Content uploaded by Joseph Sanborn
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joseph Sanborn on Feb 02, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
A Parens Patriae Figure or Impartial Fact Finder: Policy Questions and Conflicts for the Juvenile Court Judge
Abstract and Figures
For several decades, juvenile courts functioned like clinics. Judges assigned there were instructed to assume a variety of roles: jurist, psychologist, counselor, sociologist, and parent. The In re Gault decision in 1967 granted juvenile defendants several constitutional rights that transformed juvenile courts into criminal court-like operations. Juvenile court judges have not been told whether they should continue to be paternal or emulate their counterparts in adult court; research has not addressed this subject. In this study, 100 juvenile court workers (judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation officers) from three juvenile courts (urban, suburban, rural) were interviewed to ascertain how judges operate in juvenile court and what these workers perceive to be the proper role for the judge. The data show that most workers believe that the role of the juvenile court judge is and should be unique.
Figures - uploaded by Joseph Sanborn
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Joseph Sanborn
Content may be subject to copyright.
... These judicial upward departures could make youth feel that they are being treated unfairly by the adult system. Further, studies looking at defense attorneys have indicated that juvenile courts often receive fewer resources than criminal courts (Humes, 1997), and are viewed as less desirable and prestigious work environments than criminal courts (Puritz & Majd, 2007;Sanborn, 2001). In fact, juvenile courts are seen as training grounds because they are "low stakes" (Humes, 1997). ...
... These findings may be due to differences in role expectations for judges in juvenile vs. adult criminal court. One survey of court workers (including judicial and nonjudicial staff) found that judges were expected to be neutral fact-finders during adjudication, but to switch orientations during detention and disposition stages and focus on the best interests of youth by matching their unique needs to available rehabilitative resources (Sanborn, 2001). In fact, over half of these workers declared that youth's rehabilitation should be the judge's top priority. ...
... Judges.-Increasing formal procedural protections for youth may help address the issue of judicial role conflict in juvenile justice systems (Sanborn, 2001). However, additional attention may need to be paid to how judges consider youth prior criminal history during the court process. ...
The current study examined perceptions of fair treatment in a past court experience among a sample of incarcerated youth (n = 364). Perceptions were compared for youth whose cases were processed through juvenile (n = 261) versus adult court (n = 103) systems. In general, youth who were adjudicated in adult court felt more justly treated by legal authorities than youth adjudicated in juvenile court. Specifically, youth in adult court rated judges as only marginally more just than youth in juvenile court, but rated their defense attorney’s treatment as significantly more just. Youth rated the prosecutor’s treatment as relatively unjust regardless of where their case was handled. Differences in perceptions of procedural justice were also observed based on prior arrest history and race, with White youth and first-time offenders perceiving the process to be more just. Our findings should not be used as support for the increased transfer of youth into adult court, as other studies have demonstrated these youth tend to have worse outcomes. However, our findings do suggest that improvements should be made to increase elements of procedural justice in juvenile court settings.
... Juvenile judges are asked not only to be fact-finders in cases, but also to ensure the welfare of juvenile offenders by considering treatment options, access to social services, and other alternatives that may best help the needs of those adolescents who come in front of them in their court rooms (Lowe, Matz, & Messer, 2012). Based on the original focus of the juvenile justice system, many judges still believe rehabilitation of juvenile offenders should remain a juvenile judge's main focus (Bazemore & Feder, 1997;Sanborn, 2001). Yet, due to the more punitive focus of juvenile courts in recent decades, the philosophy of many juvenile judges has shifted as well toward a more "tough on crime" approach as well (Redding & Hensl, 2011;Smith & Rosier, 2015). ...
... The third category of factors known to influence the decision-making of juvenile judges is the structural context in which a juvenile offender is judged, such as the geographic location of the court and characteristics of the juvenile judge (Lowe, Matz, & Messer, 2012). A judge's demographic characteristics, such as race, gender, political orientation, and personal views toward punishment, often influence decision-making (D'Angelo, 2002;Sanborn, 2001). As discussed below, judges' individual punishment philosophies may be the structural context most influenced by research on adolescent development. ...
This paper discusses how biological and psychological literature on the developmental differences between juveniles and adults may affect juvenile judges in their “dual role” as retributive and rehabilitative decision‐makers in juvenile cases, specifically focusing on sentencing. Particularly, it discusses potential influences of this research on adolescent development regarding four factors known to be integral in juvenile judge decision‐making: legal factors, characteristics of juvenile offenders, and individual structural and social contexts in which judges’ decisions are made. To conclude, implications and recommendations stemming from this discussion are considered.
... The literature on juvenile court decision-making suggests a number of reasons for inconsistent findings regarding the impact of race/ethnicity on decisions across various stages, often noting the complexity of the process and the involvement of multiple decision-makers (Bishop et al., 2010;Harris, 2007;Sanborn Jr, 2001;Singer, 1996), which might help to explain the poor fit of the liberation framework. For example, Bishop and colleagues (2010) put forth a perspective based on the contention that the juvenile justice proceedings consist of many stages with different actors and varied goals at each stage (e.g., intake officer at intake, prosecutor at petition, and judge at adjudication and judicial disposition). ...
Extensive empirical support demonstrates the importance of legal (e.g., crime severity, prior record) and extralegal factors (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender) in predicting juvenile court outcomes. An understudied area is inquiry into how certain extralegal factors interact with legal determinants to impact the social control of juveniles. This study uses a sample of delinquent referrals from a Northeast state over 10 years to examine the impact of race/ethnicity, gender, crime severity, and prior record, individually and in combination, on juvenile court outcomes. Although the liberation hypothesis predicts that extralegal factors have a diminishing effect on case outcomes as the severity of the case increases, overall, we fail to find support for this expectation.
... There is, however, reason to believe that judges are prone to consider individual characteristics in determining guilt and punishment. Sanborn's (1996Sanborn's ( , 2001 documentation of the conflict between judges' concern for the welfare of youths and their role as neutral, impartial fact finders suggests that adjudication decisions are not solely guided by legal facts. ...
Black and male youths are overrepresented at every stage of juvenile justice processing. The current study investigated racial, gender, and age disparities in the probability of a formal adjudication using administrative data (N = 12,070) from a large, urban county in the Midwest. The authors extend previous work by considering the joint effect of race, gender, and age on formal adjudications in the juvenile justice system. The findings indicate that being black, male, and in the middle of the juvenile court’s age jurisdiction were associated with an increase in the probability of receiving a formal adjudication, after controlling for prior referrals and the type and severity of the underlying offense. The magnitude of racial and gender disparities differed across age and was greatest for the least serious offenses. Through the application of graphical analyses, the authors identify youths most at risk of disparate treatment.
... Each of the actors involved contribute to processing decisions (e.g., police, social workers, probation officers, etc.) and are linked to the offender. But, these decision-makers also have specialized expertise, unique perspectives, interests, and goals (Sanborn 2001;Harris 2009) and attempt to reach a "negotiated order of justice" (Bishop et al. 2010, p. 216;Singer 1996). ...
In 2008, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania made national headlines when the “Kids for Cash Scandal” broke. As a result of the actions of the Juvenile Court Judge and other juvenile system personnel, the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice was created to develop rules to prevent the juvenile jus-tice system in Pennsylvania from failing again. The purpose of this study was to determine how juvenile probation practices have changed since the scandal and if those departments were following through with the recommendations of the Commission. While many policies and practices have changed since the scandal, such as the policies regarding gifts and gratuities, there was a lack of consistency in the magnitude of those changes.
In many criminal justice systems, there is a clear separation for juvenile and adult defendants. However, those in between, referred to as emerging young adult defendants (ages 18-25 years), are treated as adult defendants despite a growing recognition that emerging adulthood is a distinct period in the life course. The aim of this present study is to investigate the experiences and challenges faced by emerging young adult defendants ( N = 25) in Hong Kong's adult criminal justice process. Through in-depth semistructured interviews, it was found that emerging young adult defendants demonstrated a lack of understanding regarding their rights and the legal procedures, faced stress in being caught up in the criminal justice process, and were susceptible to influence by others, particularly family members, in making legal decisions. Implications and future directions of study are discussed.
Judges are important and powerful governmental figures. Their work, at both trial and during the appeal of a case, is critical in ensuring that defendants receive justice, and that the interests of society are represented and vindicated.
The increased diversity of the U.S. population poses special challenges to the criminal justice system. High levels of immigration to the United States within the past decade require that law enforcement and court organizations understand the concerns of crime victims who are recent immigrants, and facilitate meaningful access to the justice system. Employing survey methodology, this research describes the barriers that immigrants encounter in accessing justice, as they emerged from the responses of police chiefs and prosecutors in the 50 largest cities of the United States. Criminal justice officials believe that failure to report crimes and to cooperate in their prosecution is a significant problem, especially for domestic violence offenses. The results suggest that many metropolitan areas have made some efforts to promote participation of immigrant victims in the criminal justice system. But far more needs to be done to ensure access to justice for this growing segment of society.
What has prompted the new terrorism? Why have these acts often been associated with religious causes, and why are they occurring with such frequency at this moment in history?
Until recently, children were generally viewed as unable to supply trustworthy testimony. Legal authors dating back to the Middle Ages have voiced concerns about children’s abilities as witnesses, citing their proneness to invention, their inability to distinguish fact from fantasy, and their incompetence for accurately recalling events uncontaminated by suggestion (Goodman, 1984). Legal rulings on the admissibility of children’s testimony reflect these long-standing assumptions about children. In Canada, for instance, the law states clearly that the testimony obtained from “witnesses of tender years” is subject to special conditions and particular scrutiny (Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1970, c E-10, S.16).