who were
caught up in the meshes of the criminal law, and his first step was the correction of himself and of the Court. Having to start with only the idea, which was really little more than a sentiment, that the welfare of the child prisoner was the chief consideration, he had to institute proceedings to meet the needs of the child. What were those needs ? The Judge didn’t know, and he had no theory; he had to find out for himself. How did he go about finding out? Very simply, very naturally. He asked the child, one of the first, most obvious observations he made was that children came into Court with either tears or defiance in their eyes. They hated the policeman, and they feared the Judge, and since the “cop” and the Court were the personification of justice and the State, these young citizens were being reared in the spirit of dread and hatred of law and authority. This was all wrong, and yet it was perfectly natural.
“The criminal court for child-offenders,” writes the Judge, “is based on the doctrine of fear, degradation, and punishment. It was, and is, absurd. The Juvenile Court was founded on the principle of love. We assumed that the child had committed, not a crime, but a mistake, and that he deserved correction, not punishment. Of course, there is firmness and justice, for
