It Takes a Village – The Origins of Juvenile Incarceration
By Chiagoziem (Zizi) Ohamadike
It takes a village to raise a child. This adage is rooted in the shared societal responsibility to protect the well-being of children. In the 19th century, this principle drove an unprecedented movement in the United States to end the incarceration of children in adult prisons. In 1825, the Society for the Prevention of Pauperism spearheaded the creation of an institution for poor, unhoused, and so-called 'delinquent' children. This initiative marked the origin of the juvenile incarceration system, founded on the notion that children should be protected and rehabilitated if perceived to be on a “path to delinquency”.
However, no concrete legal protections were established to safeguard the rights of children. Instead, their welfare was subject to the biases of individual judges, setting the stage for a deeply flawed system plagued by arbitrary sentencing and systemic racism. Juvenile detention centers continue to be exploitative, harmful, and inequitable, compelling us to confront a critical question: Are children really protected in these systems?
Today, children who experience incarceration in the United States face deplorable living conditions, marked by violence, neglect, abuse, and exploitation. In 2021, employees at a Kansas juvenile detention center murdered Cedric “C.J.” Lofton by restraining him for 30 minutes instead of providing him with appropriate mental health care. In 2023, Maryland eliminated the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse. By February 2024, at least 200 survivors – who were previously incarcerated in Maryland youth detention centers – filed lawsuits against Maryland’s juvenile justice system, uncovering a pervasive history of abuse. In 2024, Jefferey Christian sued the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice for years of sexual abuse and neglect while he was incarcerated as a teenager. Children who are incarcerated in Texas face such decrepit living conditions that they are forced to use water bottles as toilets.
Juvenile incarceration threatens the health and well-being of children across the United States. Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE) scores – a well-established predictor of poor health outcomes and morbidity – are directly correlated with an increased likelihood of contact with the juvenile carceral system. As healthcare providers, it is imperative that we critically analyze the origins and systemic drivers of juvenile incarceration in the United States. By doing so, we can develop and advocate for community-based solutions that protect the health and well-being of pediatric patients. By examining pivotal developments in the establishment of the modern juvenile carceral system, we see that despite claims of safeguarding children, it is primarily harmful.
New York House of Refuge, 1825
Before the inception of juvenile detention centers, children were confined with adults in jails. While some children were confined for committing criminal offenses, many children were confined for non-criminal behavior. There were few resources for housing poor, neglected youth. As a result, the adult jails became the catch-all for many destitute, abandoned children. During the 19th century, a rise in child poverty, coupled with the overcrowding of adult jails, drove reformers to seek changes to the carceral system. The Society of Prevention of Pauperism proposed the creation of a new institution committed to protecting and rehabilitating children.
These efforts precipitated the creation of the New York House of Refuge in 1825. In the following years, many more institutions like the New York House of Refuge were established in urban areas like Boston and Philadelphia. As the United States moved toward public education for children, these newfound youth carceral institutions also began to embrace the notion of providing mandatory education and vocational training for the children entrusted in their care. In January of 1860, the New York Times published an article praising the New York House of Refuge for its alleged protection of children. However, this was far from the truth. The New York House of Refuge had a harrowing legacy of labor exploitation, violence, and abuse. Additionally, the children confined in the New York House of Refuge did not receive any formal classroom or vocational education. Since Black children were enslaved at this time, they were still confined in adult prisons. Ultimately, the New York House of Refuge set the stage for a juvenile carceral system that would oppress, exploit, and abuse children under the guise of protection and rehabilitation.
Juvenile Court Act of 1899
While institutions like the New York House of Refuge eliminated the confinement of white, poor children in adult jails, these children were still tried in adult courts. This was until the establishment of the juvenile court in Cook County Illinois. Prior to the origin of the juvenile court, the institutions that confined children were privately and independently run.
The juvenile court system unified these institutions, leading to the origin of the state-regulated juvenile justice system. Unlike the adult courts, the juvenile court was designed based on the doctrine parens patriae, or “state as the parent”. This doctrine gives the court the right to represent youth who are deemed to need assistance based on their past experiences, behavior, or offenses. The juvenile court was therefore meant to serve the purpose of protecting, supervising, and rehabilitating children who were deemed “on the path to delinquency”. In practice, the newfound juvenile court outcomes were largely dependent on the discretion of individual judges.
As a result, children faced disparate sentencing depending on the individual judges’ biases surrounding race and class. Again, an alleged attempt to safeguard children fell flat, as marginalized children faced more severe sentencing than their counterparts.
In re Gault, 1967
In 1967, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of a child’s right to due process in re Gault, which includes the right to be represented by a lawyer. While this case was a pivotal development in the protection of children’s rights, it did not fully address the disparities that lead to the disproportionate sentencing of minority youth.
Post in re Gault, it is the responsibility of the states to uphold and satisfy every child’s right to legal counsel. However, most states are not meeting this requirement, and children are being denied this fundamental right. States have shown little urgency in addressing the gaps in Re Gault that prevent children from accessing legal defense. For example, some states still allow charging fees, incentives for children to refuse their right to a lawyer, and delayed appointment of counsel. These barriers leave Black, Latinx, and indigenous youth at risk of increased contact with the carceral system. Compared to white children, Black children are incarcerated at 5 times the rate. The same is true for Latinx and Indigenous youth are incarcerated at 1.7 times and 3 times the rate of their white counterparts, respectively.
At the core of what the United States identifies as “childhood,” is the notion that this identity is reserved only for white children. Therefore, the legal, political, and social advances to safeguard the innocence of children does not include those who are Black or Brown. Consequently, any progress made in favor of protecting children in the carceral system excludes Black and Brown children because this is how the system was designed. As a result, we must confront that this system is innately flawed and cannot sufficiently protect all children from exploitation, violence, or abuse.
Conclusion
The juvenile carceral system exists under the pretense of protecting and rehabilitating children. However, in practice, it is extremely harmful. The New York House of Refuge eliminated the confinement of children with adults. However, it legitimized the confinement of children in institutions that oppress under the guise of rehabilitation. Additionally, by only protecting white children, the New York House of Refuge established that Black and minority youth were not recognized as children in need of protecting. The Juvenile Court Act of 1899 gave judges the license to reject impartiality, subjecting marginalized youth to harsher sentences. Lastly, in re Gault’s inability to hold individual states accountable denies Black, Latinx, and Indigenous youth of their fundamental right to counsel. Thus, based on its origins, the juvenile justice system is fundamentally incapable of protecting and rehabilitating children. It remains instead as a lever of state control over disproportionately marginalized and vulnerable children.
As healthcare professionals, it is our responsibility to advocate against systems that place our patients and their communities at risk. We must champion community initiatives that steer youth away from the juvenile carceral system. History has proven that reforms to an inherently flawed system are ineffective at improving its pitfalls. The system threatens the health and well-being of youth in the United States. It takes a village to raise a child – as healthcare professionals and community members, we must step in as the village, instead of entrusting our children to the care of state-run carceral systems by default.
