The following has been transcribed verbatim from a brochure which was distributed at the M.J.P.O.A. 25th Anniversary Dinner held at the Ashland Memorial Post V.F.W. in 1985.
MASSACHUSETTS JUVENILE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
(FORMERLY MIDDLESEX JUVENILE OFFICERS ASSOC)
Lt. Charles E. Feeley, Retired Newton Juvenile Officer
The history of the Juvenile Officers Association has as its origin two almost simultaneous programs conducted by the then Attorney General George Fingold and Middlesex County District Attorney, James O’Dea.
Attorney General Fingold being dissatisfied with the “System” approach to the handling of juveniles sponsored a three day Institute at the Judge Baker Guidance Center at Children’s Hospital.
The Institute recognized the problems with the Criminal Justice System for young offenders. It recognized, also, that it was somewhat moot, as Juvenile offenses were outside the Criminal Justice System.
At the time, no one cared to deal with the “Juvenile Problem.” There was only one full time Juvenile Court, which dealt with youthful offenders. Other District Courts devoted a portion of one day as Juvenile Day.
The term juvenile meant: young, youthful, kid, not fully developed, not yet an adult and rank and file police officers resisted becoming involved in what they considered unimportant dead-end cases.
Lack of interest also included many of the Judiciary and, as in the case of the police, thought of juvenile cases as unimportant – to be handled quickly and put out of the way.
Also, at this time, District Attorney James O’Dea sponsored a ten session program in the investigation and presentation of juvenile cases, and alternate means of handling and treatment. This program followed upon the completion of the Fingold Institute, with volunteers to commit one day a week for six months at the Judge Baker, Boston Juvenile Court for further study.
For the O’Dea program, officers who had indicated an interest in juveniles to their Chiefs were assigned. They were from: Marlboro, Belmont, Concord, Framingham, Newton, Woburn, Malden, Everett, Ashland, Burlington, Winchester, Stoneham, and Cambridge.
Classes were conducted by a team consisting of a psychiatrist, psychologist, and a social worker. It was readily apparent that the teaching “experts” were on a brain picking expedition, taking much and giving little.
The officers, many of whom were on their own time, quickly laid down the law, by issuing an ultimatum: “We give some – you give some” and the learning experience began.
It was soon apparent to the officers that in order to further their education and assist one another they would have to form their own organization. It would have to include police officers, probation officers, parole officers, school adjustment counselors, and any other interested persons in order to create an ongoing learning situation.
We then have to thank, posthumously, Attorney General George Fingold and District Attorney James O’Dea, now a practicing attorney in California, for their contributions towards the formation of the Middlesex County Juvenile Officers Association, which became the present Massachusetts Juvenile Officers Association. However, let’s back up a bit and look at the Juvenile Officer and how he/she became part of the police mission.
The Juvenile Officer in New England police departments is a relatively new designation.
Although the 1948 “Youth Service Act” was the finest instrument of it’s time, it was never implemented, but it did condition the public to the fact that youth existed and some of them were bad or at least law breakers. The act removed them from the control of the courts in so far as direct verdicts and sentencing were concerned. Adjudication of guilt or as a delinquent child resulted in the youth being sentenced as a juvenile delinquent to the Youth Service Board for an undetermined sentence for evaluation, treatment and incarceration, if necessary.
In the beginning of the 1950′s, other states followed suit, and in some states, such as California, the young were arrested by a police officer and turned over to “Juvenile Hall” where specially trained officers carried on necessary investigations and assisted in the presentation of evidence.
However, the Massachusetts judiciary was quite upset over the loss of their prerogative for sentencing or treatment and lost interest in the area of youthful indiscretions or crimes.
The police still had the responsibility of apprehending criminals and when successful, discovered said offenders were under 17 years of age and the courts (except for Boston Juvenile Court) cared less and the philosophy of handling cases at sidewalk level or station house hearings developed and was encouraged. It was a tribute to the staying power of the youthful offender when, after being apprehended for a variety of actions, he made it to court, where if his hair was cut, wore a tie and white shirt, was penitent and stood straight and respected the dignity of the court. His case there was “continued without a finding.” This was followed by a fatherly discussion about the “break” given by the judge because of the recommendations made by the delinquent’s best friend, the “arresting officer.” At the time, each officer presented or outlined his own case complete with hearsay evidence, opinion, and bias.
Foot Note: Very few females were being arrested at this time although Massachusetts had a female detention center at Lancaster and juveniles were considered to be male chauvinism at its best.
Shortly after 1950, the juvenile officer was established here in Greater Boston by a young sergeant who had an intense dislike for late night work and was the protégé for a political machine that was sensitive to his desires. Other communities had chiefs of the old school, who, if not formally educated, were the canniest of the genre. They knew every time they appointed a specialist, they lost a policed officer and were reluctant to experience such a loss.
However, due to public encouragement, and the fact that they were recognized as “progressive” police executives, they grudgingly became modern and assigned officers as juvenile officers in the early 1950′s.
More than one picked a relative, and could not be faulted. If someone was to enjoy a sinecure, why not a relative, who could be trusted? Lacking a relative, a close but less learned friend from his patrol days was another qualification. Some had definite political backing. Each of these standards are recognized as valid. However, lacking any of the foregoing, there were others, such as vitality, as interpreted by the fact that the officer had six to either children, and who knows more about children than one who has some? Others were picked because of Little League associations. One who works with kids or has some knowledge about the problems peculiar to kids, and others became juvenile officers by default when others could not take the heat for juvenile officers’ were known as “play pen or kiddie cops.”
As haphazard as the selections were, more often than not they worked out rather well because each man provided his own criteria for success and had the good fortune to have the Escobedo, Miranda and Gault decisions to assist in building their stature and excusing their failures, although there were many more successes than failures and with the advent of government money, state and federal, the growth of court clinics have solidified the position as a transportation agent from patrol officer to court clinic with an inferred semi-professional status in charge of complaints.
Prior to 1968, judges were counseling juvenile officers to settle cases away from the courtroom, except for the Boston Juvenile Court, and for kids offending New England morality in the area of sex. Fire setting was also a sure ticket for a court appearance on a first offense. Now, the trend is to get them to the court quickly when each case may be referred to the court clinic, where a professional approach is in effect, with the judges as benevolent sages.
Meanwhile, juvenile officers sincerely engaged in youth associations, athletics, visiting youth activities and portraying the interest of law enforcement in their well being. And for all of the mismanagement and lack of qualifications surrounding appointments, the various units seem to work well. The thought intrudes, however, if a man was trained, interested and ambitious, could he do as well, or could he do a better job?
Where, then in 1959-1960 could a juvenile officer obtain such training? With all of the Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts none had studies which would add to the professionalism of the juvenile officer.
Therefore, the Association by mutual exchange of knowledge, current happenings, and regular meetings with Judges, Psychiatrists, corrections, parole academics and anyone else with knowledge and willing to share the association could provide training and has done so with varying degrees of success.
Short History of the Juvenile Court
The first Juvenile Court of record was in Chicago sometime in the 1870′s. Massachusetts did not feel it needed such an approach as it had the interest of the Massachusetts Society of Prevention of Cruelty to Children who were present whenever a juvenile was charged with a crime to ensure justice and fairness. This approach came about following the hanging of a fourteen year old boy for stealing in 1799. The age of enlightenment started in 1800, only one hundred and eighty four years ago. Even then there were many more capital crimes calling for the Death Penalty. When they cut back on the number of crimes carrying the death penalty it soon became a necessity to have a jail or prison – hence, Charlestown State Prison in 1825 for adult male felons. Twenty four years later Lyman School was built for juvenile offenders and two years later Lancaster was opened for female juvenile offenders. These were, at the time, prisons for youth complete with leg irons and other correctional accoutrements necessary to contain youthful criminals sent there for their crimes by District Superior Courts. Occasionally for heinous crimes, a youth could be sent and was, in many cases, to Charlestown.
However, the pendulum was moving to a more compassionate inclination and Concord was built for youths above the age of 17 and first offenders under 25 years of age in 1890.
At about this time Judge baker came upon the scene and felt youth could be saved or corrected by training and some expert help. The Judge was very effective during the early 1900′s.
However, the formation of the Boston Juvenile Court was born out of Judge Baker and his efforts. His approach was to surround the offender with trained professionals to assist him in evaluations and programs to help the offender. Outstanding was the citizenship training program which basically taught the responsibility of Citizenship.
In the meantime, District Court Judges conducted juvenile sentences and could or did sentence youthful offenders directly to Lyman School or Shirley, both of which were junior prison farms. Youthful females were sent to Lancaster.
The Youth Service Act of 1948 changed this system. A judge could only adjudicate an offender as a delinquent and commit him or her to the Youth Service Board, or could continue a case without a finding and place the offender on a form of probation.
Unfortunately the 1948 Act was an exceptionally good act but it never received the funding necessary to attain its projected success.
A succession of fine YSB commissioners tried to implement the 1948 Act but were always short of money.
It became a moot point when Jerome Miller appeared on the scene and closed all youth prisons in favor or contract and community based facilities which have met with success or have not achieved success, depending upon who is doing the looking or giving an opinion.
JUVENILE OFFICERS MOVERS AND SHAKERS
(The Founding fathers)
In every organization there are movers and shakers. Men or women who, by their actions, words, or deeds, get things moving.
It was Sergeant Charles Boardman of the Concord Police who issued the ultimatum to Doctors Kaufman and Selwig to share information or else!
The late Nick Moriarity of Marlboro introduced the drug problem to the rest of the Middlesex officers. He indicated back in 1958 the problem which was about to become statewide, drugs. It is interesting to note that Robert Stutman of drug Enforcement Bureau reiterated in December, 1984 and January of 1985 the very words uttered by Nick Moriarty in 1958, “the drug scene is greatest on the North Shore and South Shore Communities and in the West of Springfield, the only difference is the new found popularity of Cocaine.”
Chief Leo McElhenney, of Woburn, then a juvenile officers instituted a system of Contact cards. They were 3 x 5 cards issued to any officer to use whenever a “contact’ was made with a juvenile. The theory was, each juvenile has a contact of less than apprehendible value, and such contacts are only known by the juvenile. By using contact cards, and filing them, a juvenile officer or bureau could anticipate or recognize a young person on the road to court. Logistics and the then attitude toward juveniles were not as important as other actions by older persons. In all honestly, there could have been other attitudes involved, one of which was “Let Juvenile do its own work, we spend our time catching criminals.”
Frank Barry of Cambridge – was adept at arranging grant monies long before L.E.A. arrived. One program was “Bring every offense to the Court.” This action included th3e broken window where the restitution wax usually arranged by the patrol officer and parents, etc. This program died aborning when the first year of the J.D. rate tripled statistically and was an embarrassment.
The purpose was to follow the professional approach of the Boston Juvenile Court. Statistics were hard and fast and as a result of the previously mentioned embarrassment, Frank lost his program, and since there were fewer arrests, there was less delinquency???
Lt. Salvi Pascucci, Framingham Juvenile Officer who upon recognizing the Judicial lack of interest in juvenile Courts elsewhere and having a good rapport with Judge Farley and the Associate Justice assigned to a Juvenile Court, Judge Arthur Mason, who at this 1985 writing is Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Superior Courts.
Sal Pascucci in his travels became friendly with a Sear-Roebuck executive and Sears parent company was looking to fund community service projects. Together they came up with a Juvenile Officer and his Judge week long seminar which took place in Swampscott. Not all judges and Juvenile officers attended due to space limitations. However, twenty teams did participate and out of it grew an unofficial training program for newly appointed judges by their peers.
Formerly the M.J.P.O.A. Award
The first awards given by this organization were Man of the Year Awards and the first three were by the Middlesex Juvenile Officers Association. Then continued after our growth to the M.J.O.A. until the untimely passing of our past President Roland Kinlock.
Roland’s contributions and accomplishments were many and the Man of the Year Award became the Roland Kinlock Award and the first recipient was Mrs. Marion Kinlock in memoriam and also for her own attendance and interest in the M.J.P.O.A.
The Roland Kinlock Award is one that we all revere and this award in his memory may not be awarded to anyone lacking in excellence in his or her field of endeavor; that endeavor must be associated with our young people. He must be endowed with understanding, compassion and patience and a willingness to do more than the next person for tomorrow’s adults.
Roland was such a man, a patrolman who had worked every facet of police work and in the later years of his career became a Juvenile Officer, President of this Association, our representative to the International Juvenile Officers Association and then its President.
He was sincere, hard working and understood and promoted the thought that love and compassion could assist our troubled young, and the same values should also be visited upon the untroubled – including adults.
Therefore, it is with loving memory and pride that the Massachusetts Juvenile Officers Association presents the Roland Kinlock Award to those persons with comparative values and contributions.
Judge John Connolly – Boston Juvenile Court*
Dr. John Coughlan – Com. D.Y.S.*
Chief Charles Kerivan – Lynn*
Judge Kenneth Nash – Quincy Chief Justice District Courts*
Frank McElroy – N.C.C.J.*
Chief Philip Purcell – Newton*
Judge Arthur Mason – Framingham – Chief Justice Superior Courts*
Arthur Johnson – Director Social Services Arlington*
Marion Kinlock – Mrs. Kinlock (1st recipient Kinlock Award)
Judge Margaret Scott – Belmont – Dorchester Court
Detective Arthur McAloon – Waltham
Lt. Salvi Pascucci – Framingham
Dr. E. Donlon Rooney – Dir. of Guidance Dept. Watertown Schools
Detective Ernest Flanagan – Everett
Dept. Supt. Lawrence Quinlan – Boston
Lt. John Beaudoin – Reading Present: Retired Chief
Judge James Nixon – Cambridge
Detective James Flynn – Barnstable (Retired)
Juv. Officer Harry Marchetti – Ashland
Inspector Richard Beaton – Winchester (Retired)
Ethel Schiavone Dept. Youth Service (Retired)
* M.J.P.O.A. Man of the Year Award
MIDDLESEX JUVENILE OFFICERS AND M.J.P.O.A. PRESIDENTS
Sergeant Charles Boardman – Concord, later D.Y.S. and Assoc. Consultant
Lt. George Watson – Dracut
Detective Ernest Flanagan – Everett
Charles Feeley – last Pres. Mid. – First pres. M.J.P.O.A.
Lt. John Ferris – Worcester
Charles Pappas – Fitchburg
Wallace Liberty – Yarmouth
Roland Kinlock – Methuen also Pres. International Assoc. Juvenile Officers
Salvi Pascucci – Framingham
Inspector John Gibbons – Woburn
Lt. Francis Sullivan – Bedford
Sgt. Richard Cheevers – Wakefield
Clyde Gill – Sandwich
Captain Paul LeHive
James Flynn – Barnstable
Richard Beaton – Winchester
Inspector Robert Honnors – Billerica
Albert Michaud – Salem
Lt. Edward Marchard – Now Chief of Reading
Natalie Rammel – Mansfield
Leo Iacappucci – Reading
Inspector William Mahoney – Belmont
Detective Nelson Souve, Jr – Yarmouth
Sgt. Louis Moscatelli – Framingham
Inspector James Alexander – Concord
MOVERS AND SHAKERS
Charles Boardman as our consultant from D.Y.S. established Juvenile Officer training programs in the early 1960′s and altogether in a number of ten week sessions training or introduced over six hundred officers to the continual advances in the investigation, care, and treatment of the juvenile offender.
Space has its limitations and not all of the movers or shakers can be recognized. However, the following along with the officers or governors, have made valuable contributions.
William T. Mahoney “Doc” Rooney Joseph Foley
Natalie Rammel James Niland Robert Millen
Robert Collins Jack Ferris Leo Iacoppucci
Richard Beaton Louis Moscatelli Arthur Walch
Albert Michaud Charles Pappas Ed Marchand
Francis Sullivan John Gibbons Jim Flynn
John Fothergill Clyde Gill Dawn Desy
Schuyler Meyer, III Daniel MacGinnis Bob Clifford
Donald Bibbo Russell Cutter
William Dewsnap John McGonigle
All historical data leading to narrative history has been written with the intent that subsequent students would one day write a revised version.
Conferences between the Movers and Shakers were held and best memories, past, but not complete records were inspected and the preceding pages were the results of the “best evidence” rule.
We were, perhaps, too busy moving and shaking in the past to keep a satisfactory chronicle of events. However, we may not have kept the greatest records but the Movers, Shakers, past officers did contribute to, and kept viable, an organization devoted to the education of the Juvenile Officer, the sharing of knowledge, and advancement of the profession.
The final responsibility to line up the fact fall to the writer. Therefore, if anyone was overlooked, it was not intentional. My apologies!
Charles E. Feeley