which labour strenuously and unceasingly to this excellent end. Especial good work has been done by the Borstal association, founded under the patronage of the best known and most distinguished persons in English public life—archbishops, judges, cabinet ministers and privy councillors—which receives the juvenile adults on their release and helps them to employment. Their labours, backed by generous voluntary contributions, have produced very gratifying results. Although the offenders originally selected to undergo the Borstal treatment were those committed for a period of six months, it was recognized that this limit was experimental, and that thoroughly satisfactory results could only be obtained with sentences of at least a year’s duration, so as to give the reforming agencies ample time to operate. In the second year’s working of the system it was formally applied to young convicts sentenced to penal servitude between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one. In the next year it was adopted for all offenders between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one committed to prison, as far as the length of sentence would permit. The commissioners of prisons, in their Report for the year 1908 (Cd. 4300) thus expressed themselves on the working of the experiment:—
“Experience soon began to point to the probable success of this general application of the principle, in spite of the fact that the prevailing shortness of sentences operated against full benefit being derived from reformatory effort. The success was most marked in those localities where magistrates, or other benevolent persons, personally co-operated in making the scheme a success. Local Borstal committees were established at all prisons, and it was arranged that those members of the local committees should become ex officio honorary members of the Central Borstal Association, which it was intended should become, what it now is, the parent society directing the general aid on discharge of this category of young prisoners.”
In spite of the general adoption of the Borstal system, there was a large class of young criminals who were outside its effects, those who were sentenced to terms of ten days and under for trifling offences. These juvenile adults, once having had the fear of prison taken away by actual experience, were found to come back again and again. To remedy this state of affairs, a bill was introduced in 1907 to give effect to the principle of a long period of detention for all those showing a tendency to embark on a criminal career. The bill was, however, dropped, but a somewhat similar bill was introduced the next year and became law under the title of The Prevention of Crime Act 1908. This measure introduces a new departure in the treatment of professional crime by initiating a system of detention for habitual criminals (see Recidivism). The act attempts the reformation of young offenders by giving the court power to pass sentence of detention in a Borstal institution for a term of not less than one year nor more than three on those between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one who by reason of criminal habits or tendencies or association with persons of bad character require such instruction and discipline as appear most conducive to their reformation. The power of detention applies also to reformatory school offences, while such persons as are already undergoing penal servitude or imprisonment may be transferred to a Borstal institution if detention would conduce to their advantage. The establishment of other Borstal institutions is authorized by the act, while a very useful provision is the power to release on licence if there is a reasonable probability that the offender will abstain from crime and lead a useful and industrious life. The licence is issued on condition that he is placed under the supervision or authority of some society or person willing to take charge of him. Supervision is introduced after the expiration of the term of sentence, and power is given to transfer to prison incorrigibles or those exercising a bad influence on the other inmates of a Borstal institution. The act marks a noteworthy advance in the endeavour to arrest the growing habit of crime. (A. G.; T. A. I.)
JUVENTAS (Latin for “youth”: later Juventus), in Roman
mythology, the tutelar goddess of young men. She was worshipped
at Rome from very early times. In the front court of
the temple of Minerva on the Capitol there was a chapel of
Juventas, in which a coin had to be deposited by each youth on
his assumption of the toga virilis, and sacrifices were offered
on behalf of the rising manhood of the state. In connexion with
this chapel it is related that, when the temple was in course of
erection, Terminus, the god of boundaries, and Juventas refused
to quit the sites they had already appropriated as sacred to
themselves, which accordingly became part of the new sanctuary.
This was interpreted as a sign of the immovable boundaries and
eternal youth of the Roman state. It should be observed that in
the oldest accounts there is no mention of Juventas, whose name
(with that of Mars) was added in support of the augural prediction.
After the Second Punic War Greek elements were introduced
into her cult. In 218 B.C., by order of the Sibylline books,
a lectisternium was prepared for Juventas and a public thanksgiving
to Hercules, an association which shows the influence of
the Greek Hebe, the wife of Heracles. In 207 Marcus Livius
Salinator, after the defeat of Hasdrubal at the battle of Sena,
vowed another temple to Juventas in the Circus Maximus,
which was dedicated in 191 by C. (or M.) Licinius Lucullus; it
was destroyed by fire in 16 B.C. and rebuilt by Augustus. In
imperial times, Juventas personified, not the youth of the Roman
state, but of the future emperor.
See Dion. Halic., iii. 69, iv. 15; Livy v. 54, xxi. 62, xxxvi. 36.
JUXON, WILLIAM (1582–1663), English prelate, was the son of Robert Juxon and was born probably at Chichester, being educated at Merchant Taylors’ School, London, and at St John’s College, Oxford, where he was elected to a scholarship in 1598. He studied law at Oxford, but afterwards he took holy orders, and in 1609 became vicar of St Giles, Oxford, a living which he retained until he became rector of Somerton, Oxfordshire, in 1615. In December 1621 he succeeded his friend, William Laud, as president of St John’s College, and in 1626 and 1627 he was vice-chancellor of the university. Juxon soon obtained other important positions, including that of chaplain-in-ordinary to Charles I. In 1627 he was made dean of Worcester and in 1632 he was nominated to the bishopric of Hereford, an event which led him to resign the presidency of St John’s in January 1633. However, he never took up his episcopal duties at Hereford, as in October 1633 he was consecrated bishop of London in succession to Laud. He appears to have been an excellent bishop, and in March 1636 Charles I. entrusted him with important secular duties by making him lord high treasurer of England; thus for the next five years he was dealing with the many financial and other difficulties which beset the king and his advisers. He resigned the treasurership in May 1641. During the Civil War the bishop, against whom no charges were brought in parliament, lived undisturbed at Fulham Palace, and his advice was often sought by the king, who had a very high opinion of him, and who at his execution selected him to be with him on the scaffold and to administer to him the last consolations of religion. Juxon was deprived of his bishopric in 1649 and retired to Little Compton in Gloucestershire, where he had bought an estate, and here he became famous as the owner of a pack of hounds. At the restoration of Charles II. he became archbishop of Canterbury and in his official capacity he took part in the coronation of this king, but his health soon began to fail and he died at Lambeth on the 4th of June 1663. By his will the archbishop was a benefactor to St John’s College, where he was buried; he also aided the work of restoring St Paul’s Cathedral and rebuilt the great hall at Lambeth Palace.
See W. H. Marah, Memoirs of Archbishop Juxon and his Times (1869); the best authority for the archbishop’s life is the article by W. H. Hutton in the Dict. Nat. Biog. (1892).
