1.) Explain how that event changed how juvenile offenders are treated today. Explain the event and provide your input on how those changes were a pro or con to the juvenile justice system.

2.) 500 words.

topic:

Reform Schools:The 1850s ushered in the development of reform schools or institutions used for the housing of delinquent and dependent children. The schools were structured around a school schedule rather than the work hours that defined the workhouses and houses of refuge. Many reform schools operated like a cottage system where the youth were divided into "families" with cottage parents who oversaw the day to day running of the family, discipline of the youth, and schooling. The structure is still used in some youth correction institutions today, however, back in the nineteenth century, children were often exploited for labor and many of the school de-emphasis formal education. ^[6] Additionally, the emphasis of the reform school was on the strength of the family and they believed that by reinserting a strong family presence in the lives of the youth, they would be deterred from further criminal pursuits. ^[7] Regardless of the lack of evaluations as to the effectiveness of these institutions, the popularity of reformatories continued to grow.

The state had the legal authority to commit children and youth to reform schools based under parens patriae. However, in 1870, a boy named Daniel Turner was considered a "misfortunate", or someone who was in danger of becoming delinquent because his family was poor and unable to care for him. He was remanded to a Chicago house of refuge for vagrancy, not a delinquent act. His father filed a writ of habeas corpus and the court ruled that the state has no power to imprison a child, who has committed no crime, on the mere allegation that he is " destitute of proper parental care, and is growing up in mendicancy, ignorance, idleness, and vice."^[8]People Ex Rel. O'connell v. Turner, 55 Ill. 280 (Ill. 1870). This effectively closed the reform schools in Illinois since they could no longer house non-criminal children. This case challenged the practice of parens patriae and ruled that the state can only take control of children if the parents are completely and utterly unfit and/or the child had committed some act of "gross misconduct."^[9]