Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.010 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) This chapter shall be known and cited as the Juvenile Justice Act of 1977.
(2) It is the intent of the legislature that a system capable of having primary responsibility for, being accountable for, and responding to the needs of youthful offenders and their victims, as defined by this chapter, be established. It is the further intent of the legislature that youth, in turn, be held accountable for their offenses and that communities, families, and the juvenile courts carry out their functions consistent with this intent. To effectuate these policies, the legislature declares the following to be equally important purposes of this chapter:
(a) Protect the citizenry from criminal behavior;
(b) Provide for determining whether accused juveniles have committed offenses as defined by this chapter;
(c) Make the juvenile offender accountable for his or her criminal behavior;
(d) Provide for punishment commensurate with the age, crime, and criminal history of the juvenile offender;
(e) Provide due process for juveniles alleged to have committed an offense;
(f) Provide for the rehabilitation and reintegration of juvenile offenders;
(g) Provide necessary treatment, supervision, and custody for juvenile offenders;
(h) Provide for the handling of juvenile offenders by communities whenever consistent with public safety;
(i) Provide for restitution to victims of crime;
(j) Develop effective standards and goals for the operation, funding, and evaluation of all components of the juvenile justice system and related services at the state and local levels;
(k) Provide for a clear policy to determine what types of offenders shall receive punishment, treatment, or both, and to determine the jurisdictional limitations of the courts, institutions, and community services;
(l) Provide opportunities for victim participation in juvenile justice process, including court hearings on juvenile offender matters, and ensure that Article I, section 35 of the Washington state Constitution, the victim bill of rights, is fully observed; and
(m) Encourage the parents, guardian, or custodian of the juvenile to actively participate in the juvenile justice process.
Notes:
Effective date—2004 c 120: "This act takes effect July 1, 2004." [ 2004 c 120 s 11.]
Finding—Evaluation—Report—1997 c 338: See note following RCW 13.40.0357.
Severability—Effective dates—1997 c 338: See notes following RCW 5.60.060.
Part headings not law—1992 c 205: "Part headings as used in this act do not constitute any part of the law." [ 1992 c 205 s 405.]
Severability—1992 c 205: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1992 c 205 s 406.]
Effective dates—Severability—1977 ex.s. c 291: See notes following RCW 13.04.005.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 152
cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: State v. Rice, 655 P.2d 1145 (Wash. 1983).
State v. Rice, 655 P.2d 1145 (Wash. 1983). “The stated purpose of the Legislature in enacting the Juvenile Justice Act of 1977 (Juvenile Justice Act) is set forth in RCW 13.40.010: (2) It is the intent of the legislature that a system capable of having primary responsibility for, being accountable for, and responding to…”
State v. Schaaf, 743 P.2d 240 (Wash. 1987). “See majority opinion, at 10; see also RCW 9.94A.010(5). Nevertheless, the paramount goal of both systems is punishment.”
State v. Bird, 622 P.2d 1262 (Wash. 1980). “, concur. DOLLIVER, J. (dissenting) The majority fails to distinguish between the commission of a crime and the disposition to be made when one is found guilty of having committed a crime.”
State v. B.O.J., 449 P.3d 1006 (Wash. 2019). “" RCW 13.40.010(2). Some of the statutorily enumerated purposes will be relevant to this determination (e.”
State v. Posey, 272 P.3d 840 (Wash. 2012). “RCW 13.40.010(2). The act ensures that punishment takes into consideration the age, crime, and criminal history of the juvenile offender.”
Tommy P. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 645 P.2d 697 (Wash. 1982). “And certainly nothing in the JJA suggests that the compulsory education law should not apply to children in detention.”
State v. Lawley, 591 P.2d 772 (Wash. 1979). “The goals are set forth in RCW 13.40.010. There the legislature declares that it is its intent to establish a system capable of having primary responsibility and accountability for, and responding to the needs of youthful offenders, as defined in that chapter, and that youths,…”
In Re the Pers. Restraint of Smiley, 640 P.2d 7 (Wash. 1982). “010(2)(f), it also seeks to "[m]ake the juvenile offender accountable for his or her criminal behavior", RCW 13.40.010(2)(c), and provide for "punishment commensurate with the age, crime, and criminal history of the juvenile offender".”
State v. JH, 978 P.2d 1121 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “060(2)(b) (attorney-client privilege protects parents from being compelled to disclose the juvenile's communication with his or her attorney); RCW 13.”
State v. J.H., 96 Wash. App. 167 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “060(2)(b) (attorney-client privilege protects parents from being compelled to disclose the juvenile’s communication with his or her attorney); RCW 13.”
State v. Hunotte, 851 P.2d 694 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “40: The brief recitation of the legislative intent behind the juvenile justice act, found in RCW 13.40.010, shows the strong policy behind the restitution and community service provisions in the act.”
State v. J.P., 69 P.3d 318 (Wash. 2003). “” RCW 13.40.010(2)(c), (h). These general expressions of intent, however, do not negate the legislature’s intent, evident in the definition of the term “restitution,” to limit restitution to certain types of crime-related costs.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.010(1) — 1 case
State v. Payne, 795 P.2d 134 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.010(2) — 73 cases
State v. Rice, 655 P.2d 1145 (Wash. 1983). “The stated purpose of the Legislature in enacting the Juvenile Justice Act of 1977 (Juvenile Justice Act) is set forth in RCW 13.40.010: (2) It is the intent of the legislature that a system capable of having primary responsibility for, being accountable for, and responding to…”
Tommy P. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 645 P.2d 697 (Wash. 1982). “And certainly nothing in the JJA suggests that the compulsory education law should not apply to children in detention.”
State v. Bird, 622 P.2d 1262 (Wash. 1980). “, concur. DOLLIVER, J. (dissenting) The majority fails to distinguish between the commission of a crime and the disposition to be made when one is found guilty of having committed a crime.”
State v. Schaaf, 743 P.2d 240 (Wash. 1987). “See majority opinion, at 10; see also RCW 9.94A.010(5). Nevertheless, the paramount goal of both systems is punishment.”
State v. Weber, 149 P.3d 646 (Wash. 2006).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.010(2)(a) — 29 cases
State v. Schaaf, 743 P.2d 240 (Wash. 1987). “See majority opinion, at 10; see also RCW 9.94A.010(5). Nevertheless, the paramount goal of both systems is punishment.”
State v. Rice, 655 P.2d 1145 (Wash. 1983). “The stated purpose of the Legislature in enacting the Juvenile Justice Act of 1977 (Juvenile Justice Act) is set forth in RCW 13.40.010: (2) It is the intent of the legislature that a system capable of having primary responsibility for, being accountable for, and responding to…”
State v. T.E.C., 92 P.3d 263 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
State v. Ferreira, 850 P.2d 541 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993).
State v. JH, 978 P.2d 1121 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “060(2)(b) (attorney-client privilege protects parents from being compelled to disclose the juvenile's communication with his or her attorney); RCW 13.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.010(2)(c) — 19 cases
State v. J.P., 69 P.3d 318 (Wash. 2003). “” RCW 13.40.010(2)(c), (h). These general expressions of intent, however, do not negate the legislature’s intent, evident in the definition of the term “restitution,” to limit restitution to certain types of crime-related costs.”
State v. Schaaf, 743 P.2d 240 (Wash. 1987). “See majority opinion, at 10; see also RCW 9.94A.010(5). Nevertheless, the paramount goal of both systems is punishment.”
State v. Posey, 272 P.3d 840 (Wash. 2012). “RCW 13.40.010(2). The act ensures that punishment takes into consideration the age, crime, and criminal history of the juvenile offender.”
In Re the Pers. Restraint of Smiley, 640 P.2d 7 (Wash. 1982). “010(2)(f), it also seeks to "[m]ake the juvenile offender accountable for his or her criminal behavior", RCW 13.40.010(2)(c), and provide for "punishment commensurate with the age, crime, and criminal history of the juvenile offender".”
State v. Hunotte, 851 P.2d 694 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “40: The brief recitation of the legislative intent behind the juvenile justice act, found in RCW 13.40.010, shows the strong policy behind the restitution and community service provisions in the act.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.010(2)(d) — 7 cases
State v. Rice, 655 P.2d 1145 (Wash. 1983). “The stated purpose of the Legislature in enacting the Juvenile Justice Act of 1977 (Juvenile Justice Act) is set forth in RCW 13.40.010: (2) It is the intent of the legislature that a system capable of having primary responsibility for, being accountable for, and responding to…”
State v. Bird, 622 P.2d 1262 (Wash. 1980). “, concur. DOLLIVER, J. (dissenting) The majority fails to distinguish between the commission of a crime and the disposition to be made when one is found guilty of having committed a crime.”
State v. Shawn P., 859 P.2d 1220 (Wash. 1993).
State v. Posey, 272 P.3d 840 (Wash. 2012). “RCW 13.40.010(2). The act ensures that punishment takes into consideration the age, crime, and criminal history of the juvenile offender.”
State v. Bacon, 415 P.3d 207 (Wash. 2018).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.010(2)(e) — 5 cases
State v. M.S., 484 P.3d 1231 (Wash. 2021).
State v. D.L., 484 P.3d 448 (Wash. 2021).
State v. S.S., 840 P.2d 891 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992).
State v. SS, 840 P.2d 891 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992).
State Of Washington, V. Lola Felipa Luna (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.010(2)(f) — 17 cases
State v. Rice, 655 P.2d 1145 (Wash. 1983). “The stated purpose of the Legislature in enacting the Juvenile Justice Act of 1977 (Juvenile Justice Act) is set forth in RCW 13.40.010: (2) It is the intent of the legislature that a system capable of having primary responsibility for, being accountable for, and responding to…”
In Re the Pers. Restraint of Smiley, 640 P.2d 7 (Wash. 1982). “010(2)(f), it also seeks to "[m]ake the juvenile offender accountable for his or her criminal behavior", RCW 13.40.010(2)(c), and provide for "punishment commensurate with the age, crime, and criminal history of the juvenile offender".”
State v. Lawley, 591 P.2d 772 (Wash. 1979). “The goals are set forth in RCW 13.40.010. There the legislature declares that it is its intent to establish a system capable of having primary responsibility and accountability for, and responding to the needs of youthful offenders, as defined in that chapter, and that youths,…”
Monroe v. Soliz, 939 P.2d 205 (Wash. 1997).
State v. SH, 877 P.2d 205 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.010(2)(g) — 4 cases
State v. B.O.J., 449 P.3d 1006 (Wash. 2019). “" RCW 13.40.010(2). Some of the statutorily enumerated purposes will be relevant to this determination (e.”
State v. Bird, 622 P.2d 1262 (Wash. 1980). “, concur. DOLLIVER, J. (dissenting) The majority fails to distinguish between the commission of a crime and the disposition to be made when one is found guilty of having committed a crime.”
State v. WS, 700 P.2d 1192 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985).
State of Washington v. Jonathan Howard Shurtz (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.010(2)(h) — 12 cases
State v. Schaaf, 743 P.2d 240 (Wash. 1987). “See majority opinion, at 10; see also RCW 9.94A.010(5). Nevertheless, the paramount goal of both systems is punishment.”
State v. Hunotte, 851 P.2d 694 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “40: The brief recitation of the legislative intent behind the juvenile justice act, found in RCW 13.40.010, shows the strong policy behind the restitution and community service provisions in the act.”
State v. Bacon, 415 P.3d 207 (Wash. 2018).
State v. Mollichi, 936 P.2d 408 (Wash. 1997).
State v. Mollichi, 936 P.2d 408 (Wash. 1997).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.010(2)(i) — 2 cases
State v. B.O.J., 449 P.3d 1006 (Wash. 2019). “" RCW 13.40.010(2). Some of the statutorily enumerated purposes will be relevant to this determination (e.”
State v. Todd, 103 Wash. App. 783 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.010(2)(j) — 8 cases
State v. Rice, 655 P.2d 1145 (Wash. 1983). “The stated purpose of the Legislature in enacting the Juvenile Justice Act of 1977 (Juvenile Justice Act) is set forth in RCW 13.40.010: (2) It is the intent of the legislature that a system capable of having primary responsibility for, being accountable for, and responding to…”
State v. Schaaf, 743 P.2d 240 (Wash. 1987). “See majority opinion, at 10; see also RCW 9.94A.010(5). Nevertheless, the paramount goal of both systems is punishment.”
State v. Manro, 104 P.3d 708 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).
In Re the Pers. Restraint of Smiley, 640 P.2d 7 (Wash. 1982). “010(2)(f), it also seeks to "[m]ake the juvenile offender accountable for his or her criminal behavior", RCW 13.40.010(2)(c), and provide for "punishment commensurate with the age, crime, and criminal history of the juvenile offender".”
State v. Manro, 125 Wash. App. 165 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.010(2)(k) — 3 cases
State v. JH, 978 P.2d 1121 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “060(2)(b) (attorney-client privilege protects parents from being compelled to disclose the juvenile's communication with his or her attorney); RCW 13.”
State v. J.H., 96 Wash. App. 167 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “060(2)(b) (attorney-client privilege protects parents from being compelled to disclose the juvenile’s communication with his or her attorney); RCW 13.”
State of Washington v. D.K.V., 483 P.3d 813 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.010(5) — 1 case
State v. GAH, 137 P.3d 66 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.010(c) — 1 case
State of Washington v. S.J. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.