BEFORE MAGISTRATE 
The People of the State of New York, 
represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 
Section 1. Section two hundred and eight of the code of 
criminal procedure is amended to read as follows: 
§ 208. When and how to be committed. If, however, it 
appear from the examination that a crime has been committed 
and that there is sufficient cause to believe the defendant guilty 
thereof, the magistrate must, in like manner, indorse on the depo- 
sitions and statement, an order, signed by him, to the following 
effect: "It appearing to me by the within depositions (and state- 
ment, if any) that the crime therein mentioned [[If01 anY other 
crime according to the fact, stating generally the nature there- 
ofDD has been committed, and that there is sufficient cause to 
believe the within named A. B. guilty thereof, I order that he be 
held to answer the same[.]|”, unless the defendant is between 
the ages of sixteen and nineteen years, in which event the magis- 
trate, except a justice of the peace, may with the written consent 
of the district attorney adjudge the defendant a wayward minor. 
§ 2. This act shall take effect September first, nineteen hun- 
dred forty-one. 
explanation: Matter in italics is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old 
law to be omitted. 
214 chapter X. LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS 
SUBMITTED BY 
THE COMMITTEE 
The Committee feels that no review of its work would be 
complete without a summary of the positive results of its legis- 
lative efforts to date. In the succeeding Chapter will be found 
draft acts previously submitted by the Committee, on the basis 
of its deliberations during the past years, which did not become 
law and which it is the Committee’s intention to re-introduce 
during the 1942 Legislative Session. In this Chapter will be 
found bills introduced by members of this Committee in both 
Senate and Assembly which were enacted and which are now 
part of the laws of New York State. 
J[ Senate Bill No. 1835, which is now Chapter 546 of the 
Laws of 1941 amended the Inferior Criminal Courts Act of New 
York City (now the Criminal Courts Act) to allow sentence to 
be imposed on defendants by magistrates presiding in the Proba- 
tion Court. 
The judges of the Magistrate’s Courts sit in a variety of 
courts. When a magistrate tries a case and finds the defendant 
guilty, he may remand him or admit him to bail pending investi- 
gation. That defendant must be sentenced in the court in which 
the investigation is ordered. 
The Probation Court, part of the Magistrate’s Court, sat only 
once a month prior to this amendment and had the power to 
dismiss the cases of persons whose probation period was com- 
215 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
pleted, as well as the authority to modify probation terms or to 
revoke a term of probation because of the violation of probation 
conditions, and to commit to an institution. Under the power 
which this amendment grants to magistrates sitting in the Pro- 
bation Court, this court can also sentence offenders who have not 
been granted probation. 
.Ill vlct TO AMEND THE INFERIOR CRIMINAL 
COURTS ACT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, IN RELATION TO 
REMAND PENDING INVESTIGATIONS 
The People of the State of New York, 
represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 
Section 1. Section one hundred and fifty-three of chapter six 
hundred and fifty-nine of the laws of nineteen hundred ten, 
entitled "An act in relation to the inferior courts of criminal 
jurisdiction in the city of New York, defining their powers and 
jurisdiction and providing for their officers,” as last amended by 
chapter five hundred and ninety-six of the laws of nineteen hun- 
dred thirty-three, and thus renumbered by chapter seven hundred 
and forty-six of the laws of nineteen hundred thirty-three, is 
hereby amended to read as follows: 
§ 153. Remand pending investigation. After a conviction or 
a plea of guilty, any magistrate sitting as such or as a court of 
special sessions may remand the defendant or admit him to bail 
for a period not to exceed five days for investigation before pro- 
nouncing sentence. In case of the death or disability of any such 
magistrate, or because of the fact that he is not then sitting in 
the court in which the defendant is to be sentenced, or upon his 
request endorsed on the papers, sentence may be imposed by any 
magistrate presiding in the same court, or by the magistrate 
presiding in the probation court. 
§ 2. This act shall take effect immediately. 
explanation: Matter in italics is new; matter in brackets [ } is old 
law to be omitted. 
216 LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS 
Senate Bill No. 2108, which is now Chapter 940 of 
the Laws of 1941 was introduced, admittedly, as a temporary 
and stop-gap legislative measure to continue the existence of the 
Adolescent’s Courts of Kings and Queens Counties in New York 
City. The magistrates of these Courts had stated many times— 
publicly—that they were not sure that they had any legislative 
sanction for the steps they were taking in dismissing the criminal 
information or complaint and substituting for it a wayward 
minor charge. To be sure, this reduction of the complaint was 
done only with the consent of the complainant, the defendant 
and his counsel, and the district attorney, but these judges feared 
that an appeal might be taken from an order of this court which, 
if sustained, might wipe out their Courts and thus harm irrepar- 
ably the cause of socialized work in the criminal courts. Such 
a blow might have delayed for years the legislative recognition 
of their efforts which this bill granted them only through the 
end of June, 1942. 
Had the Committee been able to formulate in 1941 the con- 
clusions which they have arrived at by 1942, this bill might not 
have been necessary. At its expiration, and with the passage 
of the bills proposed in Chapter 8, it is hoped that all the chil- 
dren of New York State will be receiving the specialized treat- 
ment which this bill contemplated when it sanctioned the com- 
mendable and experimental, though perhaps extra-legal, proce- 
dure which the Magistrates Courts were exercising in the Coun- 
ties of Kings and Queens for the protection of adolescent offend- 
ers aged sixteen to eighteen, inclusive. 
217 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
. /#! , !ct TO CONTINUE THE EXISTENCE OF THE 
ADOLESCENT COURTS IN THE COUNTIES OF KINGS AND 
QUEENS, AND TO FACILITATE THE DISPOSAL OF CASES IN- 
VOLVING MINORS UNDER NINETEEN YEARS OF AGE IN THE 
COUNTIES OF KINGS AND QUEENS 
The People of the State of New York, 
represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 
Section 1. The special city magistrates’ courts presently known 
as the adolescent courts which have been held and are now being 
held in the counties of Kings and Queens provided for by the 
board of city magistrates in accordance with the authority vested 
in said board by section one hundred of the inferior criminal 
courts act of the city of New York, shall continue to operate with 
full force and effect until July first, nineteen hundred forty-two. 
§ 2. This court may, with the consent of the district attorney, 
dismiss the criminal information or complaint against a defend- 
ant who shall have been over the age of sixteen years but shall 
not have reached his nineteenth birthday when the act or offense 
is alleged to have been committed and deal with him in accord- 
ance with the procedure specified in title seven-a of the code of 
criminal procedure. 
§ 3. Nothing in this act shall be deemed to invalidate any 
prior procedure or judgment of these courts. 
§ 4. This act shall take effect immediately. 
explanation: Matter in italics is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old 
law to be omitted. 
218 LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS 
3 Senate Bill No. 239, Assembly No. 312, was passed as 
the Moran bill and is now Chapter 828 of the Laws of 1940. 
The purpose of the bill was to discourage appeals from the 
final order or judgment of the children’s court. By awarding 
the costs of appeal against the adverse party, it was expected 
that parents or guardians of children whose cases were heard 
in the children’s court might hesitate before entering an appeal 
to a higher court. 
The question of whether or not appeals from an adjudication 
or conviction by the children’s court should be allowed, is highly 
debatable. 
Ideally speaking, juvenile courts should be of superior juris- 
diction, with appeals allowed only on a question of law or upon 
the grounds of abuse of discretion. Such appeals should only 
be allowed, as they are in New York State, from a final order 
or judgment. The purpose of the juvenile court process is for 
the "aid, encouragement, and guidance” of children. To this 
end their treatment is entrusted to a tribunal which represents 
the State as parens patriae. There is no authority in such Courts 
to visit punishment or vengeance upon the child, as upon one 
who has violated the criminal law, but rather an interest in the 
protection of the future of the minor by his proper treatment. 
A hearing in the juvenile court is not a trial for an offense, but 
an ascertainment of the existence of grounds for further action 
by the court. Failure to provide for appeals in the children’s 
court is no denial of any liberty nor violation of any constitutional 
right. 
Meanwhile, appeals are allowed from the final order or judg- 
ment of the children’s courts of this State, and while the number 
of such appeals is not large, the following bill, now law, will, 
it is hoped, reduce that number still further. 
219 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
TO AMEND THE CHILDREN’S COURT 
ACT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, IN RELATION TO COSTS 
OF APPEAL 
The People of the State of New York, 
represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 
Section 1. Chapter five hundred forty-seven of the laws of 
nineteen hundred twenty-two, entitled "An act establishing chil- 
dren’s courts, defining their jurisdiction, power and duties, and 
regulating procedure therein,” is hereby amended by adding a 
new section, to be section forty-three-a, to read as follows: 
§ 43-ct. Costs of appeal. Costs of appeal, including disburse- 
ments not chargeable to the county, shall be awarded to the pre- 
vailing party and against the adverse party in the same manner 
and to the same extent as if the proceeding had been an action 
commenced in the county court. The court shall determine the 
amount of such costs and disbursement after not less than five 
days written notice to the adverse party and shall render judg- 
ment therefor. A transcript of such judgment may be issued by 
the court and entered in the office of the clerk of the county in 
which the judgment was rendered at any time within six years 
after its rendition. The county clerk on the presentation of the 
transcript and payment of the fees therefor must indorse thereon 
the date of its receipt, fie it in his office and docket the judgment 
as of that date, in a book kept by him for that purpose, in the same 
manner as a judgment in the county court, and enter therein the 
particulars of the judgment as stated in the transcript. From the 
time of filing such transcript the judgment is deemed the judg- 
ment of the county court of that county, and must be enforced 
accordingly, except that an execution can be issued thereon only 
by the county clerk after payment of the lawful fees therefor. 
§ 2. This act shall take effect immediately. 
explanation: Matter in italics is new; matter in brackets [ } is old 
law to be omitted. 
220 LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS 
The following bill, now Chapter 334 of the Laws of 
1941, was originally introduced in 1940 as Senate Bill No. 174, 
Assembly No. 217, and again in 1941 as Senate Bill No. 412, 
Assembly No. 145. The Children’s Court Act of 1922 omitted 
to give to judges of the children’s courts, and their clerks, the 
power to administer oaths and to take acknowledgments. This 
was clearly an oversight, as even a justice of the peace has the 
authority to administer an oath, an error which this bill corrects. 
.iff jMct TO AMEND THE CHILDREN’S COURT 
ACT, IN RELATION TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF OATHS 
The People of the State of New York, 
represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 
Section 1. Chapter five hundred and forty-seven of the laws 
of nineteen hundred twenty-two, entitled "An act establishing 
children’s courts, defining their jurisdiction, power and duties, 
and regulating procedure therein,” is hereby amended by adding 
thereto a new section, to be section seven, to read as follows: 
§ 7. Administration of oaths. In each county the judge of 
the children’s court, the acting judge of the children’s court, the 
chief clerk and deputy clerks of the children’s court shall have 
the power to administer oaths and take acknowledgments. 
§ 2. This act shall take effect immediately. 
explanation: Matter in italics is new; matter in brackets [ } is old 
law to be omitted. 
5 The following Act, passed as the "Lawrence Bill”, now 
Chapter 366 of the Laws of 1941, was introduced in the Senate as 
Bill No. 53S, and in the Assembly as No. 710. This bill added 
a further subdivision to Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Pro- 
cedure, which made the judges of the children’s courts magis- 
trates, a status which they were not considered to have prior to 
the enactment of this law. 
221 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
By Chapter 436 of the Laws of 1924, every children’s court 
judge (except in the county of Hamilton) is required to be a 
member of the bar as a prerequisite to his holding office, and 
therefore he is to be deemed competent to discharge this addi- 
tional responsibility. By empowering children’s court judges to 
become committing magistrates, they would be further empow- 
ered to follow the treatment of children who may have come be- 
fore them in the children’s court, after they reach the age of 
sixteen. Under this sub-division, also, judges of the children’s 
courts are now enabled to apply the Wayward Minor Law in the 
cases of children who are above the age of sixteen. (See chap- 
ter 7, pp. 124-127). 
jTLnjiet TO AMEND THE CODE OF CRIMINAL 
PROCEDURE, IN RELATION TO MAGISTRATES 
The People of the State of New York, 
represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 
Section 1. Section one hundred and forty-seven of the code of 
criminal procedure is hereby amended by adding thereto a new 
subdivision, to be subdivision ten, to read as follows; 
10. The judges of the various children’s courts of the state of 
New York. 
§ 2. This act shall take effect immediately. 
explanation: Matter in italics is new; matter in brackets [ } is old 
law to be omitted. 
Cb Senate Bill No, 2341 of 1940, is now Chapter 671 of 
the Laws of 1940. This bill, known as "An Act to Amend the 
Domestic Relations Court of the City of New York, generally” 
makes the following specific provisions: 
1. Relating to the payment of money paid into the Family Court 
for the support of wives, children or poor relatives; 
222 LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS 
2. a. Relating to the contribution by parents or guardians to 
the expense incurred by the remand or commitment of a child 
to a public or private institution; 
b. Permitting the Department of Welfare to proceed against 
a parent or guardian in the Family Court for maintenance 
of a child who has been remanded or committed to a private 
or public institution; 
3. Permitting the return to the children’s court of a neglected 
child, who, after placement becomes incorrigible or commits 
an act of delinquency; 
4. Allowing the children’s court, after ordering the discharge 
of a child from an institution, to place him on probation to 
the children’s court, or otherwise to place him under the 
court’s supervision; 
5. Allowing the children’s court, upon an application for the 
transfer of a child from one institution to another, similarly 
to place him on probation to the children’s court, or otherwise 
place him under the court’s supervision; 
6. Allowing the Family Court, to alter, vacate, cancel, or reduce 
sums ordered paid for support; 
7. Relating to the residence of a husband or father required to 
furnish support; 
8. Relating to the inclusion of children under the age of seven- 
teen in a petition for support in cases where an action for 
divorce, separation or annulment is pending. 
These provisions were the result of the operation of the 
Domestic Relations Court of New York City during the first six 
years of its experience. Their incorporation into law has mate- 
rially aided in a clarification of the law under which the court 
operates. 
223 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
TO AMEND THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS 
COURT ACT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, GENERALLY 
The People of the State of New York, 
represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 
Section 1. Section twenty-nine o£ chapter four hundred and 
eighty-two of the laws of nineteen hundred thirty-three, entitled 
"An act to establish in and for the city of New York a court of 
domestic relations, to be known as the domestic relations court of 
the city of New York, and defining its powers, jurisdiction and 
procedure and providing for its organization,” is hereby amended 
to read as follows; 
§ 29. Support bureau. 1. There shall be in each part of the 
family court a bureau for the receipt and disbursement of funds 
paid for the support of wives, children or poor relatives. Each 
such bureau shall be known as the support bureau and shall be 
under the direction of an employee who shall be known as chief 
of such bureau. Each day at the close of the day he shall deposit 
in a bank approved by the board all funds then on hand. He shall 
keep a careful and accurate record of all moneys received and 
paid out in accordance with the rules of the board. He shall cause 
to be given or sent to each person making payments to such bureau 
a receipt upon a printed form to be signed in the name of the 
court with his name and that of the employee issuing it signed 
thereto, with a statement of the amount of money received and 
from whom and on whose behalf. Each such receipt shall carry a 
serial number, which shall also appear upon a carbon copy on an 
identical form, on which the information filled in on the original 
shall appear. He shall cause to be promptly transmitted to the 
probation officer in charge of each case information with regard 
to all payments made relative thereto and shall report specifically 
to such officer all instances where required payments have not 
explanation: Matter in italics is new; matter in brackets { } is old 
law to be omitted. 
224 LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS 
been made within a two weeks’ period. No such carbon copy shall 
for any reason be destroyed. It shall be the duty of the adminis- 
trative officer in each such part of the family court at least once a 
month to carefully examine and check over these carbon copies 
and the records of all money received and paid out in said part. 
He shall report thereon in writing to the director of adminis- 
tration and shall always include a statement of beneficiaries for 
whom money has been paid to the bureau, but which has not been 
received and receipted for by such beneficiaries after the lapse of 
two weeks’ time. 
2. Any and all moneys paid into the support bureau of a family 
court division of the domestic relations court of the city of New 
York for the support of a wife, child or poor relative shall upon 
payment into such support bureau be deemed for all purposes to 
be the property of the wife, child or poor relative for whom such 
money is to be paid; except that where a petition is signed and a 
proceeding is instituted to obtain support for a child, a poor rela- 
tive or person other than the petitioner, all money or moneys paid 
pursuant to order entered in such proceeding may be collected by 
the petitioner in such proceeding who shall be accountable to the 
person for whose benefit the proceeding is brought for the proper 
use of such moneys. 
§ 2. Such chapter is hereby amended by inserting therein a 
new section, to be section fifty-six-a, to read as follows: 
§ 56-a. Duties of city department of welfare with respect to 
compelling support. 1. Upon the remand or commitment of a 
child to a public or private institution other than a shelter main- 
tained and conducted by a society for the prevention of cruelty to 
children, the department of welfare of the city of New York shall 
investigate the ability of the parent of the child, or other person 
legally chargeable, to contribute in whole or in part to the expense 
incurred by the city of New York on account of the maintenance 
of such child. 
2. If in the opinion of the department of welfare such parent 
or legal custodian is able to contribute in whole or in part the 
department of welfare shall thereupon institute a proceeding in 
its own name in the family court division of the domestic relations 
225 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
court of the city of Neiv York to compel such parent or other 
person legally chargeable to contribute such portion of such 
expense on account of the maintenance of such child as shall be 
proper and just and the domestic relations court of the city of 
New York is vested with jurisdiction in the premises. 
§ 3. Subdivision one of section sixty-one of such chapter is 
hereby amended to read as follows: 
1. Children. The children’s court in each county shall have 
exclusive original jurisdiction within such county to hear and 
determine all cases or proceedings involving the hearing, trial, 
parole, probation, remand or commitment of children actually or 
apparently under the age of sixteen years, or who were under the 
age of sixteen years when the act or offense is alleged to have 
been committed, or the right of action in such case or proceeding 
accrued, who are, or who are alleged to be (a) delinquent, (b) 
physically handicapped, (c) material witnesses, (d) mental defec- 
tives, (e) neglected, and shall also have jurisdiction to appoint 
guardians of the person and guardians ad litem of such children, 
and to grant orders for the adoption of such children. Such court 
shall also have jurisdiction in proceedings to determine the ques- 
tion of the rightful custody of such children if their custody is 
subject to controversy and such custody or controversy relates to 
their immediate care. 
§ 4. Existing subdivision three of section sixty-one of such 
chapter is hereby repealed. 
§ 5. Section sixty-one of such chapter is hereby amended by 
inserting therein a new subdivision, to be subdivision three, to 
read as follows: 
3. Where a child is committed as a neglected child by the 
domestic relations court of the city of New York or by the depart- 
ment of welfare of the city of New York, and while so committed 
becomes incorrigible or commits an act of delinquency outside of 
the city of New York, such child may be returned to the children's 
court in Neiv York city in the county thereof where the original 
commitment was made by said court, but if said commitment was 
made by the department of welfare of the city of New York then 
such child shall be returned to the county thereof in which the 
22 6 LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS 
parent's of said child last resided or where its legal custodian 
last resided or had its principal office, and in such case a petition 
alleging such incorrigibility or delinquency may be drawn and 
on eight days notice to its parents or custodian a hearing on said 
petition may be had and suitable disposition made thereof by 
such court, irrespective of whether or not such incorrigibility or 
delinquency occurred within the city of New York. 
§ 6. Subdivision one of section eighty-six of such chapter, as 
amended by chapter three hundred and sixty-two of the laws of 
nineteen hundred thirty-four, is hereby amended to read as fol- 
lows: 
1. Any order or judgment made by the court in the case of any 
child committed by virtue of any proceeding may be vacated and 
set aside or modified, as provided by law. Any parent or guar- 
dian, or a duly authorized agency, association, society or institu- 
tion, or the next friend of any child who has been or shall here- 
after be committed by the children’s court to the custody of an 
institution, corporation, board, association, society, agency or 
person, may at any time file with the court a petition verified by 
affidavit setting forth under what conditions such child is living, 
and that an application for the release of the child has been made 
to and denied by such institution, corporation, association, society, 
agency or person, or that such institution, corporation, associa- 
tion, society, agency or person has failed to act upon such applica- 
tion within a reasonable time. A copy of such petition shall at 
once be served upon such institution, corporation, association, 
society, agency or person, or upon the commissioner of public 
welfare, or such other officer, board or department having the 
custody of the child, whose duty it shall be to file an answer to 
the same within five days. If upon examination of the petition 
and answer the court is of the opinion that a hearing should be 
had, it may, upon reasonable and due notice to all concerned, 
proceed to hear the facts and determine the question at issue, and 
may discharge, return such child to the custody of its parents or 
guardian or direct such institution, corporation, association, 
society, agency or person to make such other arrangements for 
the child’s care and welfare as the facts of the case may require. 
227 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
If the court orders the discharge of a child from an institution, 
upon an application' duly made, the court may place the child on 
probation or under the supervision of the court. But no such 
petition affecting a juvenile delinquent shall be entertained by 
the court within sixty days after the date of his commitment. 
§ 7. Section eighty-six of such chapter is hereby amended by 
adding thereto a new subdivision, to be subdivision four, to read 
as follows: 
4. Upon any application for transfer of a child from one 
institution to another, the court shall have power to discharge 
the child or to place the child on probation or under the super- 
vision of the court. 
§ 8. Subdivision ten of section ninety-two of such chapter is 
hereby amended to read as follows: 
(10) To determine the manner in which sums ordered paid 
for support shall be paid and applied; to alter or vacate any 
such determination, and to cancel or reduce arrears of sums so 
ordered paid. 
§ 9- Section one hundred and three of such chapter, as 
amended by chapter three hundred and sixty-two of the laws of 
nineteen hundred thirty-four, is hereby amended to read as 
follows: 
§ 103. Residential jurisdiction. A husband or father may be 
required to furnish support or may be found guilty of non-sup- 
port, as provided in the two preceding sections, if, at the time of 
the filing of the petition for support, 
(a) he is residing or domiciled in the city; or 
(b) he is not residing or domiciled in the city but is found 
therein at [such] the time, provided that the petitioner is so 
residing or domiciled at [such] the time of the filing of the peti- 
tion for support and is so residing or domiciled at the time of the 
service of such summons or warrant; or 
(c) he is neither residing nor domiciled nor found in the city 
but prior to [such] the time of the filing of the petition for sup- 
port and, while so residing or domiciled, he shall have failed to 
furnish such support or shall have abandoned his wife or child 
228 LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS 
and thereafter shall have failed to furnish such support, provided 
that the petitioner is so residing or domiciled at such time. 
§ 10. Section one hundred thirty-seven of such chapter, as 
amended by chapter three hundred and forty-six of the laws of 
nineteen hundred thirty-six, is hereby amended to read as follows: 
§ 137. Divorces; separations; annulments, etcetera. Where a 
divorce, separation or annulment has been granted to the peti- 
tioner by the supreme court or a suit for such relief is pending, 
and the respondent has been required under the terms of any 
order or decree entered in such separation, divorce or annulment 
proceeding to pay a specified sum to the petitioner or her children 
as alimony or maintenance and has failed to do so, that fact shall 
not be a bar to a proceeding in the family court to compel support 
within the limits of the order of the supreme court and as set 
forth by section ninety-two of this act, provided that the respon- 
dent is not in jail for failure to obey the order of the supreme 
court. An action for divorce, separation or annulment pending 
in the supreme court shall not prevent the family court from 
entertaining a petition for support if it is shown to the satisfac- 
tion of the family court that the petitioner is likely to become a 
public charge; nor shall such an action prevent the family court 
from entertaining a petition for support of a child or children 
up to the age of seventeen years, in the absence of an order of the 
supreme court in such action providing for such support. After 
final adjudication by the supreme court denying alimony in a 
separation action, if in the opinion of the family court the cir- 
cumstances of the parties have changed or if it is shown to the 
satisfaction of the family court that the petitioner is likely to 
become a public charge, the family court may entertain a petition 
for support. An agreement to separate shall in no way preclude 
the filing of a petition for the support of a child or the making 
of an order for its support by the family court, or for the support 
of a wife who is likely to become a public charge. 
§ 11. This act shall take effect immediately. 
229 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
7 Following the passage of the preceding bill (Sen. No. 
2341), an Act which would further amend the Domestic Rela- 
tions Court of New York City was introduced as Senate No. 
1429, which was twice amended—as Senate No. 1660 and finally 
as Senate No. 1859. Upon its enactment, it became Chapter 943 
of the Laws of 1941. 
Specifically the bill: 
1. Requires that probation officers assigned to supervision be of 
the same religious faith as the probationer, if there are chil- 
dren in the probationer’s family or custody; 
2. Places certain limitations upon the inspection of records of 
the Children’s and Family Court; 
3. Broadens the conditions under which, and the places where, 
mental, physical and psychiatric examinations of persons 
seeking custody of a child may be ordered by the court; 
4. Changes the term "sentence” to "judgment”, after a child 
has been adjudicated as delinquent or neglected; 
5. Removes the former limitation of a five year period of super- 
vision or probation by the court in the case of neglected and 
delinquent children, respectively; 
6. Removes the requirement that a child violate the conditions of 
his probation or supervision before he may be committed; 
7. Allows the court to remand a child to the New York City 
Department of Hospitals for physical, or psychiatric examina- 
tion during or after a hearing, but not before; 
8. Exempts a Justice of the Family Court of New York City 
from liability in any proceedings under the Act, unless it is 
shown that he acted maliciously, or deliberately abused his 
discretion; and 
9. Includes step-children, grandchildren, parents and grand- 
parents with wives and children as persons whom the respond- 
ent (husband or father) shall be presumed to have sufficient 
means to support. 
230 LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS 
The provisions of this law, like those of the preceding law, 
arose from the day-to-day business of the Court of Domestic 
Relations. They were both introduced at the request of the 
justices of that Court. 
TtnTlct TO AMEND THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS 
COURT ACT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, GENERALLY 
The People of the State of New York, 
represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 
Section 1. Section thirty-two of chapter four hundred and 
eighty-two of the laws of nineteen hundred thirty-three, entitled 
"An act to establish in and for the city of New York a court of 
domestic relations, to be known as the domestic relations court of 
the city of New York, and defining its powers, jurisdiction and 
procedure and providing for its organization,” as last amended by 
chapter two hundred and eighty-three of the laws of nineteen 
hundred thirty-nine, is hereby amended to read as follows: 
§ 32. Probation bureau; section of supervision. There shall be 
in each part of the family court in the probation bureau a section 
of supervision. It shall be the duty of each such section to super- 
vise persons placed on probation by the court and to see that the 
conditions of probation are carried out by the probationer, and 
to aid by counsel and advice, and in other ways, in maintaining 
the families under their care as social units, and to bring about 
harmonious relations in the home. The probation officer assigned 
to such duty, whenever practicable, shall be of the same religious 
faith of the family or person under supervision whenever there 
are children in such family or in the custody of such person. Each 
such section shall be under the direction of a probation officer 
who shall be designated chief of the section of supervision, and 
who shall be subject to the supervision and control of the chief 
of the probation bureau of that part of the court. There shall 
explanation: Matter in italics is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old 
law to be omitted. 
231 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
be assigned to each such section as many probation officers and 
other employees as may be necessary for its proper functioning. 
Proper forms for reporting on probationers in harmony with the 
best current practice shall be prepared by the chief probation 
officer and used by each such bureau. Such forms shall show the 
constructive case work planned, attempted and accomplished and 
give a chronological history of the work of supervision. 
§ 2. Section fifty-two of such chapter, as last amended by 
chapter three hundred and forty-six of the laws of nineteen hun- 
dred thirty-six, is hereby amended to read as follows: 
§ 52. Privacy of records. The records of any case, in either 
a children’s court or the family court [may be withheld from in- 
discriminate public inspection by order of the court, but such 
records] shall not be open to inspection except that the petition, 
process formal motions and other papers appropriate to a judg- 
ment roll on a case on appeal shall be opened to inspection by the 
parent, guardian, next friend or attorney of the child in a pro- 
ceeding in the children’s court and to the petitioner and respondent 
or their respective attorneys in a proceeding in the family court. 
However, the court in its discretion in any case may permit the 
inspection of any papers or records. Any duly authorized agency, 
association, society or institution to which a child is committed may 
cause an inspection of the record of investigation to be had and 
may in the discretion of the court obtain a copy of the whole or 
a part of such record. 
§ 3. Subdivision one of section sixty-one of such chapter, as 
last amended by chapter six hundred and seventy-one of the laws 
of nineteen hundred forty, is hereby amended to read as follows: 
1. Children. The children’s court in each county shall have 
exclusive original jurisdiction within such county to hear and 
determine all cases or proceedings involving the hearing, trial, 
parole, probation, remand or commitment of children actually or 
apparently under the age of sixteen years, or who were under the 
age of sixteen years when the act or offense is alleged to have been 
committed, or the right of action in such case or proceeding 
accrued, who are, or who are alleged to be (a) delinquent, (b) 
physically handicapped, (c) material witnesses, (d) mental 
232 LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS 
defectives, (e) neglected, and shall also have jurisdiction to 
appoint guardians of the person and guardians ad litem of such 
children, and to grant orders for the adoption of such children. 
Such court shall also have jurisdiction in proceedings to determine 
the question of the rightful custody of such children if their 
custody is subject to controversy and such custody or controversy 
relates to their immediate care. When jurisdiction shall have 
been obtained by the court in the case of any child, such child 
shall continue for the purposes of this act under the jurisdiction of 
the court until he becomes twenty-one years of age unless dis- 
charged prior thereto. 
§ 4. Subdivision seven of section sixty-one of such chapter, as 
added by chapter four hundred and ninety-two of the laws of 
nineteen hundred thirty-nine, is hereby amended to read as 
follows: 
7. In the exercise of its jurisdiction the court shall have power 
to order, either before, during or after a hearing a mental, 
physical or psychiatric examination of or [to commit, for pur- 
poses of observation, to the division of psychiatry of the depart- 
ment of hospitals of the city] to commit for purposes of obser- 
vation, in the manner provided by law for a magistrate, a parent, 
guardian, custodian or other person having or seeking custody 
of a child [where such person is before the court and the court 
has reason to believe that such person may be insane. Where 
such examination or commitment is ordered either before or 
after a hearing, it shall only be after reasonable notice to the 
person to be examined or committed]. 
§ 5. Section eighty-three of such chapter as amended by chap- 
ter seven hundred and twenty-six of the laws of nineteen hun- 
dred thirty-seven, is hereby amended to read as follows: 
§ 83. Hearing; judgment. Upon the return of the summons 
or other process or after any child has been taken into custody, 
and at the time set for the hearing, the court shall proceed to 
hear and determine the case. The court from time to time may 
adjourn the hearing and inquire into the habits, surroundings, 
conditions and tendencies of the child so as to enable the court 
to render such order or judgment as shall best conserve the wel- 
233 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
fare of the child and carry out the objects of this act. During such 
adjournments the child may be placed in the custody of a parent, 
guardian, relative or other fit person and under the supervision of 
a probation officer, if the court so directs. At any stage of a pro- 
ceeding the justice may, in his discretion, appoint any suitable 
person to be the guardian ad litem of the child for the purposes 
of the proceeding. 
The court, if satisfied by competent evidence, may adjudicate 
the child to be delinquent or neglected, and in such case shall 
render judgment as follows: 
(a) Suspend [sentence] judgment; 
(b) Place the child, if delinquent, on probation or, if neglected, 
under supervision to remain in his own home or in the custody of 
a relative or other fit person, subject, however, to the supervision 
of a probation officer and to further orders of the court; 
(c) Commit the child to the care and custody of a suitable 
institution maintained by the state or any subdivision thereof, or 
to the care and custody of a duly authorized association, agency, 
society or institution; 
(d) Impose a fine in a sum not to exceed five hundred dollars, 
or in the alternative to remand, commit or place on probation as 
herein provided; 
(e) Continue the proceeding and place the child in its own 
home or in the custody of a relative or other suitable person, or 
a duly authorized association, agency, society or institution, for a 
certain designated period subject to the orders of the court; 
(f) Discharge the child, if a neglected child, to the custody of 
such officer, board or department as may be authorized to receive 
children as public charges, who shall provide for such child as 
in the case of a destitute child or as otherwise authorized by 
law; or 
(g) Render such other and further judgment or make such 
other order or commitment as the court may be authorized by law 
to make. 
(h) Where a child is alleged in the petition to be a neglected 
child and the parent, guardian or other person responsible for 
the custody or control of such child cannot, after diligent search, 
234 LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS 
be found or brought to court, after proof of neglect the court 
shall proceed with respect to the welfare of such child as though 
such parent, guardian or other person were present. If thereafter 
the parent, guardian or other person responsible for the custody 
or control of such child shall, on affidavit showing such rela- 
tionship or responsibility, move the court that the disposition 
made by the court in such case be vacated and ask for a rehearing, 
the court shall grant such motion. 
A child may be placed and continued on probation if delinquent 
or under supervision if neglected for such time as the court or 
justice may deem proper, [but such period shall not be longer than 
hve years, nor shall it] but such period shall not continue in 
any case beyond the twenty-first birthday of any child. Such pro- 
bationary period, or period of supervision, however, may extend 
beyond the time [such] a child attains the age of sixteen years. 
In case of a violation of probation or of the terms of supervision 
[of the probationary condition] the court may render any other 
judgment [impose on the probationer any penalty or penalties] 
which it might have rendered [imposed] before placing the pro- 
bationer [him] on probation or child under and 
in any case where the court shall have adjudged a child to be delin- 
quent, or neglected, and shall have placed him on probation 
[subject to the] or under supervision [of a probation officer] as 
the case may be, the court [in the manner aforesaid] on revoca- 
tion of such probation or supervision for violation of the condi- 
tions or terms thereof may commit such child [for violation of the 
conditions of his probation at any time during such probationary 
period] irrespective of his age at the time of such violation. 
§ 6. Section eighty-five of such chapter, as amended by chap- 
ter three hundred and forty-six of the laws of nineteen hundred 
thirty-six, is hereby amended to read as follows: 
§ 85. Mental and physical examinations; treatment. The 
court in its discretion, [either before,] during or after a hear- 
ing, may cause any child within its jurisdiction to be examined 
by a physician duly licensed as such by the state of New York or 
by a psychologist or psychiatrist, or during or after a hearing 
may remand such child for physical or psychiatric study or 
235 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
observation to the department of hospitals of the city of New 
York for a period not to exceed a total of thirty days, [appointed 
or designated for the purpose by the court. If it shall appear to 
the court that any child within its jurisdiction is mentally defec- 
tive, the court may cause such child to be examined and if such 
child shall be found to be mentally defective, the court may com- 
mit such child to a suitable institution. In the case of a 
physically handicapped or other child within its jurisdiction after 
satisfactory proof of the need thereof the court may make an order 
for his (a) maintenance, (b) surgical, (c) medical or therapeutic 
treatment, (d) hospital care, (e) appliances and devices, (f) home 
teaching, (g) transportation, (h) education, (i) tuition, or (j) 
scholarships. Whenever a child within the jurisdiction of the 
court and under the provisions of this act appears to the court to 
be in need of medical or surgical care a suitable order may be 
made for the treatment of such child in its home, in a hospital or 
other suitable institution, and the reasonable expenses thereof 
shall be a charge upon the city of New York; but the court may, 
after a proper hearing, issue an order that the person or persons 
charged with the liability under the law to support such child, 
shall pay a part or all the expenses of such treatment in the man- 
ner provided elsewhere in this act for the support or partial 
support of children committed by the court.] 
§ 7. Paragraph nine of section ninety-two of such chapter, is 
hereby amended to read as follows: 
(9) To require the support by those legally chargeable there- 
with of a dependent adult who is unable to maintain himself and 
is likely to become a public charge[; evidence that he is without 
means shall be presumptive proof of his liability to become a 
charge upon the public and the respondent shall be deemed to be 
of sufficient financial ability to contribute to his spport unless 
the contrary shall affirmatively appear to the satisfaction of the 
court or a justice thereof]; the court to determine and apportion 
the amount that each such relative shall be required to contribute, 
as may be just and appropriate in view of the circumstances of the 
case. 
§ 8. Section one hundred and twenty-three of such chapter is 
236 LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS 
hereby amended by adding thereto a new paragraph, to be para- 
graph (g), to read as follows: 
(g) A justice of this court who in good faith issues process 
in any proceedings under this act shall not be liable therefor1 
unless it is shown that his action in so doing was malicious or a 
deliberate abuse of his discretion. 
§ 9- Section one hundred and thirty-one of such chapter is 
hereby amended to read as follows: 
§ 131. Right to counsel; presumptions. At the commence- 
ment of a hearing under the provisions of sections one hundred 
and twenty-eight and one hundred and twenty-nine, or of a trial 
under the provisions of section one hundred and thirty, the court 
shall inform the respondent of his right to the aid of counsel at 
every stage of the proceeding and before any further proceedings 
are had; and in the case of a trial shall also inform him of the 
charge against him. In any such hearing or trial wives and hus- 
bands shall be competent witnesses against each other; a [husband 
or father] respondent shall, prima facie, be presumed to have 
sufficient means to support his wife [and children;], child, step- 
child, grandchild, parent, grandparent, and a dependent adult 
without means to maintain himself shall be presumed to be likely 
to become a public charge. 
§ 10. This act shall take effect immediately. 
237 CHAPTER XL LEGISLATION 
PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED 
AND HERE RE-INTRODUCED 
1 The following draft act was first introduced in the 
Senate as No. 173, later amended as No. 1550. The identical 
act was introduced as Assembly No. 218. No action was taken 
on this bill in 1940. It was introduced a second time in 1941 as 
Senate No. 411, Assembly No. 613, when it passed the Senate, 
but was stricken from the Assembly Calendar with the under- 
standing that more study would be given to it during the year. 
The Committee has devoted a great deal of consideration to 
this bill since the close of the last session, and again submits it 
for passage by the Legislature. Enactment of this bill would 
secure the result earnestly advocated by numerous witnesses before 
us: namely, that some serious efforts be made to take hold of the 
pre-delinquent child before his anti-social tendencies have become 
so fixed as to make almost inevitable the development of a crim- 
inal career in later youth and adulthood. No more studies are 
needed to prove that the delinquent child brought before the chil- 
dren’s court has frequently committed earlier offenses for which 
he was not apprehended. 
Some objection has been made to an extension of the jurisdic- 
tion of the children’s court beyond the dealing with duly adjudi- 
cated delinquents on the grounds that to do so would be an intru- 
sion into the home. The opposition advances the further argu- 
ment that the place for correction is in the home, that efforts 
should first be made to improve the parental care of children. We 
agree heartily with this position; we also urge that not only must LEGISLATION RE-INTRODUCED 
the home, as well as the school and the social agency be encour- 
aged to recognize and treat incipient cases of maladjustment, but 
further that the deficiencies and the neglect of these agencies 
should somehow be offset. We believe this to be the duty of that 
tribunal which the Legislature has set up for the care and protec- 
tion of childhood—the Children’s Court. 
It has been argued that this bill gives to the children’s courts 
a jurisdiction neither found nor contemplated in that part of our 
State Constitution which refers to the children’s courts. But 
Article VI, Section 18, gives to these courts jurisdiction not only 
for the correction and guardianship of children, but for their 
protection as well. 
Furthermore, the preamble to the Children’s Court Act of 1922 
states that the nature of the court’s attitude toward the children 
brought before it should ”... approximate as nearly as possible 
that which they should receive from their parents , . A parent 
would not wait until his child’s conduct had become so critical 
that a formal procedure was necessary—he would be expected to 
deal promptly with a serious maladjustment long before it had 
become acute. The children’s courts of this State could only the 
more conscientiously carry out the responsibilities with which the 
Children’s Court Act charges them by dealing informally with 
pre-delinquent conduct before it has become serious enough to 
merit the official attention of the court. 
Those who speak of the duplication of work which would result 
from passage of this Act seem unaware of the fact that it does 
not contemplate the creation of any new machinery, even within 
the Court itself. No additional treatment facilities of any kind 
are established: the Court is simply empowered to take cognizance 
of the cases of children who reveal symptoms of developing delin- 
quent conduct. These symptoms are well recognized by all who 
deal with children. It will be noted, further, that the Act does 
not empower the children’s court to initiate informal proceedings 
but only to stand ready to receive certain facts about a child when 
these facts are presented by an interested person. The Court’s 
role in these informal proceedings is based on its active interest 
in children who are in danger of becoming delinquent. 
239 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
A decision handed down in 1932 has confirmed the non-crim- 
inal nature of the children’s court procedure: strict rules of crim- 
inal procedure are inapplicable to proceedings in the children’s 
court, since juvenile delinquency is not a crime. (People v. 
Pikunas, 260 N. Y. 72, 182 N. E. 675). There is, therefore, no 
question of the possibility of permitting the children’s court to 
use the admissions of a child as a basis for bringing him within 
the jurisdiction of the Court. Children before the children’s 
court neither "admit” nor "confess”. 
It is entirely likely that the provisions of this bill may never 
be used in certain counties of the State which are generously 
provided with child welfare services. It is a platitude that facil- 
ities for children are not evenly distributed throughout our State, 
but tend to concentrate themselves chiefly in the large urban 
centers. It is entirely likely that these places may have sufficient 
agencies -to observe and treat incipient cases of maladjustment. 
But in the less populous centers the children’s court may not have 
the help of a wide variety of child-caring services, and it is 
entirely fitting and proper that the Court should be vested with 
the powers to prevent delinquency which this bill contemplates. 
To cite but one of many possible parallels, the State Education 
Law with its provisions for grants to schools in the less populous 
and less prosperous parts of the State, helps to correct that imbal- 
ance which operates to the disfavor of the rural child. 
The Children’s Court Law for New York City was recently 
amended to permit certain neglected children who become incor- 
rigible or who commit delinquent acts to be brought again into 
the Children’s Court for "suitable disposition”. (Laws of 1940, 
Chapter 672). We see no reason why children who exhibit 
delinquent tendencies, but who have not been adjudged neglected, 
may not have their need and condition brought to the attention 
of an agency, like the Children’s Court, which deals in a chancery 
fashion and by means of a non-punitive procedure. It would 
seem that the law now discriminates against the child who, while 
he may not be neglected, does manifest certain tendencies which, 
if allowed to go uncorrected, are more than likely to develop into 
serious delinquent conduct. LEGISLATION RE-INTRODUCED 
Recommendations regarding crime prevention have been placed 
before the Committee by several score of witnesses representing 
the widest possible diversity of experience and opinion from 
private and public institutions and agencies in all parts of the 
State. These witnesses deplored—with us—the fact that delin- 
quent careers spring from all kinds of detrimental and unwhole- 
some factors, that furthermore, despite the best efforts of par- 
ents, teachers and social workers, all too many children engage 
in pre-delinquent conduct which must await apprehension and 
formal complaint, before the machinery of the Children’s Court 
may move to correct it. Yet in every county of the State, the 
Legislature has set up tribunals for non-criminal dealing with 
youthful misconduct. These same children’s courts, it seems to 
us, are the answer to the challenge of juvenile delinquency and 
we are convinced that these courts should be empowered to take 
cognizance of the condition of pre-delinquency, a condition only 
slightly less serious than that represented by an apprehended 
act. The children’s courts now require the commission of no 
overt, proven act to empower them to take jurisdiction in the 
case of children who are neglected, abandoned, destitute, phys- 
ically handicapped or mentally defective—either on the part of 
the child or of an adult. The Court extends its protective care 
to children in these situations because their need and condition 
commend them to the attention of society. 
There is no difference whatsoever between the manner in which 
the children’s court would be apprised of the fact that a child 
required its "informal” attention, under the terms of this bill, and 
the procedure which now brings other children to the "formal” 
attention of the Court. Section 10 of the Children’s Court Act 
of 1922 specifies that "the parent or custodian of any child, an 
authorized agency, or any interested person having knowledge or 
information that a child is abandoned, neglected or delinquent 
or otherwise within the jurisdiction of the Court may institute a 
proceeding . . .”. This is almost the precise working of the new 
Section 10-a proposed by the following bill. 
Nothing in this proposed draft act pretends to interfere in any 
way with a complainant’s right to a hearing on a matter which 
241 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
he refers to the children’s court for its informal attention. Such 
interference would be contrary not only to the complainant’s 
rights in such matters, but also to the public welfare generally. 
The bill clearly implies that the complainant’s consent to an 
informal hearing will first be had before the court proceeds far- 
ther in the matter. The fact that "parents, custodians, authorized 
agencies, school officials, police officers or other interested per- 
sons’’ are given the choice of presenting knowledge or informa- 
tion regarding a child to the court in an unofficial manner means 
that they must be persuaded of the superior value of this pro- 
cedure, else they will enter a formal complaint in the regular, 
approved manner, as they may now do. 
Children’s courts no longer require children brought before 
them to be put under oath or to plead to guilt. These steps in 
Court procedure have long since been abandoned because their 
narrow and unreasoning requirements are inconsistent with the 
ascertainment of the facts in regard to a child, for whom treat- 
ment and not punishment may be ordered by the court. Through- 
out the hearings held by this Committee, it has been argued by 
witnesses before us that one of the chief reasons for a special 
handling of the adolescent offender is to avoid a criminal court 
appearance or record. Children’s courts in this State have aban- 
doned the name of "Juvenile Court’’ because this title has come 
to have a certain stigma of its own. One way of dissolving the 
feeling in the community that appearance in a juvenile court is 
tantamount to an appearance in a criminal court is through 
allowing the children’s court to handle, informally, the cases of 
children "exhibiting conduct disorders or troublesome propensi- 
ties” likely to develop into delinquent conduct. 
Despite the many vestiges of the criminal court procedure from 
which it is not yet completely free, the children’s court continues 
to develop more and more into a community agency; it places 
increasing reliance upon private and public social agencies of a 
non-court nature, and in other ways shows a definite trend toward 
a socialized and non-legalistic approach. The disappearance of 
the children’s court as an authoritarian institution cannot be 
expected for some time yet, although it is not altogether unlikely 
242 LEGISLATION RE-INTRODUCED 
that at some future date it may be supplanted by such a com- 
pletely non-court agency as the Neighborhood Child Welfare 
Councils found in Scandinavia. Meanwhile much remains to be 
done to extend the protective procedure of the children’s court 
as it is now constituted. 
Informal dealing on the part of the children’s court has been 
well accepted in practice, even where it has not received precise 
legislative sanction, simply because such dealing is entirely con- 
sistent with the philosophy of the juvenile court and its place as 
a station for the care of childhood. As one instance, we cite 
the experience of the Children’s Court Division of the Domestic 
Relations Court of New York City which in 1938 handled 5,867 
cases through its Bureau of Adjustment, as against 4,996 cases 
formally dealt with as delinquents. In other words, almost one- 
half (46.0 per cent) of the children’s cases heard by the largest 
court for children in the State, were dealt with informally. 
"Informal dealing” with adolescents at the other end of the 
court process—after acquittal or discharge by a criminal court—is 
now being done on a purely voluntary basis by at least one County 
in the State. (See Chapter 7, pp. 152-155). 
In two recent years, the Children’s Court of Westchester County 
heard the following number of cases by formal and informal 
methods: 
1957 
1938 
Juveniles (formal) 
962 
840 
(informal) 
458 
388 
In 1937, of 795 delinquency cases, 458 (57.6 per cent) were 
treated informally. Of these, only 20 (4.4 per cent) were sub- 
sequently referred for formal treatment, indicating a very high 
rate of success. In 1938 the same comparison shows 659 cases 
of delinquency, of which 388 (58.9 per cent) were treated 
informally, and of these only 11 (2.8 per cent) were thereafter 
referred for formal court action. 
The passage of this bill would bring the law into conformity 
with present procedure in the Children s Courts of the State. It 
has received the repeated endorsement of the New York State 
243 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
Association of Children’s Court Judges. We believe it would go 
far to relieve overcrowding in some of our children’s courts, thus 
freeing them for more intensive work with older and more 
difficult children. 
The Committee submits this bill again for passage by the 
Legislature with the assurance that it is the most important single 
piece of legislation which we could devise for the purpose of 
preventing the development of maladjusted children into delin- 
quent juveniles. The Legislature cannot pass laws which will 
make the home, the school or the private social agency assume a 
greater degree of responsibility toward pre-delinquent children. 
The Legislature can—and should—give to the courts for children 
in this State the power to prevent delinquency and crime through 
a measure of attention to the child who has not yet been appre- 
hended in a violation of the law. Some of our children’s courts 
now handle from 50 to 60 per cent of their children’s cases in 
this informal and enlightened fashion. We believe that all the 
children of the State should be granted the same opportunity 
regardless of where they live. 
.in jiet TO AMEND THE CHILDREN’S COURT 
ACT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, IN RELATION TO IN- 
FORMAL HEARINGS BY THE CHILDREN’S COURT 
The People of the State of New York, 
represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 
Section 1. Section ten of chapter five hundred and forty-seven 
of the laws of nineteen hundred twenty-two, entitled "An act 
establishing children’s courts, defining their jurisdiction, powers 
and duties, and regulating procedure therein,” as amended by 
chapter three hundred and ninety-three of the laws of nineteen 
hundred thirty, is hereby renumbered section ten-a, and said chap- 
explanation: Matter in italics is new; matter in brackets [ } is old 
law to be omitted. 
244 LEGISLATION RE-INTRODUCED 
ter is hereby amended by inserting therein a new section ten, to 
read as follows; 
§ JO. Informal hearings. The parent or custodian of any 
child, authorized agency, school official, police officer or other 
interested person having knowledge or information that a child 
is within the jurisdiction of the court as defined in this act, may 
present or report the alleged facts to the court in an informal 
manner. 
The court may thereupon notify the parent, guardian or cus- 
todian of the child to appear before the court and an informal 
inquiry concerning the facts may be held. If, upon such informal 
hearing, the child and his parent, guardian or custodian shall 
admit a state of facts sufficient to bring the child within the 
jurisdiction of the court, and shall consent that the child be 
allowed under the supervision of an authorized agency to remain 
in his own home, the court may so order. 
If such child shall fail to make a satisfactory adjustment under 
such informal treatment, he may be brought before the court in 
the more formal manner prescribed in the following sections of 
this act, based upon any state of facts which bring him within the 
jurisdiction of the court. 
The intent and purpose of this section shall be to encourage 
the treatment of children exhibiting conduct disorders or trouble- 
some propensities in an informal manner, unless removal from 
home or the custody of parents or guardians is indicated. 
§ 2. This act shall take effect immediately. 
The following bill was first introduced in 1940 as 
Senate No. 738, Assembly No. 1132. No action followed. Upon 
its re-introduction in 1941 it became known as Senate No. 409, 
Assembly No. 611. The bill passed the Senate and went to the 
Rules Committee of the Assembly, where, after much debate it 
was stricken from the Calendar with the understanding that more 
study should be given it during the year. 
The bill is re-submitted here to serve the original purpose con- 
templated when it was introduced two years ago: to set up in the 
245 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
Children’s Court Act the existing provisions of the Code of Crim- 
inal Procedure with relation to the conditions of probation for 
both children and adults. Our reason for introducing this bill 
was—and is—to give the Court greater powers of control over 
the "adult responsible for or who contributes to the delinquency 
of or neglects any child’’. The Juvenile Court Standards, first 
formulated in 1921, clearly specify that "In cases involving adults 
, . . the usual court procedure in criminal cases is necessary . . .”. 
It is entirely possible—as has been done—to question the value 
or importance of any one of the twelve conditions of probation 
set out in the following bill. This does not eliminate the impor- 
tance of the entire bill as a further instrument to enable the chil- 
dren’s courts to deal adequately with those adults who may be 
found to be properly responsible for the delinquency or neglect 
of children brought before them. 
Representatives of educational, social and religious agencies 
appeared before us at the public hearings held by this Committee 
and deplored the parental and other adult neglect of children and 
the contribution of these adults to the development of juvenile 
delinquency. The Legislature cannot legislate against parents as 
a class. Nor can the Courts enjoin parents and other adults from 
such initial contribution. But when a complaint has been filed 
with the Court, that a child is neglected or delinquent, and it 
is discovered that an adult is primarily responsible, the Court 
should be empowered to take against such adult the steps which 
are necessary, in the Court’s opinion, to prevent further con- 
tribution. 
As but one example of the manner in which the Court’s hand 
will be strengthened in dealing with juvenile delinquents, should 
this bill pass, we cite the problem of "junking”, which is very 
prevalent among children and adolescents. Through the regula- 
tion of pawn shops, the State now has some control over one 
source of revenue from this offense. Yet it is well known that 
young people steal large quantities of pipe and other materials 
from unoccupied houses, vacant lots and other premises, which 
materials they dispose of through second-hand dealers. Such 
dealers could, of course, be prosecuted for criminally receiving 
246 LEGISLATION RE-INTRODUCED 
stolen goods. The problem is how to discover the fact of their 
receiving. The children’s court is in a position to learn such 
facts through the children who appear before it, and immediately 
to arraign the adult whose contribution serves to encourage the 
continuance of such breaking, entering and larceny. 
Many witnesses who have appeared before us have emphasized 
the fact that youths are often encouraged to commit offenses by 
older persons who not only use them as accomplices but also 
relieve them of the difficult problem of disposing of their loot. 
While the children’s court may not arraign these adults on a 
complaint of being accessories, the Court may hold them for 
contributing to the delinquency of the child. The Committee 
has learned of several instances where the children’s court has 
broken up juvenile rings of shoplifters, burglars, etc. through 
prosecution of the adults responsible for the leadership and 
encouragement of these offenses. We frequently hear mention 
of economic factors as a cause of crime. Usually what is meant 
is that the concomitants of poverty—poor housing, low wages, 
lack of recreational facilities, ill health—conduce toward delin- 
quency. There is another side of the economic factor in crime 
causation: the profit which is returned to adults through the 
offenses committed by minors. By giving the Court greater con- 
trol of these adults, this economic factor may be greatly reduced. 
The New York City Court of Domestic Relations has conducted 
a noteworthy experiment along these lines. 
A recent decision—1940—has established once and for all 
that an adult who contributes to the delinquency of a child by 
acting in concert with him in the receipt and disposition of goods 
stolen by him and by buying such goods from him, is held punish- 
able by the children’s court under Section 6, Subdivision 4 of the 
Children’s Court Act of 1922. (People v. Dritz, 259 A. D. 210, 
18 N. Y. S. (2d) 455.) 
It is not enough to take the child into the protection of a Court 
where "the care, custody and discipline of the children . . . shall 
approximate as nearly as possible that ivhich they should receive 
from their parents” (italics ours) without having some means of 
controlling that parental neglect, of holding parents and other 
247 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
adults to a standard of care for children which will prevent the 
recurrence of that neglect or delinquency which first brought the 
child to the Court’s attention. Where parents and other adults 
who are now subject to the Court’s jurisdiction do not conform 
to the conditions which the court may set down in accordance 
with the terms of the following bill, the court may still transfer 
the probationer’s case to the jurisdiction of another court. 
Those who in the past may have objected to this bill might do 
well to keep in mind, finally, that these conditions of probation 
are not limited by the bill to adults only: the children’s court 
can only become more effective in its work with children, also, 
by reason of having the conditions of probation clearly specified, 
as they are below. 
, in , i<‘t TO AMEND THE CHILDREN’S COURT 
ACT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, IN RELATION TO PROBA- 
TION 
The People of the State of New York, 
represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 
Section 1. Chapter five hundred and forty-seven of the laws of 
nineteen hundred twenty-two, entitled "An act establishing chil- 
dren’s courts, defining their jurisdiction, power and duties, and 
regulating procedure therein,” is hereby amended by adding 
thereto a new section, to be section twenty-nine, to read as follows: 
§ 29. Probation. The court shall determine the conditions of 
probation and may include among them the following: 
The probationer (a) shall avoid injurious or harmful habits; 
(b) shall avoid places or persons of disreputable or harmful char- 
acter; (c) shall report to the probation officer as directed by the 
court or the probation officer; (d) shall permit the probation officer 
to visit him at his place of abode or elsewhere; (e) shall answer 
all reasonable inquiries on the part of the probation officer; (f) 
explanation: Matter in italics is new; matter in brackets [ } is old 
law to be omitted. 
248 LEGISLATION RE-INTRODUCED 
shall work faithfully at suitable employment; (g) shall remain 
within a specified place; (h) shall abstain from the use of intoxi- 
cating beverages; (i) shall make reparation or restitution to the 
aggrieved parties in an amount not to exceed the actual damage or 
loss caused by his offense; (j) shall, if a child of compulsory school 
age, attend school; (k) shall notify his probation officer of any 
change of address; (I) shall submit to any medical care or meas- 
ures for the correction of physical defects reasonably necessary. 
The court may at any time revise, modify or enlarge the condi- 
tions of probation as to any probationer and may transfer his case 
to another court in the same or in another jurisdiction as the court 
may determine. In the order placing the child on probation it shall 
not be necessary to specify the period of probation, which shall 
continue until terminated by an order of the court. The period of 
probation may not in the case of a child extend beyond his 
minority. 
§ 2. This act shall take effect immediately. 
3 The following bill has twice before been submitted to 
the Legislature: in 1940 as Senate No. 443, amended as Senate 
No. 933, Assembly No. 424; in 1941 as Senate No. 540, Assembly 
No. 683. In this latter year, the bill passed the Senate but did 
not pass the Assembly. 
This bill, in effect, creates a limited family court within the 
children’s court, giving the present children’s court additional 
jurisdiction in non-support actions affecting a child, step-child, a 
wife and a minor poor relative. 
Essentially there is little difference between the provisions of 
this Act and the provisions of the Family Court section of the 
Domestic Relations Act of New York City, specifically Sections 
91 through 159, under which this Court has rendered excellent 
service to the families of New York City, at the same time win- 
ning a national reputation by so doing. 
Should this bill be enacted, the children’s courts of the State 
(except those in New York City and in those counties which 
have special Children’s Court Acts) will have greatly increased 
249 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
jurisdiction over situations affecting children. It is not contem- 
plated at this time that family courts should be set up in each 
county in the State, with a children’s court division and a family 
court division, as prevails in New York City. This Committee 
agrees with the many witnesses who have appeared before it to 
testify to the advisability of having the same Court treat both 
family and children’s problems. The Children’s Court and the 
Family Court of New York City were separate until Chapter 482 
of the Laws of 1933 brought them together as two closely inte- 
grated divisions of a single court. 
At the present time, there are—outside of New York City— 
only six counties with separate children’s courts. In forty-eight 
counties of the State, county court judges serve as judges of the 
children’s courts. With the passage of the following bill, these 
children’s courts should accumulate sufficient experience in deal- 
ing with family problems so as to justify the Legislature at a 
later date, perhaps, in establishing family courts in every county. 
Courts in some counties of the State do not have sufficient business 
at the present time to require the full-time services of even one 
judge. 
By giving these courts much of the jurisdiction and powers now 
enjoyed by the Domestic Relations Court of New York City, 
the additional work might merit the establishment of county 
domestic relations courts, with one judge to handle all the busi- 
ness relating to children’s and family problems, and thus assure 
to all the people of the State the same high level of expert care 
as is now enjoyed by the residents of New York City. 
In order adequately to discharge the additional responsibilities 
granted under this bill, it will be necessary for the children’s 
courts to increase their probation staffs, to enlarge their facilities 
and to cooperate even more closely with public and private social 
agencies of all kinds. The Committee does not regard these con- 
siderations as handicapping these Courts at the present time. 
The measure is almost completely comparable with the Family 
Court Act of New York City. It has received the repeated 
endorsement of the New York State Association of Judges of 
Children’s Courts. 
250 LEGISLATION RE-INTRODUCED 
Some objection has been made to the bill on the grounds that 
it does not go far enough—that it would be better to wait until 
the Legislature could enact a state-wide measure establishing 
courts similar to the Domestic Relations Court of New York 
City. We believe that our reasons given above regarding the 
necessity for the children’s courts first to accumulate sufficient 
experience with the working of this measure adequately answers 
that argument. 
Opposition to this bill has also come from some who feel that 
it goes too far, that they fear the increased powers which it would 
place in the hands of the existing children’s courts. Fears 
expressed regarding possible abuse of discretion by children’s 
court judges vested with increased jurisdiction in non-support 
matters are in fact groundless, when it is realized that these same 
objections were raised at* the time the Domestic Relations Court 
Act was passed for New York City, and that the dire results 
predicted at that time, almost ten years ago, have not yet come 
to pass. 
This Committee is of the earnest opinion, based upon three 
years of deliberations regarding this bill, that its passage will be 
of immeasurable advantage to the families and the children of 
the entire State; that it will encourage the handling of family 
problems as integers and not as fractions, that it will emphasize 
the fact that children’s difficulties are inseparable from the fam- 
ilies in which those difficulties arise, that it will place in the 
hands of the children’s court judges of this State a most important 
and effective instrument for the protection of childhood. 
251 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
win TO AMEND THE CHILDREN'S COURT 
ACT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, IN RELATION TO SUP- 
PORT PROCEEDINGS 
The People of the State of New York, 
represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 
Section 1. Chapter five hundred and forty-seven of the laws of 
nineteen hundred twenty-two, entitled "An act establishing chil- 
dren’s courts, defining their jurisdiction, power and duties, and 
regulating procedure therein,” is hereby amended by adding 
thereto a new article, to be article three-a, to read as follows; 
ARTICLE III-A 
SUPPORT PROCEEDINGS 
Section 30. Jurisdiction. 
30- Powers. 
31. Legal liability for support. 
31- Punishment for failure to support. 
31-b. Residential jurisdiction. 
31-c. Petition. 
31- Form of petition. 
32. Court action; summons. 
32- Warrants. 
32-b. Form of warrant. 
32- Service of summons and other process. 
33. Trial. 
33- Procedure at trials; rules. 
33-b. Right to counsel. 
33-c. Presumptions. 
33-d. Failure to obey order for support. 
33-e. Writ of seizure. 
33-f. Suspension of sentence; probation. 
explanation: Matter in italics is new; matter in brackets [ } is old 
law to be omitted. LEGISLATION RE-INTRODUCED 
33-g. Revocation of suspension of sentence or probation. 
33-h. Bond. 
33-i- Divorces; separations; annulments. 
33-j. The county not a necessary party. 
33-k. Bonds for support; bail for appearance; forfeiture; 
payment. 
33-1. Procedure when court is not in session. 
33-m. Erroneous arraignment before a magistrate. 
33-n. Respondents in jail. 
33- Acceptance of undertaking by magistrates. 
34. Undertaking for support. 
34- Undertaking to be filed. 
34-b. Substitution of surety. 
34-c. Default. 
34-d. Procedure as to defaults. 
34-e. Forfeiture applied to support of petitioner. 
34-f. Surrender of respondent by surety. 
34-g. Termination of surety’s liability. 
34-h. When new security required. 
§ 30. Jurisdiction. In addition to the powers prescribed by 
section six of this chapter, the children’s court shall have: 1. 
Jurisdiction within the county to hear and determine all proceed- 
ings to compel the support of a child, step-child; wife, if preg- 
nant, or if the support of her minor child or step-child is involved; 
or minor poor relative; and 
2. In support proceedings properly brought before the court 
a. Jurisdiction for the protection, guardianship and disposition 
of neglected or dependent minors; and 
b. Jurisdiction and powers conferred by law upon magistrates, 
police justices and justices of a court of special sessions, so far as 
may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this article; and 
3. Jurisdiction within the county in all cases or proceedings 
against persons charged with failure to obey an order of the court 
made pursuant to authority conferred by law. 
§ 30-a. Powers. In the exercise of its jurisdiction the court 
shall have power: 1. To order support of a wife and child irre- 
spective of whether either is likely to become a public charge, as 
253 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
justice requires having due regard to the circumstances of the 
respective parties. 
2. To include in the requirements of an order for support the 
providing of necessary shelter, food, clothing, care, medical atten- 
tion, education, expenses of confinement, funeral expenses, and 
other proper and reasonable expenses. 
3. To require of persons legally chargeable with the support of 
a wife and child or minor poor relative, and who are possessed of 
sufficient means or who are able to earn such means, the payment 
weekly, or at other fixed periods, of a fair and reasonable sum for 
such support, or as a contribution thereto, according to the means 
of the person so chargeable. 
4. To make all orders for support run until further orders of 
the court, except that an order for the support of a child shall 
not run beyond the minority of such child. 
5. To order support of a step-child by persons legally charge- 
able therewith, subject to the limitations of subdivision five of 
section thirty-one. 
6. In cases where a child or step-child is involved to make an 
"order of protection,” in assistance or as a condition of an order 
for support, setting forth conditions of behavior to be observed 
for a specified time which shall be binding upon husbands or 
wives, or both, as circumstances may require, and which must be 
reasonable. 
Such orders may require either spouse to: 
(a) stay away from the home or from the other spouse or 
children; 
(b) permit the other to visit the children at stated periods; 
(c) abstain from offensive conduct against the other or against 
the children; 
(d) give proper attention to the care of the home; 
(e) refrain from acts of commission or omission that tend to 
make the home not a proper place for the other spouse or the 
children. 
7. To award the custody of the children, during the term of 
such order of protection, to either spouse, or to an appropriate 
relative within the second degree. But nothing in this act con- 
254 LEGISLATION RE-INTRODUCED 
tained shall vest in the court the power to place out or board 
out any child or to commit a child to an institution or agency, 
except as herein otherwise provided in the children’s court act. In 
making orders of protection the court shall so act as to insure 
that in the care, protection, discipline and guardianship of the 
child his religious faith shall be preserved and protected. 
8. To determine the manner in which sums ordered paid for 
support shall be paid and applied. 
9. To require a person ordered to support another to give 
security by written undertaking that he will pay the sums ordered 
by the court for such support, and when appropriate to discharge 
any such undertaking. 
10. In lieu of requiring an undertaking, to suspend sentence 
or place on probation a person who has failed to support another 
as required by law, and to determine the conditions of such sus- 
pension of sentence or probation and require them to be observed; 
to revoke such suspension of sentence or probation, where circum- 
stances warrant it, and to discharge a respondent. 
11. To commit to jail for a term not to exceed six months a 
person who fails to obey the lawful orders of the court. Such 
commitment shall not prevent the court from subsequently com- 
mitting such respondent for failure to thereafter comply with such 
orders. 
12. To hear and determine charges for non-support under the 
provisions of this article. 
13. To release on probation or otherwise prior to the expiration 
of the full term, a person committed to jail for failure to obey an 
order of the court or upon conviction for non-support, where the 
court is satisfied that the best interests of the family and the com- 
munity will be served thereby. 
14. To modify or vacate any order issued by the court. 
15. To remand for not more than five days for purposes of 
investigation, to admit to bail, and to parole on his own recog- 
nizance or in custody of counsel, a person charged with non- 
support. 
16. To order either before, during, or after a hearing, a men- 
tal, physical and psychiatric examination of the petitioner or 
respondent. 
255 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
17. To commit for purposes of observation, in the manner pro- 
vided by law for a magistrate, a person before the court who the 
court has reason to believe may be insane. 
18. To hold court as a magistrate to hear and determine charges 
of disorderly conduct by either the petitioner or the respondent 
affecting the other, or the child of either, where the family is 
already before the court in a non-support proceeding. 
19- To exclude the public from the court-room in a proper case. 
20. To punish any person guilty of a contempt of the court in 
accordance with the provisions of the judiciary law relating to 
civil and criminal contempt. 
21. To send process or other mandates in any matter in which 
it has jurisdiction into any county of the state for service or exe- 
cution in like manner and with the same force and effect as similar 
process or mandates of county courts as provided by the civil 
practice act. 
22. To compel the attendance of witnesses. 
23. To make any order necessary to carry out and enforce the 
provisions of this act. 
§ 31. Legal liability for support. 1. A husband is hereby 
declared to be chargeable with the support of his wife and chil- 
dren and, if possessed of sufficient means or able to earn such 
means, may be required to pay for their support a fair and reason- 
able sum according to his means, as may be determined by the 
court. 
2. Where the father of a child is dead or is incapable of support- 
ing his child or can not be found within the state, the mother of 
such child is hereby declared to be chargeable with its support and 
if possessed of sufficient means or able to earn such means, may 
be required to pay for its support a fair and reasonable sum 
according to her means, as may be determined by the court. 
3. Where the father of a child included in a petition for sup- 
port is dead, or where the court, in its judgment, is unable to 
secure adequate support for said child from its parents, and the 
child’s grandparents are of sufficient means to support it, said 
grandparents are hereby declared to be chargeable with the sup- 
port of such grandchild and may be required to pay a fair and LEGISLATION RE-INTRODUCED 
reasonable sum according to their means, as may be determined 
by the court. 
4. The parents or grandparents of a dependent minor, who has 
been a resident of the county at any time during the twelve months 
preceding the filing of the petition for his support, and who is 
unable to maintain himself and is likely to become a public charge 
are hereby declared to be severally chargeable with the support of 
such minor poor relative. The court shall determine and appor- 
tion the amount that each such person shall be required to 
contribute, as may be just and appropriate in view of the 
circumstances of the case and their respective means. 
5. The step-parent of a child is hereby declared legally charge- 
able with the support of a step-child likely to become a public 
charge provided it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that 
such step-parent had knowledge of the child’s existence at the 
time of said step-parent’s marriage. 
§ 31-a. Punishment for failure to support. A person charge- 
able with the support of another as provided in section thirty-one, 
who fails to provide such support, is guilty of non-support and 
may be punished by imprisonment in jail for not exceeding six 
months. 
§ 3Tb. Residential jurisdiction. A husband or father may be 
required to furnish support or may be found guilty of non-support 
as provided in the two preceding sections if, at the time of the 
filing of the petition for support, (a) he is residing or domiciled 
in the county; or 
(b) he is not residing or domiciled in the county, but is found 
therein at such time, provided that the petitioner is so residing or 
domiciled at such time; or 
(c) he is neither residing nor domiciled nor found in the 
county, but prior to such time, and while so residing or domiciled, 
he shall have failed to furnish such support or shall have aban- 
doned his wife and child and thereafter shall have failed to fur- 
nish such support, provided that the petitioner is so residing or 
domiciled at such time. 
§ 31-c. Petition. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other 
law, a wife, child or minor poor relative may file with the court a 
257 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
verified petition that the court order the persons legally chargeable 
with their support to furnish such support as required by law. 
Such petition may be made on information and belief and may be 
filed on behalf of such wife, child or minor poor relative by the 
parent or guardian of the child, or other person in loco parentis, 
or by any public official having a duty or responsibility relative 
thereto, or by the representative of an incorporated charitable or 
philanthropic society having a legitimate interest therein. It shall 
not be necessary as a condition precedent to the filing of such a 
petition for the petitioner to make a demand upon the respondent 
for support. 
§ 31-d. Form of petition. The petition shall be entitled "In 
the matter of , respondent," and shall 
be in such form as may be prescribed by the court. The person 
for whom support is asked shall be known as the petitioner and 
the person alleged to be legally chargeable with such support shall 
be known as the respondent. The terms "complainant" and 
"defendant" shall not be used. 
§ 32. Court action; summons. The court after receiving the 
petition shall, in a proper case, cause a summons to be issued, 
which shall be signed by the court or by the clerk or deputy clerk 
of the court, requiring the respondent to appear at the court at a 
time and place named to show cause why the order for support 
prayed for by the petition shall not be made. Summons shall be 
in such form as may be prescribed by the court. A summons shall 
not be refused without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be 
heard by and present witnesses to the court. 
§ 32-a. Warrants. When a petition is presented to the court 
and it shall appear (a) that the summons cannot be served; or 
(b) that the respondent has failed to obey the summons; or 
(c) that the respondent is likely to leave the jurisdiction; or 
(d) that in the opinion of the court a summons would be 
ineffectual; or 
(e) that the safety of the petitioner is endangered; or 
(f) that a respondent on bail or on parole has failed to appear; 
the court may issue a warrant, in the form prescribed in the next 
section, directing that the respondent be arrested and brought LEGISLATION RE-INTRODUCED 
before the court. Warrants and other process may be served by 
any peace officer. The court shall make rules relative to the 
service of warrants. Warrants issued by the court shall be valid 
throughout the state. 
§ 32-b. Form of warrant. A warrant of arrest may be sub- 
stantially in the following form, the blanks to be filled in: 
"State of New York 
County of 
ss; 
In the name of the people of the state of New York, to any 
peace officer in the state of New York. 
A petition under oath having this day been laid before me show- 
ing that is legally chargeable with the support 
of and has failed to provide such support 
and praying this court to exercise its powers to compel such 
support. 
You are, therefore, commanded forthwith to arrest the above 
named and bring him before this court at 
Dated at , the day of , 
Judge of the Children’s Court 
County of ” 
§ 32-c. Service of summons and other process. Summons and 
process other than warrants may be served through the mails, but 
a default order shall not be entered or a warrant issued thereon 
for failure to obey a summons or process thus served except on 
proof that it was received by the respondent. Personal service of 
summons or other process shall be made by the delivery of a true 
copy thereof to the person summoned. In all cases service of sum- 
mons must be made within a reasonable time before the time 
stated therein for such appearance, as may be provided by the 
rules of the court. 
§ 33. Trial. Upon the return of the summons or when a 
respondent is brought before the court upon an arrest the court 
shall proceed to try and determine the charge of non-support. If 
259 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
upon such trial the court shall find by competent evidence or by 
a plea o£ guilty of the respondent that he is guilty of non-support, 
the court may make an order requiring such respondent to pay 
weekly, or at other fixed periods, a fair and reasonable sum for, 
or towards, the support of the petitioner, and to observe such con- 
ditions of behavior as the court may determine, or the court may 
commit him to jail for not exceeding six months. 
§ 33-a. Procedure at trials; rules. Trials shall be conducted by 
the court without a jury and in accordance with such rules as the 
court may adopt. The court may adjourn the hearing from time 
to time for proper cause. Where the petitioner’s needs are so 
urgent as to require it, the court may make a temporary order for 
support pending final determination. 
§ 33-b. Right to counsel. At the commencement of a trial 
under the provisions of sections thirty-three and thirty-three-a, the 
court shall inform the respondent of his right to the aid of counsel 
at every stage of the proceedings and before any further proceed- 
ings are had and shall also inform him of the charge against him. 
§ 33-c. Presumptions. In any such trial wives and husbands 
shall be competent witnesses against each other; a husband or 
father shall, prima facie, be presumed to have sufficient means to 
support his wife and children; a dependent minor poor relative 
without means to maintain himself shall be presumed to be likely 
to become a public charge. 
§ 33-d. Failure to obey order for support. 1. Where a respond- 
ent shall neglect or refuse to obey an order for support made by 
the court and the court is satisfied thereof by competent proof, it 
may, without notice, issue a warrant to commit the respondent to 
jail until the order is obeyed or until the respondent is discharged 
according to law, but in no event for a period exceeding six 
months. 
2. Where a respondent employed in any department of the 
county or political subdivision thereof, or a respondent receiving 
a pension from any such department or from a board of a political 
subdivision of said county, shall neglect or refuse to obey an order 
for support made under the provisions of section thirty-three, and 
the court is satisfied by competent proof, it may enter an order 
260 LEGISLATION RE-INTRODUCED 
directing the auditor, comptroller or disbursing officer of any 
pension fund to deduct regularly from such respondent’s salary, 
compensation or pension, sufficient moneys to comply with the 
order of the court and pay the amount so deducted from such 
salary or pension directly to the appropriate officer or official of 
the court for the benefit of the petitioner, 
§ 33-e. Writ of seizure. Where an order in this court for sup- 
port has been made and the respondent has failed to obey it and 
has left, or threatens to leave, the jurisdiction of the court, and 
possesses property within that jurisdiction, or where no order has 
been made, but it is set forth in the petition for such support that 
the petitioner has been deserted by the respondent who has left 
the county and whose whereabouts are unknown and who pos- 
sesses property within the jurisdiction, such property, by applica- 
tion to the court, may be taken, seized and applied in the manner 
provided in title eight of part six of the code of criminal pro- 
cedure, 
§ 33-f- Suspension of sentence; probation. In the case of a 
respondent found guilty of non-support or where the respondent 
shall have neglected or refused to obey an order for support as 
provided in sections thirty-three and thirty-three-d, the court may 
suspend sentence or the execution of the warrant, as the case may 
be, and prescribe certain reasonable conditions within the powers 
of the court as provided by this article which said respondent 
shall comply with; or may place him on probation under such 
conditions as the court may determine, in accordance with the pro- 
visions of this act and the code of criminal procedure. The period 
of probation may continue so long as the order of support or order 
of protection, as herein defined, is in effect. No person, however, 
shall be placed on probation unless an order to that effect is made 
by the court. 
§ 33-g. Revocation of suspension of sentence or probation. The 
court may at any time, where circumstances warrant it, revoke the 
suspension of the sentence or the execution of the warrant, as the 
case may be, or the probation of a respondent. Upon such revo- 
cation the respondent shall be brought to court and shall be dealt 
with by the court as if there has been no suspension of sentence or 
261 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
warrant, and to that end, without a further hearing, the court may 
make any order that might have been made at the time of such 
suspension. 
§ 33-h. Bond. Where the court has suspended sentence upon 
a respondent it may require him to give an undertaking as herein- 
after provided in this article. 
§ 33-i. Divorces; separations; annulments. Where a divorce, 
separation or annulment has been granted to the petitioner by the 
supreme court or a suit for such relief is pending and the respond- 
ent has been required under the terms of any order or decree 
entered in such separation, divorce or annulment proceeding to 
pay a specified sum to the petitioner or her children as alimony or 
maintenance and has failed to do so, that fact shall not be a bar 
to a proceeding in this court to compel support within the limits 
of the order of the supreme court and as set forth by section 
thirty-a of this article, provided that the respondent is not in jail 
for failure to obey the order of the supreme court. An action for 
divorce, separation or annulment pending in the supreme court 
shall not prevent this court from entertaining a petition for sup- 
port if it is shown to the satisfaction of this court that the peti- 
tioner is likely to become a public charge. After final adjudication 
by the supreme court denying alimony in a separation action, if 
in the opinion of this court the circumstances of the parties have 
changed or if it is shown to the satisfaction of this court that the 
petitioner is likely to become a public charge, this court may enter- 
tain a petition for support. An agreement to separate shall in no 
way preclude the filing of a petition for the support of a child or 
the making of an order for its support by this court. 
§ 33-j. The county not a necessary party. Except where the 
petitioner is likely to become a public charge, the county is not 
necessarily a party to an action for support. The county or any 
other agency may in appropriate cases file the petition. 
§ 33-k. Bonds for support; bail for appearance; forfeiture; 
payment. If a bond for support be required of the respondent, 
or if he be admitted to bail for appearance at court, the condition 
of the undertaking shall be for his future compliance with the 
court’s order for support, or his appearance according to the terms 
262 LEGISLATION RE-INTRODUCED 
thereof, or in default thereof that the surety will pay to the clerk 
of the court a specified sum as therein set forth. Instead of enter- 
ing into such an undertaking a respondent may deposit money in 
an amount to be fixed by the court. If the respondent fails to 
appear in accordance with the terms of the undertaking, the court 
shall enter the fact of such non-appearance upon the record, and 
the undertaking for his appearance, or the money deposited in 
lieu thereof, shall be forfeited and upon order of the court the 
sum recovered shall be applied by the clerk of the court in such 
weekly or monthly installments or in such other manner as the 
court shall direct, for the benefit of the petitioner. The court 
may, however, in its discretion, remit such forfeiture. It shall 
be the duty of the sheriff of the county to receive, when tendered 
in cash, the sums fixed by the court as bonds for support and bail 
for appearance, and thereupon to release the respondent from 
custody, and to remit forthwith all such sums received, directly 
to the clerk of this court. 
§ 33-1. Procedure when court is not in session. If a respond- 
ent is arrested at a time when this court is not in session, he shall 
be taken to the most accessible magistrate and arraigned before 
him. The production of the warrant shall be evidence of the 
filing of a proper information, and the magistrate shall thereupon 
hold the respondent, admit to, fix or accept bail, or parole him 
for trial before this court. All subsequent proceedings shall be 
had by this court. 
§ 33-m. Erroneous arraignment before a magistrate. Whenever 
a person is brought before a magistrate and, in the opinion of such 
magistrate, the person should properly be brought to this court, 
the magistrate shall thereupon transfer such case to this court and 
direct that the persons involved be taken there. 
§ 33-n. Respondents in jail. Where a respondent has been 
committed to jail he shall be visited shortly after such commit- 
ment by a probation officer assigned for duty‘for the purpose of 
seeing whether he is then likely to obey the orders of the court if 
released. A report in writing shall be made to the court by the 
probation officer, setting forth the nature of the interview thus 
had. The time of making the initial visit and subsequent visits to 
263 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
respondents in jail, which shall be made at reasonably frequent 
intervals, shall be at such times as the court may prescribe. 
§ 33-o. Acceptance of undertaking by magistrates. Where 
bail has been fixed or an undertaking for support has been 
required by this court, if this court is not in session any magistrate 
to whom application is made shall pass on the sufficiency of the 
undertaking and may accept such bail or undertaking for support 
and shall forward it to this court. 
§ 34. Undertaking for support. The court may require the 
respondent to give to the clerk a written undertaking with suffi- 
cient surety approved by the court that the respondent will abide 
by the order for support. Such undertaking shall be for a definite 
period, not to exceed three years, and the required amount of the 
principal of such undertaking shall not exceed the total payments 
for support required for three years and shall be stated in the order 
for support. The respondent may deposit such sum in cash with 
the clerk. The court may in its discretion require either such 
written undertaking with sufficient surety approved by the court 
or may require that cash be posted to secure compliance by the 
respondent with the order for support for such period. In the 
event that the respondent shall fail to make any payment, when 
due, within such period, payment shall be made to the petitioner 
out of such cash. When cash is posted as security, as herein pro- 
vided, the person or persons so posting such cash shall at the 
expiration of the period for which such security shall have been 
ordered be entitled to the return of such cash less any amount 
which shall have been paid therefrom to the petitioner by reason 
of any default or defaults in payment on the part of the respond- 
ent. The form of the undertaking and the form and manner of 
justification of the surety shall conform to the rules of the court. 
§ 34-a. Undertaking to be filed. If the property securing the 
undertaking consists of real estate, the undertaking shall be filed 
with the county clerk of the county in which the real estate is 
located and the same shall constitute a lien upon the real estate 
specified in the undertaking. The county clerk of each respective 
county is hereby directed to accept such undertaking for filing and 
to provide proper and sufficient books and indexes wherein the 
same shall be entered. 
264 LEGISLATION RE-INTRODUCED 
§ 34-b. Substitution of surety. The court may at any time 
thereafter, before or after there has been a default, if all arrears 
have been paid in case there shall have been a default on 
such undertaking, accept a new undertaking in lieu of the original 
undertaking, and the court shall enter an order discharging 
such undertaking. 
§ 34-c. Default. A default in the terms of the order shall con- 
stitute a breach of the undertaking. When there has been a 
default the court shall cause an affidavit to be drawn, verified and 
filed by a person familiar with the facts. The parties bound by 
the security shall thereupon be personally served with notice of 
such default and they shall be required to attend at the court on 
a day certain and show cause why judgment should not be entered 
on the undertaking and the amount thereof applied to the relief 
of the petitioner for the amount in default. If either of the par- 
ties appears and pays the amount in arrears the court may remit 
the forfeiture. Inability to serve the parties, or either of them, 
shall not be prejudicial to the renewal of proceedings against the 
respondent. 
§ 34-d. Procedure as to defaults. If the parties, or either of 
them, contests the default, the court shall hear and determine the 
issue. In the event that the court finds that a default has been 
suffered, it shall make an order specifying the amount in default 
and forfeiting the undertaking or cash deposit to the extent of 
such default. A certified copy of such order shall be filed in the 
county clerk’s office with a certified copy of the undertaking and 
thereupon the said clerk shall docket the same in the book kept by 
him for docketing of judgments, as if the same were a transcript 
of a judgment directed for the amount of such sum in default. 
The certified copy of the undertaking and of the order shall be 
the judgment record. Such judgment shall be a lien on all of the 
real estate and collectible out of the real and personal property of 
the parties bound by the security, or either of them. An execution 
may be issued to collect the amount thereof in the same manner as 
upon a judgment recovered in any court of record. It shall be the 
duty of the county attorney to take the necessary proceedings to 
collect such judgments. 
265 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
§ 34-e. Forfeiture applied to support of petitioner. 1. All 
sums collected from the surety by judgment, as well as forfeited 
cash deposits, shall be applied by the clerk of the court to the 
support of the petitioners tor whose benefit the order for support 
was made. Subsequent defaults shall be proceeded upon in the 
same manner until the amount of the principal of the undertak- 
ing or the cash deposited has been recovered in full. 
2. Where the respondent, or anyone in his behalf, shall have 
deposited with the court moneys as surety for compliance with the 
terms of the order of support and the respondent shall have died, 
the court may make an order directing the payment to the peti- 
tioner of all moneys still in possession of the court in conformance 
with the order of support. 
§ 34-f. Surrender of respondent by surety. A surety may at 
any time surrender a respondent to the court. The respondent 
shall thereupon be dealt with as provided in the order for support. 
If the arrears on the order for support with interest thereon are 
paid in full, the court may make an order discharging the surety 
of any further liability and directing the return of the balance of 
the cash on deposit to the person entitled thereto. 
§ 34-g. Termination of surety’s liability. Whenever the lia- 
bility on an undertaking has ceased, the court shall make an order 
to that effect. Upon receipt of a certified copy of the order, the 
county clerk shall discharge of record the lien of the undertaking. 
§ 34-h. When new security required. After an undertaking 
has been given or cash has been deposited and it shall appear 
upon proof by affidavit either (a) that a judgment entered upon 
default cannot be collected; or 
(b) that the liability of the surety has ceased; or 
(c) that the money deposited has been applied in full; or 
(d) that personal service cannot be effected upon the surety or 
the person depositing the cash; or 
(e) if for any reason the court shall find that there is not suffi- 
cient security, the court may issue a warrant for the arrest of the 
respondent and require him to give new or additional security. In 
default thereof the court may commit him under the original 
order in the manner hereinbefore provided. 
§ 2. This act shall take effect immediately. 
266 LEGISLATION RE-INTRODUCED 
4: No action was taken in 1940 on Senate bill No. 237, 
with its companion bill Assembly No. 314 of the same year. But 
in 1941, as Senate No. 410 and Assembly No. 612, this bill passed 
both Houses, only to be vetoed by the Governor, without memo- 
randum. 
By amending die state-wide Children’s Court Act of 1922, this 
bill provides for the filling of vacancies occurring in the office 
of a children’s court judge within three months of the general 
election, instead of as it is now. Under this amendment, such 
a vacancy, occurring not later than October 15th of any year could 
be filled at the next general election. 
This bill has been repeatedly endorsed by the State Association 
of Judges of Children’s Courts. 
TO AMEND THE CHILDREN’S COURT 
ACT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, IN RELATION TO FILLING 
VACANCIES IN THE OFFICE OF A CHILDREN’S COURT JUDGE 
The People of the State of New York, 
represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 
Section 1. Subdivision seven of section four of chapter five 
hundred and forty-seven of the laws of nineteen hundred twenty- 
two, entitled "An act establishing children’s courts, defining their 
jurisdiction, power and duties, and regulating procedure therein,” 
as amended by chapter three hundred and ninety-three of the laws 
of nineteen hundred thirty, is hereby amended to read as follows: 
7. A presiding judge of the children’s court of any county 
may hold children’s court in any other county when requested by 
the presiding judge of the children’s court of such other county. 
[When a vacancy shall occur otherwise than by expiration of 
term in the office of a children’s court judge, the same shall be 
filled for a full term, at the next general election, happening not 
less than three months after such vacancy occurs; and until the 
explanation: Matter in italics is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old 
law to be omitted. 
267 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
vacancy shall be so filled the governor by and with the advice 
and consent of the senate, if the senate shall be in session, if not 
in session the governor, may fill such vacancy by appointment, 
which shall continue until and including the last day of December 
next after the election at which the vacancy shall be filled.] 
§ 2, This act shall take effect immediately. 
5 Senate bill No. 1751 of 1941, later amended and 
known as Senate bill No, 2522 passed both Houses of the Legis- 
lature, but was vetoed by the Governor, without memorandum. 
The bill specified the following provisions which were separately 
embodied in Senate No. 1834 of 1941, which was not enacted; 
1, To permit the City Corporation Counsel to represent the Court 
in any proceeding where the Court’s action is under review, 
where now he may represent only the petitioner; 
2, Further to permit the City to file a petition in a support 
action; 
3. To empower the Corporation Counsel to assign a represen- 
tative to petitioners who are not otherwise represented by 
counsel; 
4. To allow the Corporation Counsel—in his discretion—to rep- 
resent the petitioner also in cases of appeal to another Court. 
An additional amendment which was not included in Senate 
No. 1834 would allow a New York City department, in appro- 
priate cases, to file a non-support petition in the name of the 
Commissioner of that city department. 
An incidental purpose was to empower the presiding justice 
of the New York City Court of Domestic Relations to appoint a 
secretary who would be paid a salary commensurate with that 
paid the secretaries of other New York City Chief Justices of 
comparable status and responsibility. 
268 LEGISLATION RE-INTRODUCED 
TO AMEND THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS 
COURT ACT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, IN RELATION TO 
THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE PRESIDING JUSTICE AND 
PROVIDING COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER AND THE COURT 
IN TRIAL AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS 
The People of the State of New York, 
represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 
Section 1. Section fourteen of chapter four hundred and eighty- 
two of the laws of nineteen hundred thirty-three, entitled "An act 
to establish in and for the city of New York a court of domestic 
relations, to be known as the domestic relations court of the 
city of New York, and defining its powers, jurisdiction and pro- 
cedure and providing for its organization,” is hereby amended to 
read as follows: 
§ 14. Duties and powers of presiding justice. The presiding 
justice is the official administrative head of the court and in addi- 
tion to his other duties as a justice shall have the general superin- 
tendence of the business of the court. He shall act as chairman 
of the board of justices and shall preside and be entitled to a 
vote at all the meetings of such board. He shall assign the jus- 
tices to duty in the several divisions and parts of the court and 
may make changes in such assignments from time to time. It shall 
be the duty of each justice to attend and hold sessions at any 
part to which he may be so assigned. 
The presiding justice shall prescribe the hours for the attend- 
ance at the various parts of the court of the clerks and employees. 
He shall cause to be established and supervised a system for keep- 
ing the records of the court and its various bureaus and divisions. 
He may designate a justice to act as presiding justice during his 
absence from duty, who when thus serving shall have all the 
explanation: Matter in italics is new; matter in brackets [ } is old 
law to be omitted. 
269 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
powers of the presiding justice. In the event of his failure to 
make such designation, the mayor shall designate an acting pre- 
siding justice. Whenever in his judgment it is necessary the pre- 
siding justice may call a special meeting of the board of justices, 
and upon the written request of three or more justices must call 
such a meeting. 
He shall have power to appoint a secretary, who shall be in the 
exempt class of the civil service and who shall be paid for his 
services a salary which shall be commensurate with the salary paid 
to the secretaries to the chief city magistrate and the chief justice 
of the court of special sessions at the time this act takes effect. 
§ 2. Section fifty-nine of such chapter as added by chapter 
four hundred and thirty-one of the laws of nineteen hundred 
forty, is hereby repealed, and in lieu thereof a new section fifty- 
nine is hereby added to read as follows: 
§ 59. Counsel. The corporation counsel shall act as counsel to 
the court and shall take charge of all legal proceedings on behalf 
of the court where the court’s action is under review, except in 
cases where he represents a petitioner in any appellate court to 
which such petitioner may appeal. 
§ 3. Section one hundred and thirty-eight of such chapter is 
hereby amended to read as follows: 
§ 138. [The city not a necessary party.] The city as a party. 
[Except where the petitioner is likely to become a public charge, 
the city is not necessarily a party to an action for support.] A 
department of the city of New York in an appropriate case may 
file in the name of its commissioner the petition in a proceeding 
for support. [The city may in appropriate cases file the petition.] 
The corporation counsel shall assign to each part of the family 
court a representative, who, unless the petitioner is represented 
by counsel, [shall] may represent the petitioner [unless otherwise 
directed by the family court]. The corporation counsel, in his dis- 
cretion, may also represent such petitioner in any appellate court 
to ivhich such petitioner may appeal. The absence of the corpora- 
tion counsel’s representative from any hearing, however, shall not 
be deemed to invalidate or impair the proceedings. 
§ 4. This act shall take effect immediately. 
270 LEGISLATION RE-INTRODUCED 
CP The final bill in this chapter has been twice before sub- 
mitted by this Committee. In 1940, it was known as Senate bill 
No. 238, Assembly No. 313. It was not approved, and was 
again introduced in 1941 as Senate bill No, 539, amended, and 
known as Senate No. 1209 when amended. It was introduced 
in the Assembly under No. 711. 
It has seemed to this Committee, throughout the years of its 
study of the problem of delinquency, that no one agency dealing 
with delinquency—its prevention or treatment—can be con- 
sidered separate and apart from all the other agencies in the 
long chain of influences bearing upon the care and welfare of 
children in this State. The court process is but one link in the 
chain of apprehension, hearing and treatment of delinquents. 
The Court must await complaints by the police—or by parents, 
schools or other agencies—before it can act. It must rely to 
some degree on clinical and other agencies in its investigation, 
and must turn to private as well as public agencies for the treat- 
ment of children requiring care in places other than their own 
homes. 
Despite the discontinuity of some of these steps in the Court’s 
dealing with delinquents, the growth of these children is a con- 
tinuing process. However many agencies or individuals may be 
drawn in to help him, the child continues to develop out of what 
he has been, together with whatever influences he is subjected 
to while he is under the care of the Court or other agencies and 
individuals to which the Court may—however temporarily—as- 
sign him. 
We have attempted throughout our deliberations to keep in 
mind the necessity for continuity in the handling of children 
requiring special care. To this end we have submitted above 
(see pp. 238-245) a bill to give the Court power to deal inform- 
ally with conditions of pre-delinquency, to this same end we sub- 
mit again the following bill to give the Court a continuing 
interest in the child after he has been placed for treatment in 
the custody of an agency. 
At the present time, no one agency is clearly responsible for 
working to improve the conditions in the home when the child is 
271 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
removed from it because of neglect, or committed because of 
delinquency. Unquestionably, some one should be responsible 
for an effort to improve the home so that the child may be safely 
returned to it. Even those who were opposed to the bill consider 
this objective to be highly desirable. 
We believe that the court which first ordered the child to be 
placed out or committed is in the most advantageous position to 
evaluate conditions affecting him and to select the agency which 
can work to his best advantage. While the Department of 
Public Welfare may be designated in proper cases, private agen- 
cies, under the terms of this bill, would be given the backing of 
the Court in the cases of certain children where the Court was 
of the opinion that they could be of assistance in working with 
them in the home, and these agencies could not but do a more 
efficient job as a result. 
An act or condition of delinquency is not an isolated thing. 
The Court is not interested alone in adjudicating or treating a 
delinquent condition, it is interested in the prevention of further 
misconduct, in removing delinquency, and otherwise improving 
the home so that the child, whom the Court places out or com- 
mits, upon his return to it, will have a better place to live. 
Objections to this bill in its 1940 version, before it was amended, 
were based on the fear that the Court, through its continuing 
interest in the child who had been committed to an institution 
or agency, might interfere with the administration of that institu- 
tion or agency. The Committee considered that these objections 
were not without merit, and therefore the public institutions were 
omitted from the terms of the 1941 bill, which is presented here 
without further change. 
The bill affects only private institutions, and only such private 
agencies as were "willing to act” could be designated by the 
Court. Some institutions and some agencies now consider that 
work with the home is part of their treatment program for chil- 
dren. Others do not. It is one of the aims of this bill to allow 
the Court to select for work in the home and community those 
agencies which follow this procedure, thus encouraging all chil- 
dren’s agencies to raise their standards and broaden their interest 
272 LEGISLATION RE-INTRODUCED 
to include the home to which, after a necessary period of train- 
ing, the child is to be returned. 
The Court now has authority to order the release or discharge 
of any child from an agency to which the Court has committed 
him, or to transfer him from one such agency to another. This 
continuing interest on the part of the Court bespeaks an inte- 
gration of Court dealing and agency care which together strive 
for a consistent plan of treatment for the delinquent child. Vari- 
ous schemes have been proposed to this Committee to ensure 
greater continuity in the Court process. These are considered 
in the following chapter. Until the time when the Legislature 
sees fit to limit commitment by the Court to a treatment board 
or central training authority, the Court will continue to commit 
directly to a wide variety of institutions and agencies. Lacking 
any other centralized administrative body which will exercise 
a continuing oversight in cases of placed-out or committed chil- 
dren, the Court will have to exercise some degree of interest in 
the home and community conditions to which the child is to be 
returned. In the opinion of this Committee, this power neither 
contemplates nor permits any intrusion on the part of the Court 
into the management of any agency to which this act refers. 
The end purpose and result of Court action is the "satisfac- 
tory adjustment” of the child to his home and community. In 
this process of adjustment, the child is not the only factor: a 
term of agency or institutional care cannot—unaided—accomplish 
the desired result. Prepared by his period of training to adjust 
better to his home, it is only reasonable to expect that some care 
and attention given to the conditions which contributed to his 
original difficulty, will ensure at least an easier transition to his 
original environment. 
It has now become fully established and accepted that crime in 
later adulthood can only be prevented by care in the earlier years 
of children showing manifest symptoms of maladjustment. But 
unless such a course of treatment is continuous and integrated, it 
will achieve no high standard of success in preventing the de- 
velopment of delinquency into crime, and crime into a career. 
273 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
TO AMEND THE CHILDREN’S COURT 
ACT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, IN RELATION TO THE 
PREPARATION FOR THE RETURN OF A CHILD TO ITS OWN 
HOME AFTER COMMITMENT TO AN AUTHORIZED AGENCY 
The People of the State of New York, 
represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: 
Section 1. Chapter five hundred and forty-seven of the laws of 
nineteen hundred twenty-two, entitled "An act establishing chil- 
dren’s courts, defining their jurisdiction, power and duties, and 
regulating procedure therein,” is hereby amended by adding 
thereto a new section, to be section twenty-seven-a, to read as 
follows: 
§ 27-a. Preparation for return of child to its oivn home. 
Whenever a child is placed in the custody of an authorized 
agency the court shall at the time of such placement give consid- 
eration to the eventual discharge of such child and its return to 
the home, community and environment from ivhich it was 
removed. In order that such child may derive the utmost benefit 
from such commitment the court shall be empowered to designate 
and appoint either its own probation officers, or those of the 
authorized agency to which the child has been committed, or any 
other suitable agency willing to accept such designation and 
appointment, to act as a liaison between the placement agency and 
the child, its home and community, for the purpose of adapting 
the training and treatment of such child while in the agency so 
as to best prepare such child for its return to its own home and 
community, and also for the purpose of correcting or removing 
the conditions in the home which contributed to such child’s 
delinquency or neglect; all toward the end that such child may 
be returned to an environment which will enable such child to 
EXPLANATION: Matter in italics is new; matter in brackets [ } is old 
law to be omitted. 
274 LEGISLATION RE-INTRODUCED 
enjoy and put into practice the training and treatment received 
during such placement. The authorized agency so designated 
and appointed shall have the power of probation officers. The 
court may release such child from the placement agency condi- 
tionally and the persons or agency designated and appointed by 
the court may be authorized to continue supervision of such child 
until in the opinion of the court such child has become satisfac- 
torily adjusted, at which time the court may discharge the child 
§ 2. This act shall take effect immediately. 
275 PART FIVE CHAPTER XII. MISCELLANEOUS 
PROPOSALS CONSIDERED 
BY THE COMMITTEE 
In addition to the specific recommendations made in other 
chapters of this report, the Committee devoted a great deal of 
time and attention to certain rather general proposals brought 
to its attention by witnesses and others who felt that the Legis- 
lature and the people of New York State were entitled to an 
opinion regarding them. Some of these proposals were not ger- 
mane to our inquiries, while others merit detailed consideration. 
These latter group themselves into various specific headings under 
which they will be treated in this chapter: suggestions relating 
to a state-wide system of minor’s courts; recommendations relat- 
ing to crime prevention services; consideration of the two model 
statutes of the American Law Institute: the Youth Correction 
Authority Act and the Youth Court Act; proposals patterned 
after the English system of Borstal Institutions for young offend- 
ers. 
A description of these proposals, and the Committee’s recom- 
mendations regarding them, are set out below. 
A State-wide System of Minor’s Courts 
The Committee has given a great deal of time and considera- 
tion to the advisability of scrapping the entire Children’s Court 
process and setting aside the special adolescent’s court procedure 
as it has been developed in New York City, creating in place 
of these two agencies an entirely new court set-up which might 
include offenders under the age of sixteen as well as those over 
279 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
this age. We have stated above that, in essence, there is little 
to distinguish the problem o£ juvenile delinquency from that 
of adolescent criminality. We can contemplate with some satis- 
faction the idea of a minor’s court which would have a children’s 
division and a youth division. We can easily list several coun- 
ties in the State which might profitably establish such a minor’s 
court. Certainly there is little essential difference between the 
need and condition which now brings a juvenile before the chil- 
dren’s court and that need and condition which dictates a special 
consideration of the adolescent in the youth court. 
Nevertheless, we believe that the courts of this State have had 
too little experience with the problem of the adolescent offender 
to merit the creation of such a minor’s court at this point. After 
all, the idea of the adolescent court is only six years old, and 
its application has been limited to two counties of the 62 in the 
State. There are only three large cities in the United States, 
outside of New York, where special court machinery for youths 
has been created. 
The passage of a state-wide minor’s court act would not only 
disturb the present excellent standard of service being rendered 
by the children’s courts throughout the State, but might also 
cause some confusion to the valuable work of the Domestic 
Relations Court in New York City. 
We have stated above that by the establishment of a Youth 
Court in New York City, and in up-state counties, we have taken 
a long step toward an eventual state-wide system of such courts. 
These first steps toward the creation of a youth court parallel 
the development of the children’s courts in their first decade. 
The day will come when the courts, institutions and agencies 
of this State will have had sufficient experience with the special- 
ized dealing with adolescents so as to merit this more extensive 
plan of court machinery. The Committee believes that time has 
not yet arrived. 
Crime Prevention 
Although the Resolutions creating and continuing this Com- 
mittee made no mention of the matter of crime prevention, the 
280 MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS 
Committee has been compelled to pay some attention to this 
problem because of the earnestness with which this subject was 
committed to us by numerous witnesses who appeared before us 
at public hearings. 
It is the Committee’s belief that through the bills submitted 
by it, allowing children’s courts to deal informally with mal- 
adjusted children brought to their attention, as well as through 
the bills we have submitted which strengthen the hand of the 
Court in dealing with adults who contribute to dependency and 
delinquency, we have made no small contribution toward the 
solution of this problem. It is the Committee’s further opinion 
that the bills submitted to create youth courts in this State are 
a further step toward diminishing crime among young people. 
There are throughout the State large numbers of agencies, both 
public and private, which deal in an effective way with behavior 
difficulties among children which have not yet developed into 
legally recognized delinquency. The Committee has stated 
above, and it here repeats, that the measures undertaken by any 
society or individual which aim to reduce the social and economic 
disabilities under which certain sections of our population live, 
can be described as crime preventive. There is no doubt that 
children who come before our courts represent the neglect or 
failure of these agencies to deal early enough or effectively 
enough with maladjusted children. 
We believe further that all the agencies which are now under- 
taking crime prevention programs would be benefitted greatly 
if they were to have one central body within the State govern- 
ment to which they could refer for advice and stimulation. There 
are ample precedents in other fields of social problems to which 
reference can be made: the State Department of Health provides 
a special division for Preventable Diseases, while the State 
Department of Mental Hygiene is provided with a Bureau which 
encourages the extension of child guidance care and preventive 
work in mental hygiene. 
Following a conference called by him in 1935 on "Crime, the 
Criminal and Society’’, the Governor presented a sixty point 
anti-crime program to the Legislature. In that program the 
281 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
Governor stated: "We must place more emphasis on crime pre- 
vention. . . A preventive program is harder to organize than a 
curative or punitive program. The fundamental aspects of a 
prevention program center around the personality problems of 
the individual on the one hand and his social setting on the other 
hand. . . . While I am convinced that a new governmental agency 
is required to develop an effective prevention program, such a 
plan predicates increased rather than lessened responsibility in 
such basic agencies as our schools, our churches, local crime pre- 
vention bureaus and social agencies generally, that mould for 
good or evil the lives of the pre-delinquents. . . Crime preven- 
tion must always be regarded as primarily a local problem . . . 
yet the State can and must assist in the development of a program 
of crime prevention that should prove as profitable as have sim- 
ilar programs in the field of health. I recommend that there be 
set up within the Executive Department a Bureau of Crime Pre- 
vention, the function of which shall be to assume leadership in 
the stimulation, development and co-ordination of local crime 
prevention activities. This Bureau should; 
a. Stimulate State departments to develop their facilities and 
methods to control the factors entering into delinquency and 
crime. 
b. Visit, study and evaluate conditions in communities through- 
out the State and advise local agencies as to the organization 
and development of needed programs. 
c. Collate, interpret and publicize statistics and reports relating 
to the problem of juvenile delinquency and crime. 
d. As need arises, prepare and sponsor legislation bearing upon 
the many specific problems incident to crime prevention”. 
Regarding the personnel of such a Bureau of Crime Preven- 
tion, the Governor further stated that it "should consist of a 
competent director, possessed of a liberal education and technical 
knowledge and experience, together with special qualifications for 
advisory work; and an advisory council of ten members, appointed 
by the Governor, to include representatives of agencies interested 
in the fundamental problem of crime prevention. In addition 
282 MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS 
there should be field workers sufficient in number and compe- 
tency to do the work of the Bureau”. Concluding his statement 
about crime prevention the Governor said: "The coordination of 
existing agencies, the planning to meet local needs, and above 
all, the stimulation, publicity and approval that the Bureau can 
provide are essential to an effective program if we are to stop the 
flow of juvenile delinquency at its source”. 
We wish further to emphasize that the important function 
of such a crime prevention bureau should be not only the develop- 
ment of a plan which would reduce delinquency and crime, but 
that it should also give assistance to existing agencies through 
setting out the techniques of operation of crime prevention agen- 
cies, that it should serve as a guide in the various communities 
of the State and should also undertake the responsibility of 
evaluating the work now being done by various crime prevention 
organizations. There is a wide variety of opinion as to the best 
method of approach and technique generally, with the result that 
different agencies frequently proceed without the necessary coor- 
dination of effort. It should lie within the function of such a 
crime prevention bureau at least to suggest in an advisory way 
that certain separate undertakings be combined in the interest 
not only of economics but of results as well. 
Whether or not such a crime prevention bureau should be 
part of a larger division—such as a Youth Service Council to be 
concerned with the problems of youth generally—or whether it 
should be separate and distinct, is for the Legislature to deter- 
mine. There is no question but what the delinquency of children 
and the criminality of adolescents is intimately bound up with the 
other problems of young people—such as unemployment, recrea- 
tional, vocational and educational needs, the lack of adequate 
wholesome leisure time activities, etc. By placing the Crime Pre- 
vention Bureau in such a Youth Service Council, the Committee 
believes that crime preventive activities within the State will be 
seen as part of the entire problem of youth. It is of little imme- 
diate concern, however, whether such a bureau be an independ- 
ent agency or whether it be part of a larger division. The 
important thing is that there be some division of the State Govern- 
283 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
merit which is actively concerned with reducing the toll of crime 
among its young citizens. 
American JLauv Institute Proposals 
THE YOUTH CORRECTION AUTHORITY ACT 
THE MODEL ACT. This statute initiated by the American Law 
Institute, was considered and drafted over a two year period, 
during which eleven experts in law, psychiatry, criminology, 
sociology and penology met at some fourteen conferences. In 
the time which has elapsed since its adoption by the members of 
the Institute in May, 1940 the Act has been expounded, criticized 
and applauded by all kinds of people, professionally and other- 
wise interested in the problem of the older adolescent offender. 
Because so much discussion has arisen around this Model Act, 
the Committee feels that it is deserving of attention here. 
The main provision of this proposed statute is the creation of 
an independent agency in the State Government—the "Youth 
Correction Authority"—with state-wide jurisdiction to provide 
and administer corrective and protective training and treatment 
services for persons between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one 
who are committed to it by the courts. 
There has been a great deal of discussion in recent years regard- 
ing the separation of the guilt-finding and sentencing functions 
of the judge. It will be recalled that almost fifteen years ago, 
the Governor of our own State made such a recommendation in 
a public address. One of the reasons for this suggestion is the 
well known fact that judges not only do not visit institutions but 
that they do not interest themselves—for one reason or another— 
in the treatment and training of cases which they have sentenced, 
nor in the continuity of the cases which they have committed 
to institutions. 
In the non-criminal children’s courts of the State, judges are 
not simply umpires in the limited sense of a generation ago; their 
duties are not confined to hearing the evidence and declaring the 
disposition. They are directors, also, of treatment bureaus and 
staffs of supervising personnel known as probation officers. They 
are expected to be expert diagnosticians and therapists in prob- 
284 MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS 
lems of individual adjustment; it is not sufficient for them, now- 
adays at least, simply to commit their cases to the supervision of 
institutions, probation officers and private agencies and then to 
forget them. They are expected to exercise a continuing interest 
in the children whom they have adjudicated. 
The underlying purpose of the Youth Correction Authority 
Act is clear and admirable: "to protect society more effectively 
by substituting for retributive punishment methods of training 
and treatment directed toward the correction and rehabilitation 
of young persons found guilty of violation of law’’. Under this 
Act, judges would commit to the Authority after a finding of 
guilt, and the Authority would be given the continuing control 
over the treatment and training of the offender. They would 
act in the cases of adolescent offenders as judges of the children’s 
court are now expected to act in the cases of children under the 
age of sixteen. 
In order that the three well qualified members of the Author- 
ity (to be appointed by the Governor) may have an opportunity 
to establish an effective procedure and to profit from the expe- 
rience of dealing with cases, their term of office is set at nine 
years and they are required to devote all their time to this work. 
Before the Authority may receive commitments from the 
courts, it must first certify to the Governor that it has approved, 
or established, places of detention, examination and treatment- 
training for the proper discharge of its duties and functions. 
Upon such certification, the courts of the State shall commit 
convicted offenders between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one 
to the Authority. Certain classes of offenses are excluded from 
its jurisdiction: those for which death or imprisonment for life 
may be imposed by the court; those for which imprisonment for 
less than thirty days, or a suspended sentence, or payment of a 
line are imposed by the court. The Authority is further empow- 
ered, in its discretion, to accept commitments from the children’s 
court of children sixteen years of age or over. 
In order to protect the rights of a person convicted of a viola- 
tion of law, no alteration is made in the present appeal procedure. 
Pending such an appeal, the convicted offender may be allowed 
285 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
at liberty under such conditions as will ensure his cooperation 
and submission to the control of the Authority. 
Upon committing a convicted offender to the Authority, the 
judge is required to notify the Authority in writing; he, as well 
as the prosecuting and police authorities and other public offi- 
cials, is required to make available to the Authority all per- 
tinent information regarding the offender. 
The Authority is given control over evidence specifically appro- 
priate to its use; it is authorized to make rules for the proper 
discharge of its duties; it may establish treatment-training ser- 
vices ; create administrative districts and employ needed personnel 
under the Civil Service laws of the State. 
The Authority is further authorized to call upon and make 
use of such facilities—legal, investigative, detention, probation, 
parole, medical, educational, correctional, segregative—as may 
be necessary for carrying out its duties. The Authority is not, 
however, given control over such institutions or agencies nor is 
it empowered to make use of private facilities without their 
consent or without reimbursement. The Authority is, of course, 
granted the right to inspect the institution whose facilities it is 
authorized to use. Release from an institution or agency to 
which the Authority has committed may not be done without 
its approval. 
The Authority is required to examine, study and investigate 
the background and history of persons committed to it and fur- 
ther to make periodic re-examinations of all persons within its 
control at intervals not exceeding two years. It is required to 
keep written records of all these examinations, conclusions and 
orders. 
Persons committed to the Authority may be kept under super- 
vision "so long as in its judgment such control is necessary for 
the protection of the public”. This unlimited power is carefully 
circumscribed: a committed youth shall not be held subject to its 
control beyond his twenty-fifth birthday unless the Authority 
has applied to the Court for a review. Such an order and appli- 
cation for review must be made to the Court at least six months 
before the time for discharge and it must be accompanied by a 
286 MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS 
written statement of the facts upon which the Authority bases 
its opinion that discharge would be dangerous to the public. 
The person whose liberty is involved must be given an oppor- 
tunity to appear in court, with counsel, and to compel attendance 
of witnesses and the production of evidence. The court may 
confirm or disapprove the order of the Authority and, in the 
latter case, shall order the person to be discharged from the con- 
trol of the Authority. In order for the Authority to continue its 
control beyond the established three year period, it shall, every 
two years, apply to the court for a further review. "Such orders 
and applications may be repeated at intervals as often as in the 
opinion of the Authority may be necessary for the protection of 
the public". 
A person committed to the Authority may be permitted at 
liberty under supervision whether confined or not; may be 
required to participate in vocational, physical, educational and 
correctional training activities; may be required to conduct him- 
self in such a way as seems best adapted to fit him to return to 
full liberty; may be required to submit to other methods of treat- 
ment conducive to the prevention of future violations of law 
by him. 
This action is not so novel or so revolutionary as it may appear 
upon first reading. In essence, it is a plan to place the treatment 
of a convicted adolescent offender in the hands of an expert 
body of persons fitted by training and experience to direct such 
treatment, and so equipped with a wide variety of treatment 
facilities as to ensure to the public that the offender will not 
be discharged until he is no longer a menace to society. The 
constitutional rights of the offender are in no way impaired or 
infringed upon by this plan. The Authority may not hold 
offenders committed to it for an initial period longer than three 
years without having a court review its decision; such review must 
take place at intervals not greater than two years. 
In our own State the "Napanoch Law" permits the courts to 
commit a "defective delinquent” who is beyond children’s court 
age to various institutions if he is "not insane nor of unsound 
mind to such an extent as to require his commitment to an insti- 
287 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
tution for the insane” but is so mentally defective as "for his 
own welfare or the welfare of others or of the community to 
require supervision, control or care”. (Laws of 1927, section 
126). Such care and segregation is authorized by this law for an 
indefinite period or until the person so committed is considered 
reasonably safe to be at large. 
This Committee recommends that the Youth Correction Author- 
ity plan be more fully considered with a view to its application 
to New York State as an advanced procedure for the handling 
of the adolescent offender after the State has had further expe- 
rience with the system of youth courts recommended by this 
report. 
THE NEW YORK REVISION. During the 1941 Legislative ses- 
sion a revision of the Youth Correction Authority Act was intro- 
duced in the New York State Legislature. It may be of interest 
to make a brief comparison between the bill as introduced and 
the model act. 
The first point of importance is that the Youth Correction 
Division is placed in the Executive Department, as is the exist- 
ing board of parole, and is not made a part of any other existing 
State Department. 
The model act makes provision for the removal of members 
of the Youth Correction Authority in the same manner as judges 
are removed, whereas the New York revision permits members 
of the Authority to be removed by the Governor for cause and 
after an opportunity to be heard. 
Because of the size of New York State and the number of 
offenders to be dealt with, the revised act allows the establish- 
ment of branch offices in other parts of the State—in addition 
to the principal office at Albany. The revised act is also quite 
specific in the procedure for the selection and appointment of 
personnel for the Youth Correction Authority. 
The revised act appends a new section giving the Youth Cor- 
rection Authority power to conduct an investigation of the con- 
victed offender who has been remanded for a period longer than 
five days, when so directed by the court. MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS 
The Authority is also given additional power to issue sub- 
poenas, compel the attendance of witnesses and the production 
of books, papers and other documents. 
The New York Revision permits the Authority to create treat- 
ment services, such as camps, hostels, remand centers, etc. sup- 
plementary to those provided by existing institutions and agen- 
cies. 
The revised act requires that the Authority shall make periodic 
examinations of all youths within its control at intervals not 
exceeding one year, whereas the model act sets this period at 
two years. 
The Authority may permit youths committed to it by the Courts 
to be at liberty on probation under supervision. 
THE CALIFORNIA STATUTE. The Youth Correction Author- 
ity Act was passed by the Legislature of the State of California 
and approved by the Governor on July 9, 1941. Because Cali- 
fornia is the first state to enact this plan, the Committee believes 
it may be of interest to learn wherein this law differs from the 
model act. The first consideration of importance is that the 
California law raises the limit of the jurisdiction of the Author- 
ity to age twenty-three, two years above that specified in the 
model act. For the first time a specialized procedure for deal- 
ing primarily with less than adult offenders has been extended 
beyond the age of legal infancy. 
The California statute allows the Governor to fill only one 
of the three positions on the Authority directly, and specifies 
that the other two members shall be appointed from a list recom- 
mended by an advisory panel consisting of the presidents of 
four state-wide legal, medical and social work organizations. 
All appointments are subject to confirmation by the State Senate. 
The California law limits the term of office of members of the 
Authority to four years instead of nine, at an annual salary of 
$10,000, and allows non-residents of the State, who are par- 
ticularly well qualified, to be appointed. 
The California law does not allow the Authority to take juris- 
diction over the convicted offender if his term of imprisonment 
is less than ninety days, and it exempts persons placed on proba- 
289 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
tion from its jurisdiction. However, a person convicted of an 
offense for which the maximum penalty by law is imprisonment 
for less than ninety days, may be committed to the Authority if 
he has been previously convicted of an offense or if he has been 
a ward of the juvenile court. 
Interestingly enough, the Authority is empowered to establish 
or aid in the establishment of crime prevention programs among 
young people and is further authorized to cooperate with any 
agency working for the improvement of recreational, health and 
other conditions affecting young persons. 
While the Authority under the California law is not allowed 
to transfer any person under its control to a State institution for 
the insane or mentally defective, except in accordance with the 
regular procedure for commitments to these institutions, it is 
permitted to use these facilities for observation and diagnosis. 
The California law allows the Authority to make periodic 
examinations of all persons within its control as frequently as 
it believes desirable, but requires that such examination shall be 
made at least annually; the model act sets this interval at two 
years. 
The control of the Authority over persons committed to it 
terminates as follows: 
upon the expiration of two years in the case of persons 
committed by the juvenile court; 
upon the expiration of two years in the case of persons 
convicted of a misdemeanor; 
at age twenty-five in the case of persons convicted of a 
felony unless the Authority files a petition for retention 
of control after this age. t 
THE YOUTH COURT ACT 
After the adoption of the Youth Correction Authority Act by 
the members of the American Law Institute, this body adopted 
a model act to establish youth courts in metropolitan and large 
urban centers. It is not so much a model statute as it is a declara- 
tion of fundamental principles drafted in the form of a specific 
act. This Act was drawn up by the same Committee of experts MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS 
who were responsible for the Youth Correction Authority Act: 
their names and their professional standing commend the Youth 
Court Act to the attention of this Committee and of the public 
at large. 
The Youth Court plan has two basic objectives: to shorten the 
time which now elapses between the arrest of the adolescent 
offender and the final disposition of his case, and to improve the 
conditions under which he is apprehended and detained. As 
with the Youth Correction Authority Act, this Act is likewise 
limited to offenders beyond the age of sixteen but not yet twenty- 
one. 
The Court organization calls for a Chief Justice and an un- 
specified number of Associate Justices, who are authorized to sit 
as examining magistrates as well as to try cases. This is done 
so as to eliminate the needless delay which now occurs in the 
hearing of a case because of division of responsibility between 
the courts charged with jurisdiction over the same offenses. 
One of the relatively novel features of this Act is that it 
specifies the appointment by the Youth Court Justices of a "pre- 
senting attorney” whose duties and functions go far beyond 
those of the ordinary prosecuting attorney. 
This presenting attorney is directly responsible to the Court, 
and his duties include: collection and organization of evidence 
relating to allegations and violations of law by persons within 
the age jurisdiction of the Court; co-operation with the police in 
securing evidence concerning the accused; determining—subject 
to approval of the judges of the court—the propriety of further 
action against the youth; drafting accusations; performing in gen- 
eral—concerning youths—the functions of the prosecuting attor- 
ney of the county; assisting the court "in protecting society and 
the individual and in administering justice to the innocent as 
well as the guilty”. It will be seen that this is one of the most 
important provisions of the Act. 
The presenting attorney is required to furnish to the youth 
court, at least once a week, a list of all cases which have not been 
disposed of by discharge or final judgment together with infor- 
mation regarding the date of arrest, date of the initiation of the 
proceeding and the state of the proceeding in each case. This 
291 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
requirement would go far to prevent a great deal of unneces- 
sary delay in the passing of cases through the various steps from 
arrest to final disposition. It would be most difficult under this 
system for cases of adolescents to hang on, untried, week after 
week—sometimes beyond two months and even into the third 
month—as is not unknown in this State. 
The judge of the Court is empowered to appoint counsel for 
the youth, a public defender in effect, who "shall in all proper 
ways assist him in obtaining lawful judgment upon the merits 
of the case". Defense counsel is further permitted to enlist the 
services of the legal aid society or other voluntary defender 
organizations. 
The judges of the Youth Court are authorized to appoint an 
administrative officer to keep its records, to list and assign cases 
for hearing and trial, and in other ways to perform the functions 
of a chief clerk. He is also given supervision over plant and 
structures under the control of the Youth Court and the manage- 
ment of detention places. 
Because of the acknowledged harmful influences upon young 
defendants of the institution of the "bull-pen” in many court- 
houses, the justices of the Youth Court are authorized 'to estab- 
lish or approve for utilization appropriate places adjacent to 
court-rooms for safe custody of persons”, and are authorized to 
visit and inspect places of detention. 
Upon his arrest, any youth between the ages of sixteen and 
twenty-one must "be delivered into the custody of an officer and 
one of the places of detention” authorized by the Court. There- 
upon the supervisor of the detention place must at once notify 
the Youth Court, through the presenting attorney, that it is hold- 
ing the youth in custody. Thereafter the presenting attorney 
must verify the age of the offender and investigate the charge 
against him. He is also given the right to be present in person 
or through a designated agent whenever the youth is examined 
by the police or by other agencies. Modern court practice recog- 
nizes that the shorter the interval between arrest and the first 
questioning, the more likely is the truth to be discovered. Fur- 
thermore, by giving the presenting attorney the right to be pres- 
292 MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS 
ent during police custody some restraint is put upon them in 
their possible use of abusive methods. 
Some limit is placed upon the presenting attorney’s power to 
nol pros, by the requirement that he shall be of the opinion that 
the youth is not guilty and that he shall further enter in the 
records of the Court a full explanation of his reasons for so 
doing. The Children’s Court of New York City has instituted 
the procedure of dismissing a charge against a child upon cer- 
tain conditions, and the presenting attorney is similarly permitted 
to recommend to the judge that proceedings be discontinued and 
the youth discharged. 
In order to reduce or eliminate one of the most frequent causes 
for unnecessary delay—the time required for indictment by the 
grand jury—the Youth Court is authorized to try cases "upon 
accusation by information in writing signed and sworn to by 
the presenting attorney”. 
Nothing in the Youth Court Act changes in any way the 
rights and privileges of youthful defendants to release on bail, 
to a preliminary hearing, to trial by jury, to counsel, to publicity 
of trial, to appeal and to all other rights, privileges and immu- 
nities. 
The Committee is highly in favor of many of the principles 
and procedures advocated in this Act. We are of the opinion 
however, that such a court should not be limited solely to young 
persons in our large cities. In chapter 8 above, there is set out the 
Committee’s recommendations for a practical and progressive 
procedure for court dealing with the youthful offender both in 
New York City and up-state. This is done consistent with the 
conviction of this Committee that court treatment of juvenile 
delinquents and youthful offenders should be uniform through- 
out the entire State. 
We do not wish to leave this subject without listing briefly 
certain important features which we have incorporated into the 
draft acts for a Youth Court submitted in Chapter 8: 
1. creation of a special Youth Court Division of the Domestic 
Relations Court of New York City, and as a unit of the courts 
up-state; 
293 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
2. limitation of the jurisdiction of these Youth Courts to ages 
sixteen, seventeen and eighteen; 
3. requirement that places of detention and hearing in the cases 
of youthful offenders be separate and apart from those used for 
children or adults; 
4. requirement that apprehended offenders in this age group 
must immediately be taken before the Youth Court; 
5. initiation of a procedure whereby such a youth shall be brought 
before the Court initially on a petition that he is a "youthful 
offender"; that he shall not be prosecuted criminally until a 
full investigation has been had into the offense, as well as into 
his background and condition. 
The English System of Borstal Institutions 
This Committee was very favorably impressed with the idea 
of the Borstal System of institutional treatment and training of 
the offender sixteen to twenty-three, as it has developed in Eng- 
land over the past forty-five years. We were particularly struck 
with the fact that the conditions confronting the English Prison 
Commission of 1895 paralleled the conditions which disturb us 
today, i.e., that the sixteen to twenty-one year old offender con- 
tributes a disproportionately high share of the serious crimes; that 
a very large number of youths in this age group are annually 
committed to penal institutions; and, finally, that a large number 
of these committed offenders are released from correctional insti- 
tutions little improved, if at all, by their period of training. There 
is a further parallel that these facts were brought to the attention 
of the Prison Commission and the public generally through the 
investigation of a Committee similar to ours in scope. 
The Borstal System as it is known today—or as it functioned 
just prior to the outbreak of the war—was the final result of an 
experiment which has been continued over a period of almost half 
a century. The first beginnings of the system were in separate 
wings of the regular prisons. Successful results with this spe- 
cialized treatment led, after a period of years, to the establish- 
ment of special institutions in no way connected with prisons for 
294 MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS 
adults. In light of the fact that the reformatory movement which 
started in this country in 1876 with the establishment of Elmira 
has advanced but little since that date, it is interesting to note 
that the Borstal System has not deviated from its original aim: 
to keep the young offender apart from the older, more experi- 
enced prison inmate. In Elmira, the age of commitment ranges 
from sixteen to thirty; most reformatories in this country receive 
offenders from age fifteen to thirty or thirty-five, while many 
so-called reformatories have no upper age limit. 
Borstal training was originally established for offenders between 
the ages of sixteen to twenty-one, but in recent years as a result 
of experiments with offenders aged twenty-one and twenty-two, 
the upper age limit of Borstal training was advanced two years. 
No judge may commit directly to a Borstal Institution. These 
institutions do not ordinarily receive first offenders; to be eligible 
for Borstal training the offender must have been previously con- 
victed of a crime and must, in the court’s opinion, be eligible for 
Borstal training by reason of his "criminal habits and tendencies 
or associations with persons of bad character.” After the judge 
has decided upon Borstal training, but before he may commit the 
youth, he must invite the Prison Commissioners (who are respon- 
sible for the management and control of all Borstal and penal 
institutions in England and Wales) to make an investigation into 
the offender’s suitability for Borstal training. As a result of this 
investigation, the Commission may or may not recommend com- 
mitment to Borstal, and the judge is, of course, not compelled to 
follow the recommendation. As a result of their experience with 
the judgment of the Prison Commission, however, the courts 
have come to rely on its opinion and in the very largest percent- 
age of cases they follow its suggestions. This investigation is, of 
course, in addition to the pre-sentence investigation by the proba- 
tion officer attached to the court. 
Not every youth who is found guilty is committed to Borstal, 
by any means: some are placed on probation and some are given 
prison sentences. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that 
Borstal receives almost one-half of all the offenders between 
the ages of sixteen and twenty-one who are sentenced to imprison- 
295 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
ment and that they receive 97 per cent of all those in this age 
group sentenced to more than twelve months imprisonment. From 
this it will be seen that the courts have not only come to rely 
to a very large extent on Borstal, but that the Borstal institutions 
themselves are confronted with almost the entire body of youth- 
ful commitments, including the very serious cases for whom a 
term of imprisonment longer than a year is ordered by the court. 
When the convicted offender is finally ready for sentence, the 
judge has no power to commit him directly to any one of the nine 
training units which comprise the system. His power of sentence 
is limited to "Borstal training”. Beyond this point the Prison 
Commissioners have sole authority as to the institution or insti- 
tutions in which the offender will serve his term. The minimum 
period of Borstal training is six months, the maximum three years. 
Parole extends for one year beyond the unserved portion of the 
maximum. 
Even with the report of the probation officer before it and its 
own report, the Prison Commission does not allocate the offender 
directly to one of the nine training institutions without a further 
period of study. 
Regardless of the court which commits him, the young offender 
is sent to London where he spends a period of not less than thirty 
days under observation in a special wing of the Wormwood 
Scrubs Prison. Here he is examined by a physician, receives a 
mental test from and has an interview with the psychologist, is 
visited by the psychiatrist and is under observation by the "gov- 
ernor” (warden) of the allocating center, the housemaster and 
the matron. During this time a more intensive study of his 
family, social and environmental background is made by the 
volunteer social workers attached to the center. 
At the end of his month’s period of observation, the offender 
is ready for allocation. The institution to which he will first be 
sent (he may later be transferred elsewhere) is determined by a 
board, composed of the governor, housemaster, and officers of 
the allocating center plus one or two governors of the open insti- 
tutions who come in for the meeting. One member of the Prison 
Commission who is responsible for the Borstals serves as chair- 
296 MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS 
man. In their decisions, the board relies on all the studies and 
observations that have been made of the boy as well as their 
impressions of the boy who appears before them. The attitude 
of the board is that all of these young men will be released back 
into the community after a maximum period of thirty-six months 
of training and therefore, the selection of the training institution 
should be determined by the degree of the offender’s likely 
response to conditions of limited freedom. They have at their 
disposal nine institutions ranging from maximum security to the 
most open type of farm colony and construction camp. 
Of these, five are walled or partially enclosed and four are 
entirely open. It is interesting to note that the open institutions 
are almost all creations of the past decade, that they have received 
their inspiration from the example of our own prison camps and 
farms. They have, however, been carried to a point far beyond 
anything in this country for offenders in this age group. 
Transfer among the various institutions is done very infre- 
quently in recent years, as the number of treatment units has 
grown and as the allocating board has developed an ability to 
appraise the offender’s background prior to allocation, so that 
he usually adjusts satisfactorily to the institution to which he is 
first committed. There is nevertheless a certain proportion of 
offenders who do not adjust to any of the institutions and some 
provision must be made for them. In addition, there are a cer- 
tain number of chronic absconders who will escape from institu- 
tions of maximum security as well as from open camps. There 
is a further group of those who cannot be handled by ordinary 
disciplinary methods at the training institutions. For these three 
types—transfers, absconders and incorrigibles, (as well as for 
those whose parole has been revoked) the Prison Commission 
has set aside a special wing of the Boy’s Prison at Wandsworth, 
near London. The average number of inmates here runs to 
about one hundred and they are handled under the conditions and 
regulations of the ordinary prison regime in which the principles 
of Borstal training are not regarded. 
The open Borstals are four in number. They are alike in that 
they take those who may be expected to respond well to a varied YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
program under conditions of absolutely minimum security. Those 
who are allocated to these four institutions first make a pledge 
not to escape. The regime at the institution is described to them 
before they are sent there, and those who prefer a walled insti- 
tution are given their choice. 
This is the institutional setting in which the training process 
goes on. Several important principles are common to all of these 
institutions regardless of where they are situated, the type of 
boys selected for training there, and the particular program in 
which they may specialize. 
The first of these principles is the selection of the men who 
will supervise these adolescents. While the staffs are drawn from 
a wide variety of sources and from all kinds of previous life 
experiences, their entrance into the Borstal service is carefully 
controlled by a Civil Service procedure. Recent years have seen 
increased emphasis on professional social work training, but 
even here men with good technical training who are without a 
broad experience of life would not be placed in positions of 
responsibility as housemasters. Many of the men in the Borstal 
housemaster service are not university trained; many of them are. 
But regardless of their educational attainments, they share one 
attribute in common: maturity and breadth of viewpoint coupled 
with an interest in adolescents and an ability to lead them. 
Possibilities of advancement within the Borstal service are many. 
Four of the nine present Prison Commissioners saw service as 
governors and housemasters within the Borstal service. All of 
the nine Borstal governors began their service as housemasters. 
The ascending ranks—assistant housemaster, housemaster, deputy 
governor, governor and prison commissioner—allow the Borstal 
administrators to select their superior officers from men who have 
earned their laurels by direct service. 
The chief responsibility of the housemaster is in the field of 
individual guidance, the spirit of which is personal relationships 
and personal influences. Psychiatric social training is by no means 
developed in England to the point which it has attained in this 
country. But the thing which these professionals emphasize— 
in their training, in their literature and in their conferences—are 
298 MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS 
the things which Borstal has been putting into practice for many 
years. When a boy is received at the institution, the housemaster 
to whom he is assigned, receives a copy of all the data in the 
possession of the court when it committed him and of the Prison 
Commission when it allocated him. From this point on, the 
record bears notations of the continuous observations not only of 
the housemaster, but of all the other staff members who have 
any contact with the boy—the governor, physician, chaplain, 
matron and instructor. The boy who is committed to the care of 
the housemaster is, therefore, not an unknown quantity at the 
outset. Furthermore, case-loads run from fifteen to fifty boys, 
never more. This process of reconstruction is based on sound 
psychological principles, the purpose of which is to build up new 
emotional attitudes of confidence, respect and a desire to follow 
exemplary leadership. 
The work of the housemaster is divorced from the purely cus- 
todial aspects of the institution, and while he may be responsible 
for a particular program activity, he is by no means a turnkeyv 
Frequently he lives in the same dormitory or section of the house 
with his boys, eats with them, joins in their work, shares their 
recreational programs, accompanies them on hikes and trips and, 
in general, is expected to act as a combination friend, advisor 
and confessor. Ample opportunity is allowed him for individual 
interviews with his boys and many ingenious arrangements have 
been devised to make possible these interviews without embarras- 
sing the boy before his fellows. By observing the boy under all 
kinds of conditions, by sharing in his programs, a relationship is 
brought about which allows an opportunity for complete under- 
standing. 
Governors of these institutions, because of their previous 
experience as housemasters, are intimately acquainted with the 
technique of what we would call case work and are, in effect, 
case supervisors. While there is no full-time psychiatrist attached 
to any of these institutions and while it is entirely likely that 
resort to such psychiatric assistance would make Borstal a more 
effective training method, it nevertheless remains true that these 
institutions attain a higher degree of fundamental rehabilitation 
299 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
with a larger percentage of their inmates than is accomplished 
in our own reformatories where psychiatrists are formal members 
of the staff. 
The next most important feature of Borstal training is the 
arduous program with which the average youth is occupied for a 
full fifteen or sixteen hour day. In each of these units there is in 
operation a program of work, physical training, education and 
recreation which makes the regime of our own reformatory 
institutions seem very soft by comparison. Cells are occupied 
only for sleeping; the little free time is spent in association under 
supervision, and not in the solitary brooding conducive to fantasy 
and self-pity. 
The day’s activities are numerous, varied, and so adapted to 
individual needs and interests, as to challenge rather than depress. 
A full one-half of the waking hours are spent at work; mainte- 
nance occupies the briefest possible time of the smallest possible 
number of boys, except where it has definite training value. While 
trade training not tied to a production schedule was increasing in 
the Borstal institutions within recent years, nevertheless a very 
high rate of productivity is turned out by Borstal labor. All of 
it goes for state use either in other institutions under control of 
the Prison Commission, or in other government departments. The 
trade party to which the boy is admitted is selected on the basis 
of his previous work experience and his plans after release. 
Wages are paid throughout the entire system. 
Sports programs are very highly developed at all of the insti- 
tutions; boys are admitted to all of the educational, avocational 
and recreational activities not as privileges but as part of their 
training process. They are encouraged to develop whatever cul- 
tural, art or craft abilities they may possess. As a result of this 
driving program of activity, one seldom sees boys hanging around 
idly or going through the paces of dull drudgery so typical of 
our reformatories. While he is in the institution, the Borstal lad 
is not cut off from the world to which he is training to return. 
Regulations regarding visits, and letters do not bind a boy who 
has progressed well and who has earned additional privileges. 
Some boys who make especially good progress may be allowed 
300 MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS 
once during their term of institutional training to make a home 
visit, after the home has been investigated by the parole organ- 
ization. Every Sunday afternoon the population of all the Bors- 
tals goes out on a "route march” or hike away from the institu- 
tion. This applies even to institutions of maximum security. 
Within the institution the Borstal youth sees the wives, children 
and pets of the staff; automobiles and trades people come and go 
freely, there is the general atmosphere and feeling that the 
institutions are not insulated stations without relationship to the 
world beyond their gates. Once during the summer some Borstal 
boys are allowed to camp out with a group of their fellows under 
the supervision of a housemaster. They work during the morn- 
ing to repay the owner of the camp site, but afternoons and eve- 
nings are free for a wide variety of recreational activities. Boys 
from some of the open institutions are allowed to go without 
escorts or proctors into the town or village during certain hours 
after work—Saturday afternoons, for example—and at least two 
institutions make provision for the attendance of their boys at 
extension courses in the neighboring community. 
This relationship with the community is a reciprocal one; not 
only do these boys have some contact with the world about them, 
but volunteer representatives from the community also come in 
to teach special skills and hobbys. At North Sea Borstal, at least 
eight local people in the neighboring town of Boston volunteer 
their services in such widely assorted skills as baking, cabinet 
making, square dancing, painting, hiking and sailing. At still 
another Borstal a special room is reserved for families visiting 
the institution who may wish to share the institution meal with 
their son or brother. 
Over and above all is a degree of flexibility and individuality 
allowed the Borstal staff in their management of the institutional 
programs. This has attracted to the institutions a type of per- 
sonnel which would not last long nor be interested in a regime 
which was all routine and precedent. Many suggestions regard- 
ing the development of Borstal training have grown out of annual 
conferences of governors and housemasters, which are also 
attended by the parole officers. There is thus seen to be not only 
301 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
a wide degree of latitude permitted in the administration of these 
institutions, but also an integration and inter-relationship between 
institution and parole which is largely unknown in our reforma- 
tory systems. 
Suggestions for the release of a boy from the institution are 
first received at the monthly staff meeting of his house or sec- 
tion. The institutional board, made up of the governor and his 
deputy, the housemasters and their assistants, physician, chaplain 
and principal officer, meets to act on these suggestions for dis- 
charge, which are then formally passed on by the visiting com- 
mittee of the institution. No Borstal boy needs to wait until a 
job has been found for him on the outside before he is released. 
The institution is careful to watch the point at which he has 
received the optimum benefit of institutional training, when he is 
ready to be returned to the community. 
Supervision of parole is in the hands of a semi-public organ- 
ization known as the Borstal Association which was set up less 
than ten years after the Borstal experiment began. The largest 
part of its budget is derived from the government, the balance is 
contributed by the general public. The headquarters of the 
Association are in London with two branch offices in Liverpool 
and Manchester. In these cities, parole officers—known as Bors- 
tal Associates—render supervision very much like that of parole 
officers in this country. In other districts of England and Wales, 
the Borstal Associate may be a probation officer or other volun- 
teer person who has an interest in youth. In addition to the 
official Borstal Associate, whether a staff member or lay person, 
the Borstal Association has developed a type of Big Brother 
service further to assist the Borstal parolee to adjust back to the 
community. Known as a Voluntary Borstal Associate, this person 
supplements the work of the official Borstal Associate by helping 
to find jobs, by affiliating the parolee with a social or recreational 
agency, by serving as a friend and advisor. 
A Borstal Associate also visits the boy at the institution when 
he is about one-half through his period of training and again 
three months before he is to be released. Shortly before dis- 
charge, he is given a suit of civilian clothing by the Borstal Asso- 
302 MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSALS 
date and on the date of his release he is taken to the headquar- 
ters of the Association in London where the terms of his parole 
are explained to him, he is given the name of his Associate and 
is then sent home. Boys who are homeless or who have no fit 
home to return to are placed by the Association in temporary 
boarding homes under its supervision. Boys who are out of 
work are seen once a day until they find jobs. In London, at 
least, every parolee is seen twice a month. The Deputy Director 
of the Association is in charge of the greater London area and 
he makes a weekly review of all the cases in his district in order 
to make sure that the steps which should have been taken during 
the week in each case have been given attention. 
In peace times, the Army or Navy will accept a boy after he 
has done well on parole for a year or longer. No boy who drops 
from sight who is found to be working may be apprehended by 
the police or otherwise returned. Release from parole is an auto- 
matic process, but any revocation of parole during the period may 
be done only by the Prison Commission on the recommendation 
of the Borstal Association. Through an arrangement with the 
police which has been in existence for almost thirty years, any 
Borstal parolee or ex-parolee who finds himself stranded or with- 
out funds may go to the police and explain his situation. The 
police communicate with the Borstal Association for directions. 
Not only does the Borstal Parole Officer make visits to boys at 
the institution before they are released, but the housemasters, as 
well, are given three or four days a year on pay to allow them to 
come into the Association office and go over the records of their 
old boys and also to visit some of them at their homes. This is 
another example of the relationship between institution and 
parole which provides a continuing interest in the offender. 
This review has touched only some of the highlights of the 
Borstal System. For our purpose certain of its principles are 
indeed of value. The first of these is the fact that judges are 
deprived of the power to commit directly to the institution. They 
are likewise restricted in the term of institutional training to which 
they may commit. From the moment of commitment, the Prison 
Commission which has charge of the administration of the insti- 
303 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
tution also has charge of observation and allocation. At the insti- 
tution, the boy finds an expert and non-politically selected per- 
sonnel, people who are acquainted with his background, who are 
interested in him and anxious to help. The work which he does 
here is given meaning by reason of the close relationship it bears 
to the work he will do when he is released. He has little time for 
idle gossip or for boredom. If he applies himself, he will find 
when he leaves the institution that he has learned a trade and also 
developed other interests and aptitudes. Intelligent, wholesome, 
understanding relationships between leader and boy, together 
with a program of rigorous training have prepared him again to 
take his place in the community. These are the basic founda- 
tions for true rehabilitation. 
304 CHAPTER XIII. CONCLUSION 
In submitting this report, the Committee feels that it has ade- 
quately discharged its responsibility and has given ample con- 
sideration to the various matters for which it was created and 
extended. This fifth report of the Committee, is, therefore, its 
final report. 
The Committee realizes that the legislative proposals and other 
recommendations which it has made to the Legislature are neither 
drastic nor revolutionary—precedents have been described for 
each of these measures. Our hope is, with the incorporation of 
these recommendations into the laws of the State and into the 
practice of existing agencies and institutions, that the young 
people of New York State will receive, as a result, a higher 
degree of care and protection and that the persons and property 
of this State will, at the same time, be more fully safeguarded. 
The Committee believes that these suggested measures should 
receive the full and prompt endorsement of the Legislature, and 
that they should now be enacted into law. They arise quite 
naturally out of the body of law and procedure relating to chil- 
dren and youths which has been developing in this State over the 
past forty years and they represent a crystallization of recent pro- 
gressive experiments as well. 
It is the Committee’s earnest hope that out of the experience 
of the Youth Court suggested for New York City and out of the 
Youth Court procedure recommended for up-state counties that 
a wealth of experience will be gathered which will form the 
305 YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
basis—perhaps within a few years—for a complete and state- 
wide system of Youth Courts. 
The Committee feels, finally, that it cannot leave the subject 
of the delinquent juvenile and the adolescent offender without a 
word about the institutions to which these young people are 
committed by our courts. Court procedure is not an end in and 
of itself. The fact that the court’s knowledge of or interest in a 
case committed to an institution may cease at the moment sentence 
is imposed, does not mean that the problem thereafter auto- 
matically ceases to exist. The purpose of court action is to 
determine the treatment necessary to correct the tendencies and 
conditions of the young offender. How this shall be done is 
the responsibility of the institutions which the State and private 
individuals have established. 
The Committee is further aware of the fact that the advanced 
procedure of the children’s courts has had a progressive influence 
on the institutions to which they commit juveniles. It is to be 
expected, with the creation of Youth Courts, that a similarly 
progressive influence upon correctional and reform institutions 
will also be exercised by these latter courts. 
Throughout its inquiries the Committee has been reminded 
not only by witnesses who have appeared before it but by its 
own observations as well, that the most efficient and socialized 
court procedure is not sufficient in and of itself to guarantee the 
rehabilitation of the young offender who may require a term of 
training away from home before he is ready to return to his 
community. Although we believe that we have fully discharged 
our responsibility in relation to the court aspect of this problem, 
we are by no means convinced that the subject should therefore be 
completely closed. 
There are at the present time seven public and thirteen private 
institutions to which the court of the State may commit persons 
under twenty-one who are adjudged delinquent or who are found 
guilty. Only one of these, the State Vocational Institute at West 
Coxsackie, is limited to the age group of the youthful offenders 
who will come before the Youth Courts suggested by the draft 
acts which we have submitted. Outside of this institution no other 
306 CONCLUSION 
specialized facilities are available for the treatment of the youth- 
ful offender, either on the basis of their physical structure or by 
virtue of the training programs which they now conduct. The 
City and State reform institutions which now care for offenders 
between sixteen and twenty-one were originally designed for the 
custody and control of those who had gone through the tradi- 
tional criminal court procedure and who were found guilty as 
misdemeanants or felons. The Committee believes that to mix 
the youthful offender who will be committed by the Youth Courts 
established by the acts which we have submitted with this group 
would result in vitiating the underlying purpose of the new con- 
cept which we have introduced. 
Public institutional facilities now available for delinquents up 
to the age of sixteen, while they may perhaps be suitable struc- 
turally and in their treatment programs for some portion of the 
sixteen, seventeen and eighteen year old group, nevertheless 
should not, as a general procedure, be used for this older group. 
The possibility of harm for the younger group as a result of such 
commingling is obvious. Some private institutions for delin- 
quents committed by the children’s court might possibly admit a 
selected number of youths sixteen, seventeen and eighteen, where 
their charters are sufficiently flexible. This should not be encour- 
aged on a large scale because of the same harmful effects of 
mixing children with older adolescents. These private institu- 
tions, furthermore, are not adequate to care for more than a very 
small proportion of those who will be committed by the Youth 
Courts. 
It is the Committee’s belief, therefore, that special institutional 
facilities are required for the youthful offender. These should 
house neither youths found guilty of a crime in the criminal 
courts nor children committed as juvenile delinquents. 
The Committee has been informed of various schemes in 
operation in other jurisdictions. A section of the preceding chap- 
ter (pp. 294-304) describes in some detail the English Borstal 
System of institutions for the older adolescent offender. The 
basic principles of these schools, especially the small units, the 
variety of treatment methods and the high standards of personnel YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK STATE 
commend the Borstal method to the attention of every interested 
person in this field. The system of forestry camps in California 
is but one example of the interesting experiments along institu- 
tional lines now being conducted in our own country. There is 
evident a general dissatisfaction with the present institutional 
facilities and treatment programs for juvenile delinquents and 
adolescent offenders. Recent studies by the Children’s Bureau 
and the Osborne Association highlight once more our failure to 
bring our institutional methods and standards into line with the 
enlightened and non-criminal procedure of our children’s courts. 
Almost fifty years ago, an article entitled "Juvenile Delinquency 
and the Failure in Present Reformatory Methods” cited the inade- 
quacy of traditional punitive methods of institutional treatment 
of juveniles and proposed, "... a classification based upon char- 
acter, with a more perfect individualization, involving careful 
physical and mental examinations. To the life of the reforma- 
tory must be added further developments of the conditions exist- 
ing in the home and in society ...” (E. V. Stoddard, 31st Annual 
Report of the New York State Board of Charities, 1897, pp. 
593-607). This same student of the problem noted that the 
methods commonly followed by the industrial and training schools 
of that period were deterrent in character and based largely upon 
repressive and punitive methods, that the institutional regime 
depended too largely upon its power of intimidation and did 
not tend, therefore, to develop the potential characteristics of its 
young charges or to prepare them properly for their return to 
their communities. 
Many of these criticisms are still valid today. In addition, there 
will be further problems created by reason of the establishment 
of the Youth Courts which this report recommends. 
The Committee believes, therefore, that while its function has 
been fulfilled through the five years of study which it has devoted 
to the problem of court procedure for juveniles and adolescents, a 
further field of inquiry has been opened up by this same study, 
namely, the necessity for an examination into the public and 
private institutions to which our courts now commit minors. We 
believe that the public interest aroused by the studies which we CONCLUSION 
have made during the life-time of this Committee should not be 
permitted to flag. Court procedure is but one step in the entire 
process of dealing with the young offender. The efficacy and the 
wisdom of the judgments rendered by these courts must be tested 
by this final question: How effectively do our institutions treat 
the material entrusted to them by the courts? 
The Committee believes that an examination should be made 
into present facilities and present methods for dealing with the 
young people committed to institutions by our courts. We believe 
that some attempt should be made to discover if our institutions 
are adequately meeting this challenge. We believe that other 
procedures in other places should be studied with the view to 
discovering more effective methods, if they are in existence any- 
where. 
To this end, the Committee recommends to the attention of 
the Legislature this final recommendation, that an inquiry by a 
joint legislative committee of the Senate and Assembly be directed 
into the problem of institutional treatment of young people 
committed by the courts of New York State. 
Fred A. Young, chairman 
Abraham Schulman 
Leo A. Lawrence 
William F. Condon 
George B. Parsons, vice-chairman 
Daniel Gutman secretary. 
309