{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013854930725346373, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.109452736318408, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Juvenile court: a behavioral science perspective.

Introduction The inception of the Juvenile Court at the turn of the last century was inspired by the goal of protecting and rehabilitating the youthful offender. Reformers, appalled by the inhumanity of subjecting children to the procedures and penalties of adult criminal law, desired to create a unique, non-adversary system that would spare minors the trauma, and the social stigma, of being cast among criminal adults. The goal was to individualize justice by recognizing that the youthful offender was not in the same category of responsibility as the adult and might be more amenable to rehabilitation by virtue of being young. The state's role was not to decide guilt and punishment, but rather to make the child feel that his welfare was a matter of concern and solicitude. The rigidities, technicalities and harshness inherent in criminal proceedings were to be discarded in favor of a process characterized by a benevolent paternal guidance. The commitment of the Juvenile Court to the primacy of rehabilitation and the protection of the offender from the negative aspects of criminal law are embodied in the following statements of legislative intent in California: