Guardian Of The Public And/Or The Child: Policy Questions And Conflicts For The Juvenile Court Prosecutor

For several decades, prosecutors rarely worked in juvenile courts. The In re Gault decision in 1967, however, granted juvenile criminal defendants several constitutional rights that have transformed juvenile courts into criminal-court-like operations. Although prosecutors now regularly appear in juvenile court, generally, they have not been told whether(or how) they should promote the court\u27s special rehabilitation mission or emulate their counterparts in adult criminal court; research has mostly ignored this subject. In this study, 100 juvenile court workers (judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation officers) from three juvenile courts (urban, suburban, rural) were interviewed to determine how prosecutors were operating in juvenile court and what these workers perceived to be the proper role for prosecutors. The data show that most workers in the urban center believed that prosecutors were ignoring the dictates of juvenile justice philosophy and were undermining the court\u27s operations; many workers wondered if juvenile court would survive the presence of prosecutors. The results differed dramatically in the suburban and rural courts, where prosecutors were mostly perceived as compatible with juvenile court objectives. The dynamics of the juvenile court, especially the nature of its crime problem, seem to determine whether prosecutors will elect to be the guardian of the public or the child