No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Factors Perceived to Affect Delinquent Dispositions in Juvenile Court: Putting the Sentencing Decision into Context
Abstract
The dispositional stage is the most critical decision-making level delinquent youths encounter in juvenile court. Previous research has produced inconsistent results concerning what motivates court officials in making sentencing decisions. One hundred workers (judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and probation officers) from three juvenile courts (urban, suburban, and rural) were interviewed to ascertain their perspectives as to factors which should and do influence dispositions in juvenile court. The data demonstrate that the factors perceived to affect these decisions vary among juvenile courts and that research may never be able to determine precisely the impact any of the factors has on the dispositional outcomes.
... The issue of legal representation in juvenile court has sparked debate among academics and practitioners as theoretically legal counsel should advantage client outcomes, yet empirical research finds defense lawyers can both benefit juvenile defendants (Ferster & Courtless, 1972;Sanborn, 1996)) and disadvantage them (Burruss & Kempf-Leonard, 2002;Feld, 1999Feld, , 2000. The presence of a defense attorney can benefit juveniles by providing procedural safeguards in court proceedings, protecting youths' civil liberties, and ideally act in the best interests of the child to provide rehabilitation opportunities rather than punishment (Ferster, Courtless, & Snethen, 1971;Sanborn, 1996). ...
... The issue of legal representation in juvenile court has sparked debate among academics and practitioners as theoretically legal counsel should advantage client outcomes, yet empirical research finds defense lawyers can both benefit juvenile defendants (Ferster & Courtless, 1972;Sanborn, 1996)) and disadvantage them (Burruss & Kempf-Leonard, 2002;Feld, 1999Feld, , 2000. The presence of a defense attorney can benefit juveniles by providing procedural safeguards in court proceedings, protecting youths' civil liberties, and ideally act in the best interests of the child to provide rehabilitation opportunities rather than punishment (Ferster, Courtless, & Snethen, 1971;Sanborn, 1996). The disadvantages of legal representation on juvenile dispositions may lead to harsher case outcomes, such as a delinquent adjudication, or being removed from the home as a dispositional sanction. ...
... Empirically, prior studies indicate that throughout court processing juveniles with legal representation have been both advantaged (Feld, 1988;Leiber, Peck, & Beaudry-Cyr, 2016;Ferster & Courtless, 1972) and disadvantaged (Armstrong & Kim, 2011;Burruss & Kempf-Leonard, 2002;Feld, 1988;GAO, 1995;Guevara, Spohn, & Herz, 2004). Supporting the rehabilitation philosophy of the juvenile justice system, Sanborn (1996) discovered that juvenile justice decision-makers perceived that defense attorneys ranged from aggressive advocates for minimal court intervention to concerned guardians who argued for rehabilitation over punishment (see also Ferster et al., 1971). 3 Public defenders were considered advocates in an urban court, while perceived as guardians and advocates in the suburban and rural court. ...
Purpose
The United States Supreme Court decision In re Gault highlighted the importance of legal representation throughout juvenile justice proceedings. However, prior studies indicate that juveniles with legal representation have been both advantaged and disadvantaged across juvenile court outcomes. Some research suggests a “lawyer penalty” where youth represented by legal counsel are punished more severely than their non-represented counterparts.
Methods
Given the implications of these findings on both the court and life outcomes of juvenile offenders, the current study performs a meta-analysis comparing the dispositional sanctions of adjudicated juvenile offenders with counsel to those without representation.
Results
Juveniles represented by legal counsel were over two times more likely to receive an out-of-home placement compared to those without attorneys. The lawyer penalty was robust over time, across bivariate and multivariate studies, and whether individual-level or state-level data were analyzed, as having an attorney present increased the odds of a juvenile being removed from their home by over 200%.
Conclusions
Evidence of a lawyer penalty has persisted since the In re Gault decision despite an increase in sophistication of statistical analyses. The implications for juvenile court practice, the role of legal representation in juvenile court proceedings, and future research are discussed.
... although juvenile courts do not require the appointment of legal counsel, judges are directed to advise youth and their families the right to counsel. However, studies of the influence of legal counsel on juvenile court outcomes have found lawyers to be beneficial (Grisso and Schwartz 2000;Sanborn 1996) and detrimental (Feld 1988;Guevara, Spohn, and Herz 2004). ...
... Some research finds that attorneys can be considered guardians or advocates for youth throughout juvenile justice proceedings, resulting in advantageous outcomes (Sanborn 1996). Other research finds that the presence of counsel in juvenile court proceedings results in more severe case outcomes or a 'counsel penalty' compared to youth who do not retain counsel (Burruss and kempf-Leonard 2002;Feld 1988;Jones 2004). ...
... Unlike the race literature, research on counsel has not been consistent in reporting the direction of the effect that legal counsel has on court outcomes. Having an attorney has been shown to be both beneficial (Grisso and Schwartz 2000;Sanborn 1996) and detrimental (Feld 1988;Guevara, Spohn, and Herz 2004) to court outcomes. Some research argues that as a result of the parens patriae function of the juvenile court, attorneys serve the role of advocates and/or guardians to the juveniles appearing before the judge (Sanborn 1996). ...
... Whilst these rules may suffice in everyday circumstances, they can lead to large and persistent biases with serious implications for decision making in the youth justice system (Hoge, 2002;Kahneman et al., 1990). Unfortunately, research indicates that these biases are relatively common in youth justice services (R. Borum, 2003;Hoge, 2002;Minor, Hartmann, & Terry, 1997;Sanborn, 1996;Schissel, 1993;Wiebush et al., 1995). ...
... Four biases have been identified that have particular relevance to clinicians' predictions of risk (R. Borum, Otto, & Golding, 1993 The utilisation of cognitive biases has been documented in the criminal justice and human services fields, including the adult justice system, the juvenile justice and the child protection system (e.g., R. Borum, 1996;R. Borum et al., 1993;Cooper & Werner, 1990;Kahneman et al., 1990;Munro, 1999;Sanborn, 1996;Schissel, 1993). ...
... Research investigating decision-making by youth justice case workers indicates that professionals with heavy case loads and limited time tend to be selective in the information they use and the way they select this information (e.g., R. Borum, 1996;R. Borum et al., 1993;Cooper & Werner, 1990;Kahneman et al., 1990;Munro, 1999;Sanborn, 1996;Schissel, 1993). Here, professionals tend to base their decisions on factors that lack empirically-derived predictive power, whereby empirically-supported variables are not factored into decision processes (R. Borum, 1996;R. ...
... Therefore, when assigning culpability (and ultimately punishment) to offenders, those who are presumed to have committed crime based on internal factors will be punished more harshly than those who are perceived to have committed the illegal acts from external factors. The juvenile justice system mostly emphasizes rehabilitation for offenders, at least to a larger degree than the adult system (Sanborn, 1996). The juvenile court was founded on youth needing to be treated differently than adults due to being less mature, culpable, and cognitively developed, resulting in treatment being the emphasis of the court instead of punishment (Bernard & Kurlychek, 2010). ...
... Age is the defining characteristic that separates the two justice systems. While in the juvenile system, the attributions of behavior focus more external factors, as compared to internal factors (Sanborn, 1996). External factors generally minimize the degree of culpability because those youth are allowed to remain in the juvenile system and juvenile court workers generally incorporate external factors (e.g., school improvement, family issues, employment) (e.g., Sanborn, 1996) into subsequent court outcomes. ...
... While in the juvenile system, the attributions of behavior focus more external factors, as compared to internal factors (Sanborn, 1996). External factors generally minimize the degree of culpability because those youth are allowed to remain in the juvenile system and juvenile court workers generally incorporate external factors (e.g., school improvement, family issues, employment) (e.g., Sanborn, 1996) into subsequent court outcomes. Research has found after controlling for legal variables, those who possess positive external factors have more lenient outcomes than those who do not have similar external factors in their lives (e.g., Freiburger & Jordan, 2011;Leiber & Mack, 2003;Sanborn, 1996). ...
The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of being juvenile on sentencing in the criminal justice system. More specifically, youth transferred to criminal court are compared to adults in terms of likelihood of incarceration, jail length, and prison length. In this study, 2 national data sets are merged. The juvenile sample includes 3,381 convicted offenders, and the adult sample is comprised of 6,529 convicted offenders. The final sample is 9,910 offenders across 36 U.S. counties. The key independent variable is juvenile status, and the dependent variables are incarceration, jail length, and prison length. Because of the multilevel nature of the data, hierarchical linear modeling is used across all models. Juveniles are punished less severely in the jail incarceration decision. However, when youth are actually sentenced to incarceration (either jail or prison), they are given longer confinement time than adults. (PsycINFO Database Record
... although juvenile courts do not require the appointment of legal counsel, judges are directed to advise youth and their families the right to counsel. However, studies of the influence of legal counsel on juvenile court outcomes have found lawyers to be beneficial (Grisso and Schwartz 2000;Sanborn 1996) and detrimental (Feld 1988;Guevara, Spohn, and Herz 2004). ...
... Some research finds that attorneys can be considered guardians or advocates for youth throughout juvenile justice proceedings, resulting in advantageous outcomes (Sanborn 1996). Other research finds that the presence of counsel in juvenile court proceedings results in more severe case outcomes or a 'counsel penalty' compared to youth who do not retain counsel (Burruss and kempf-Leonard 2002;Feld 1988;Jones 2004). ...
... Unlike the race literature, research on counsel has not been consistent in reporting the direction of the effect that legal counsel has on court outcomes. Having an attorney has been shown to be both beneficial (Grisso and Schwartz 2000;Sanborn 1996) and detrimental (Feld 1988;Guevara, Spohn, and Herz 2004) to court outcomes. Some research argues that as a result of the parens patriae function of the juvenile court, attorneys serve the role of advocates and/or guardians to the juveniles appearing before the judge (Sanborn 1996). ...
It has been established throughout the juvenile justice literature that controlling for both legal and extra-legal factors, minority youth tend to receive disadvantaged juvenile court outcomes compared to similarly situated whites. Prior research has also found that the effect of legal representation on juvenile justice proceedings has produced differing viewpoints concerning the benefits and disadvantages of youth being represented by legal counsel. Using data from one Midwest state and one Northeast state, the present study examines the extent to which race impacts adjudication and judicial disposition decision-making, and if this effect is conditioned by the presence and type of legal counsel (public defender vs. private attorney). Results indicate that depending on the state and stage examined, the presence and type of legal counsel influence the juvenile court outcomes of white and black youth, although not always in the expected direction. Explanations in regard to the aggravating and mitigating effects of legal representation are discussed to more thoroughly comprehend under what conditions racial disparities occur throughout juvenile court proceedings.
... Tot slot hebben schoolfactoren en in het bijzonder gezinsfactoren zoals gezinsstructuur en de gerechtelijke of psychiatrische antecedenten van de ouders een substantiële invloed op het beslissingsproces van de jeugdrechters (Beeman et al., 2000;Campbell & Schmidt, 2000;Franssens et al., 2010;Leiber & Mack, 2003;Sanborn, 1996;Sheehan, 2001;Vanneste, 2001). Ook spijbelen (schoolfactor) heeft een belangrijke invloed op hun beslissingen (Franssens et al., 2010;O'Donnell & Lurigio, 2008;Sanborn, 1996;Vanneste, 2001). ...
... Tot slot hebben schoolfactoren en in het bijzonder gezinsfactoren zoals gezinsstructuur en de gerechtelijke of psychiatrische antecedenten van de ouders een substantiële invloed op het beslissingsproces van de jeugdrechters (Beeman et al., 2000;Campbell & Schmidt, 2000;Franssens et al., 2010;Leiber & Mack, 2003;Sanborn, 1996;Sheehan, 2001;Vanneste, 2001). Ook spijbelen (schoolfactor) heeft een belangrijke invloed op hun beslissingen (Franssens et al., 2010;O'Donnell & Lurigio, 2008;Sanborn, 1996;Vanneste, 2001). ...
... Naast deze factoren gecentreerd rond het misdrijf en de minderjarige, worden ook andere factoren zoals de attitudes van de jeugdrechters (Mears, 1998), de karakteristieken van de jeugdrechtbank (Johnson & Secret, 1995;Sanborn, 1996), de beschikbaarheid en de bron van informatie in het dossier (O'Donnell & Lurigio, 2008;Sheehan, 2001) en de beschikbare alternatieven (Nuytiens et al., 2005;Sheehan, 2001) onderzocht als mogelijke beslissingsfactoren. Onderzoek betreffende de attitudes van de jeugdrechters en de karakteristieken van de rechtbanken geven aan dat het socialisatieproces op de rechtbank (Mears, 1998) en de plaats van de rechtbank (stad of platteland; Sanborn, 1996) het beslissingsproces beïnvloedt. ...
... Introduction goals, however, through its series of complex and intertwined stages, and the vast discretionary power purposely awarded to juvenile justice officials (Bishop, Leiber, & Johnson, 2010;Sanborn, 1996;Ward & Kupchik, 2009). An additional challenge is the ever-changing political context emphasizing particular philosophies regarding rehabilitation, accountability, and punishment, as well as decision makers' own orientations to these approaches (Butts & Mears, 2001;Harris, 2007). ...
... Bishop and associates operated under the assumption that there are important consequences of processing young people through a justice system in which the multiple agencies and actors involved in decision making are independent, governed by different rules and mandates, and oriented toward goals and objectives that are frequently different from and sometimes incompatible with the priorities of other organizational units or one another (Harris, 2007(Harris, , 2009Sanborn, 1996). For the purpose of this research, we focus on what Bishop and colleagues had to say about the stages of intake, adjudication, and judicial disposition in terms of the actors and goals involved within the context of the integrated focal concerns and loosely coupled perspective. ...
... Although ultimately responsible for the disposition decision, the judge typically receives oral and/or written reports and recommendations from the prosecution, the defense, and the probation department. The recommendations offered by representatives of these subsystems reflect diverse interests and perspectives (Sanborn, 1996). For example, probation officers may try to operationalize institutional rules that give effect to notions of individualized treatment, whereas prosecutors are likely to reflect community interests in retribution and social defense (Harris, 2007;Singer, 1996). ...
Based on interpretations of an integrated focal concerns and loosely coupling framework, individual and joint relationships involving race and gender with case outcomes were examined as well as possible tempering effects by crime severity and the stage in the proceedings. The results from multiple logistic regression indicate mixed support for the theoretical framework in terms of the ability to determine at what stages race and gender effects would be most evident. Crime severity was predictive of decision making and in some cases had a conditioning effect on the discovered race/gender relationships with case outcomes. The implications of the findings and directions for future research are discussed.
... Extralegal variables considered to be relevant in determining the disposition of a juvenile include the juvenile's age, attitude, potential for rehabilitation, school record, and a variety of other issues. A juvenile's age may influence how far the juvenile penetrates into the system (Minor, Hartmann, and Terry 1997) or may affect the decision to place him or her residentially (Kowalski and Rickicki 1982;Sanborn 1996). An assortment of other extralegal factors that may influence the disposition decision, such as IQ and personality disorders, have received cursory examination (Rogers and Williams 1994;Sanborn 1996). ...
... A juvenile's age may influence how far the juvenile penetrates into the system (Minor, Hartmann, and Terry 1997) or may affect the decision to place him or her residentially (Kowalski and Rickicki 1982;Sanborn 1996). An assortment of other extralegal factors that may influence the disposition decision, such as IQ and personality disorders, have received cursory examination (Rogers and Williams 1994;Sanborn 1996). ...
... The impact of legal issues on a juvenile's disposition has been examined in three areas: current offense, prior record, and prior court responses to the juvenile. It is hardly disputed that the current offense plays a role in determining a juvenile's disposition (e.g., Kowalski and Rickicki 1982;Minor et al. 1997;Sanborn 1996). More debatable, however, is the degree of influence exerted by the current offense. ...
... Introduction goals, however, through its series of complex and intertwined stages, and the vast discretionary power purposely awarded to juvenile justice officials (Bishop, Leiber, & Johnson, 2010;Sanborn, 1996;Ward & Kupchik, 2009). An additional challenge is the ever-changing political context emphasizing particular philosophies regarding rehabilitation, accountability, and punishment, as well as decision makers' own orientations to these approaches (Butts & Mears, 2001;Harris, 2007). ...
... Bishop and associates operated under the assumption that there are important consequences of processing young people through a justice system in which the multiple agencies and actors involved in decision making are independent, governed by different rules and mandates, and oriented toward goals and objectives that are frequently different from and sometimes incompatible with the priorities of other organizational units or one another (Harris, 2007(Harris, , 2009Sanborn, 1996). For the purpose of this research, we focus on what Bishop and colleagues had to say about the stages of intake, adjudication, and judicial disposition in terms of the actors and goals involved within the context of the integrated focal concerns and loosely coupled perspective. ...
... Although ultimately responsible for the disposition decision, the judge typically receives oral and/or written reports and recommendations from the prosecution, the defense, and the probation department. The recommendations offered by representatives of these subsystems reflect diverse interests and perspectives (Sanborn, 1996). For example, probation officers may try to operationalize institutional rules that give effect to notions of individualized treatment, whereas prosecutors are likely to reflect community interests in retribution and social defense (Harris, 2007;Singer, 1996). ...
Based on interpretations of an integrated focal concerns and loosely coupling framework, individual and joint relationships involving race and gender with case outcomes were examined as well as possible tempering effects by crime severity and the stage in the proceedings. The results from multiple logistic regression indicate mixed support for the theoretical framework in terms of the ability to determine at what stages race and gender effects would be most evident. Crime severity was predictive of decision making and in some cases had a conditioning effect on the discovered race/gender relationships with case outcomes. The implications of the findings and directions for future research are discussed.
... One prominent line of scholarship on courtroom decision making, attribution theory, points to the salience of attributions for how youth are sanctioned. The theory emphasizes the importance of shorthand rules for interpreting behavior and has been used in studies of juvenile and adult court sentencing (e.g., Albonetti, 1991;Bridges and Steen, 1998;Dannefer and Schutt, 1982;Rodriguez, 2013;Sanborn, 1996;Sealock and Simpson, 1998). Age serves as a potential, if crude, marker or attribution of reduced culpability. ...
... In addition, it has reinforced the notion that court personnel must rely on a delimited set of factors to decide cases. Indeed, some studies have indicated that personnel themselves distinguish between factors that ideally would be considered when deciding cases and that, because of organizational constraints, in practice do so (see, e.g., Bortner, 1986;Sanborn, 1996). Both lines of scholarship have indicated that organizations rely on select factors to identify quickly appropriate interventions. ...
... Empirical research has suggested that such an age-based curvilinear pattern might exist. For example, in Sanborn's (1996) survey of juvenile court practitioners, respondents were asked about factors that influence dispositions. They emphasized "that the very young (i.e., 10 to 12 years old) or very old (i.e., 17 or 18 years old) delinquent could be statutorily or practically (i.e., resources would not be wasted on older youths) prevented from being placed" (p. ...
Age is the only factor used to demarcate the boundary between juvenile and adult justice. However, little research has examined how age guides the juvenile court in determining which youth within the juvenile justice system merit particular dispositions, especially those that reflect the court's emphasis on rehabilitation. Drawing on scholarship on the court's origins, attribution theory, and cognitive heuristics, we hypothesize that the court focuses on youth in the middle of the range of the court's age of jurisdiction-characterized in this article as "true" juveniles-who may be viewed as meriting more specialized intervention. We use data from Florida for court referrals in 2008 (N = 71,388) to examine the decision to proceed formally or informally and, in turn, to examine formally processed youth dispositions (dismissal, diversion, probation, commitment, and transfer) and informally processed youth dispositions (dismissal, diversion, and probation). The analyses provide partial support for the hypothesis. The very young were more likely to be informally processed; however, among the informally processed youth, the youngest, not "true" juveniles, were most likely to be diverted or placed on probation. By contrast, among formally processed youth, "true" juveniles were most likely to receive traditional juvenile court responses, such as diversion or probation.
... According to Feld (1991), the greater diversity of urban courts results in greater emphasis on formal, bureaucratized social control with a resulting due process orientation. The emphasis on procedural formality, for instance, the presence of legal counsel (Feld, 1988Feld, , 1993 Guevara, Herz, & Spohn, 2008), can be associated with more severe dispositions (Cohen & Klugel, 1978, 1979a, 1979b Feld, 1991; Sampson & Laub, 1993; Sanborn, 1996). In contrast, nonurban courts are more likely to be homogeneous and to rely on methods of informal social control with a resulting traditional orientation. ...
... In contrast, nonurban courts are more likely to be homogeneous and to rely on methods of informal social control with a resulting traditional orientation. This emphasis can be associated with more lenient dispositions (Cohen & Klugel, 1978, 1979a, 1979b Feld, 1995; Sanborn, 1996). Overall, research examining the influence of court location has revealed that the differing court philosophies result in varying outcomes for juvenile offenders across jurisdictions. ...
... Overall, research examining the influence of court location has revealed that the differing court philosophies result in varying outcomes for juvenile offenders across jurisdictions. Most research has found that urban or due process counties were more likely to file formal petitions, predetain youth, and give more severe dispositions (Aday, 1986; Bishop, 2005; Feld, 1991; Sampson & Laub, 1993; Sanborn, 1996). As in the case of geographical disparities, research on racial disparities in juvenile justice has shown a similarly diverse pattern. ...
A large body of research indicates that both geography and race influence juvenile justice outcomes, with the exact magnitude and direction of the relationships still under dispute. In either case, differential outcomes likely stem from the varying influence of legal and extralegal factors. This study uses the spirit of the liberation hypothesis to explore how legal and extralegal factors contribute to geographic and racial disparities in juvenile court outcomes. Logistic and multinomial logistic regression are used to examine factors that influence preadjudication and disposition outcomes between an urban and suburban county, with the data partitioned by race within each county. Contrary to predictions, the analyses found more varying effects of legal and extralegal factors across race in the urban county than in the suburban county. Explanations of these findings and suggestions for future research are discussed.
... As an example of how maladaptive parenting may further contribute to difficulties within the legal system, research has shown that youth who belong to "bad families" or who are seen as having poor parents are especially likely to receive unusually harsh dispositions in juvenile court (Sanborn, 1996). Treatment resources are also less likely to be diverted to these adolescents whom are most in need of services. ...
... awaiting youths' fulfilment of set requirements prior to dismissal) & Hoover, 2010); mental health factors (e.g. serious substance use and poorer quality home environments) put youth at risk for more punitive disposition outcomes (Campbell & Schmidt, 2000;Sanborn, 1996) Placement More likely to be recommended for out of home placement (DeGue, Scalora, Ullman, & Gallavan, 2008) ...
This chapter briefly outlines some of the contextual elements that are both risk factors for psychopathology in childhood and adolescence and may represent hindrances to adolescents' beneficial choices. Next, it discusses how adolescents with psychopathology, and externalizing in particular, may be especially ill-equipped for decision making both in antisocial contexts and in the adjudication process. The chapter then provides some starting points for future research in relation to psychopathology and juvenile criminal culpability and legal treatment. It also provides a brief consideration of some of the known familial and parental risk factors in the development of child and adolescent psychopathology, to underscore how these contextual risks place youth with mental health issues in a double bind in terms of problematic outcomes. Finally, the chapter describes how executive function (EF) skills develop across the course of adolescence among normative youth and highlight a burgeoning literature linking deficits in EF to adolescent psychopathology broadly.
... For juveniles, what research does exist on this increasing phenomenon comes from older, largely qualitative research and legal and/or statutory analyses in the early 1990s (Sanborn, 1992(Sanborn, , 1993(Sanborn, , 1996. Still, some noteworthy implications may be drawn from these works: Sanborn (1996), for example, noted that prior research points to a consistent finding, in that courtroom actors were able to identify a number of characteristics ascribed to the juvenile that affected what they believed to be the correct disposition, such as their home situation and commitment to school. ...
... For juveniles, what research does exist on this increasing phenomenon comes from older, largely qualitative research and legal and/or statutory analyses in the early 1990s (Sanborn, 1992(Sanborn, , 1993(Sanborn, , 1996. Still, some noteworthy implications may be drawn from these works: Sanborn (1996), for example, noted that prior research points to a consistent finding, in that courtroom actors were able to identify a number of characteristics ascribed to the juvenile that affected what they believed to be the correct disposition, such as their home situation and commitment to school. Meanwhile, Albonetti (1990) noted the importance of victim injury and weapon possession in the plea process. ...
There exists much scholarship on the decision-making process in the juvenile court. While a variety of processes in the juvenile court, types of offenders, and theoretical frameworks have been analyzed to better understand the decision-making processes, there are some gaps, particularly in the use of an intersectional framework in explaining the plea bargaining process among serious and violent girls. Given the paucity of research on this subject, the present study pays homage to intersectionality by exploring the aforementioned process and group in the juvenile court.
... Voorgaand beslissingsonderzoek maakte vooral gebruik van een kwantitatieve analyse van dossiers (Cappon & Vander Laenen, 2011;Cauffman, et al., 2007;Gebo, 2007;Kempf-Leonard & Sontheimer, 1995;Leiber & Fox, 2005;Leiber, et al., 2007;MacDonald & Chesney-Lind, 2001). Zelden werd een kwalitatieve methodologie toegepast in beslissingsonderzoek. Wanneer beslissingsprocessen via een kwalitatieve methodologie bestudeerd werden, dan gebeurde dit veelal op basis van interviews met jeugdrechters (Ball, 1981;Ballou, et al., 2001;Banach, 1998;D'Angelo, 2007;Franssens, et al., 2010;Nuytiens, et al., 2005;Rodriguez, Smith, & Zatz, 2009;Sanborn, 1996;Sheehan, 2001). ...
... Herz (2001) opperde immers dat het gebrek aan psychiatrische maatregelen verklaard kan worden door de beperkte beschikbaarheid. Het eerste selectiecriterium werd gehanteerd omdat bestaand beslissingsonderzoek verschillen tussen stedelijke en landelijke jeugdrechtbanken aangetoond heeft (Feld, 1991;Maupin & Bond-Maupin, 1999;O'Donnell & Lurigio, 2008;Sanborn, 1996). De onderzoeksresultaten van beide jeugdrechtbanken worden echter in deze bijdrage samen genomen. ...
A discrepancy exists between the high prevalence of mental disorders at the juvenile court and the rare application of psychiatric measures. This raises questions on how the juvenile judges decide whether they should apply a psychiatric measure for minors with mental disorders or not. Since the minors in contact with the juvenile court have a right on a motivated decision, the motivations are analyzed. There is examined whether a difference exists in the use of standard wording, the frequency and the interpretation of decision factors between motivations concerning non-psychiatric and psychiatric measures. The analysis shows that standard wording was more frequently used when applying non-psychiatric measures. The interpretation was also more diverse and different in the motivations of non-psychiatric measures. There is concluded that the measure applied influence which decision factors are mentioned in the motivations.
... Practitioners have historically noted the importance of family characteristics in juvenile justice decision making (Sanborn, 1996;Tracy, 2002). Interviews with practitioners support the prominent role of family characteristics in juvenile justice decision making. ...
... Interviews with practitioners support the prominent role of family characteristics in juvenile justice decision making. Sanborn's (1996) interviews with prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges indicated that level of family functioning exerted the greatest influence on postadjudication decisions. In Texas, a variety of juvenile justice practitioners were asked to list the primary reasons for the overrepresentation of minority juveniles (Tracy, 2002). ...
Since 1988, the U.S. Congress has applied increasing pressure upon states to identify and remedy the causes of disproportionate minority contact. Findings from studies examining the influence of race/ethnicity in juvenile justice processing have been inconsistent, hindering the development of effective policies. One methodological criticism is the assertion that juvenile decision-making models fail to consider the complexities inherent in parens patriae justice. In particular, family characteristics such as the presence of 2 parents may mitigate race/ethnicity effects in decision-making models. In the present research, logistic regression was used to examine the effect of race/ethnicity and family status in the decision to detain 16,338 juveniles in a southwestern state. The results suggest that although family status is significant predictor of detention decisions, race continues to exert a significant and greater effect on the decision to detain. In comparison to legal variables, the effect of race/ethnicity on detention decisions was weak.
... For instance, although a court intake officer can make recommendations for pre-trail detention, a judicial officer can override that decision. Similarly, while probation officers are often charged with case management, after adjudication, the judge has sole decision-making authority regarding disposition, though, notably, probation officers, defense attorneys and prosecutors may submit disposition recommendations for the judge's review (Leiber and Peck 2015;Sanborn 1996;Sarri et al. 2001). Given the critical role juvenile court judges and attorneys play, it is unsurprising that research has shown that attaining the buy-in of juvenile court stakeholders is key for successfully implementing evidence-based reforms (Love et al. 2016;Vincent et al. 2018). ...
Objectives:
Explore how judges and attorneys define, acquire, interpret (i.e., determine the accuracy and relevancy), and use research in their decision-making in delinquency cases.
Methods:
We conducted semi-structured interviews with 30 judges, 15 prosecutors, and 13 defense attorneys. We used stratified purposeful sampling, stratifying participants by region of the U.S. and urbanicity.
Results:
Judges and attorneys have a sound understanding of how research can enhance their work. Typically, judges and attorneys acquire research from intermediaries. Beyond being a conduit for research, intermediaries play an important role in vetting the quality of research and identifying viable recommendations for practice. While practitioners are willing to use research, they feel that their ability to do so is limited by factors such as state policy, funding, and inaccessibility of research.
Conclusions:
While we caution generalization of the findings, this study contributes to the evidence-base on the use of research by documenting that judges and attorneys most often use research conceptually (i.e., research changes their perspective which then changes their behavior). Although respondents also reported using research-based tools to make specific decisions (instrumental use), many reported overriding research when they felt it conflicted with their judgment, suggesting that political use of research may be prevalent.
... The majority of juvenile justice professionals in two of three courts interviewed for a 1996 study said that school records should influence dispositions; also, 35 percent of the overall sample said that attending a bad school or not attending school factored into harsh dispositions. 48 Researchers have found that African American and Latino delinquents are markedly more likely than whites to be sentenced to traditional out-ofhome placements such as "training schools," after controlling for a plethora of outcomerelated factors. 49 Some of these studies don't control for school experiences, allowing the possibility that school factors explain some of the racial gaps. ...
... 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.
... Previous research partially followed this advice by examining the perspectives of juvenile judges (Brannen, Salekin, Zapf, Kubak, & DeCoster, 2006;Franssens, Put, & Deklerck, 2010;Grimshaw & Pratt, 1985;Martyn & Levine, 1998;Nuytiens, Christiaens, & Eliaerts, 2005;Sanborn, 1996;Sheehan, 2001) and other actors involved in judicial procedures (Banach, 1998;Beckett, McKeigue, & Taylor, 2007;Britner & Mossler, 2002;Gilbert, Mahieu, Goedseels, & Ravier, 2012;Mears, 1998;Rodriguez et al., 2009). 1 However, similar to traditional sentencing research, these studies focused on which legal and/or extralegal factors were considered important by the actors in the decisionmaking process, and not on the interactions between these actors. Paying attention to these interactions is important because a judge's decision can be perceived as a result of the interaction between the actors involved (Beyens & Vanhamme, 2008). ...
Previous research on juvenile judges' decision-making process has neglected the role of the different actors involved in judicial procedures. The decision can be considered as a result of information exchange between the different actors involved. The process of making a decision is equally important as the decision itself, especially when the decision considers minors with mental disorders. The presence and the type of interaction determine the information available to the juvenile judges to make their final decision. The overall aim of this study is to gain insight into the role of all actors, including the juvenile judge, in the juvenile judge's decision-making process in cases relating to minors with mental disorders. Semi-structured interviews were carried out with professional actors (n=32), minors (n=31) and parents (n=17). The findings indicated that the judge's decision is overall the result of an interaction between the juvenile judge, the social services investigator and the youth psychiatrist. The other professional actors, the minors and the parents had only a limited role in the decision-making process. The research concludes that the judge's decision-making process should be based on dialogue, and requires enhanced collaboration between the juvenile court and youth psychiatrists from mental health services. Future decision-making research should pay more attention to the interactions of the actors that guide a juvenile judge's decision.
... Alternative punishments doled out by the juvenile court system have ranged from everything from community service to physically binding children to their parents (Bonnie, 1995). In fact, much of the relevant literature here focuses on the large degree of discretion in the juvenile justice system among police (Novak, James, Smith and Engel, 2002; Southern Illinois University Center for the Study of Crime, 1978), intake workers (Mulvey and Iselin, 2008;Shook and Sarri, 2007;Bell and Lang, 1985), prosecutors (Sanborn, 1996;Feely, 1979) and judges (Schrag, 1991). ...
... Attributions may explain how decision-makers' perceptions of offenders can influence sentencing decisions. Both internal and external attributions play an important role in determining an offender's culpability and accountability, as well as the degree of social control (Rodriguez, 2013;Sanborn, 1996). Therefore, these serious offenses may be interpreted as confirmation that the offender is the proverbial "dangerous [black] man" who is beyond reformation and certain to recidivate. ...
Spohn and Cederblom’s interpretation of the liberation hypothesis asserts that with trivial crimes, judges are “liberated” to consider extra-legal attributes such as race when making sentencing decisions. The current study posits that this perspective may be too theoretically simplistic because it fails to distinguish between the concepts of discretion and uncertainty. In light of this argument, we examine the sentencing decisions of felony cases in the Florida circuit courts. Results indicate that blacks and Hispanics are more likely to be imprisoned than whites, and males more so than females. Contrary to expectations, this disparity increases with crime seriousness. Consistent with the imprisonment model, blacks and males receive longer sentences and the effect increases with case seriousness. We found no evidence that the effect of offender extra-legal attributes depends upon the characteristics of the judges handling the cases. Suggestions for future research and implications for the liberation hypothesis are discussed.
... Among the ninety studies that met that first criterion, eighteen studies fulfilled the second criterion of investigating at least one of the four mental health aspects. However, one of these studies used a qualitative methodology and was therefore excluded (Sanborn, 1996). ...
... Youths from single-parent families and youths experiencing (or perceived to be experiencing) family problems receive more severe dispositions (e.g., Horwitz and Wasserman 1980 ;Kempf, Decker, and Bing 1990 ). Other evidence of the importance of the family-and of the intersection of race, class, and family-is provided in research by Sanborn ( 1996 ), who interviewed one hundred court offi cials in three eastern communities regarding factors that infl uence judicial disposition. Asked what they believed should be considered at disposition, offi cials identifi ed family most often. ...
This article discusses racial and ethnic differences in delinquency and justice system responses. It begins by reviewing national data on the minority presence in the juvenile justice system from arrest to post dispositional confinement. It then examines research bearing on the "differential offending" thesis. Following this, the article reviews the research literature on race bias in justice processing. The reviews reflect that overall assessment states that racial disparities in processing are attributable in part to differences in offending; yet race differences in offending alone are insufficient to account for minority over-representation in the juvenile justice system. Also, there is some truth to both the "differential offending" and "differential treatment" arguments. Finally, the article attempts to explore implications for justice policy in a preliminary way.
... Since most cases were resolved through guilty pleas, the effects of legal representation were considered to be small. On the one hand, Clarke and Koch's (1980) study of two North Carolina courts found no differences between types of legal representation with respect to committal rates for youths; on the other hand, Sanborn (1996) discovered that courtroom workers, including prosecutors and probation officers, held the impression that judges would sentence privately represented youths more lightly because they perceived the family of the accused as already having been penalized by having to pay for private counsel. ...
Despite the undercurrents of rights protection in Hong Kong’s juvenile justice procedure, the ultimate goal remains punishment based on welfare needs. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 40 youth defendants and defence lawyers, this article will examine the ways in which youth defendants and defence lawyers negotiate the welfare and justice imperatives of the Hong Kong juvenile justice system and end up accepting the disciplinary welfare model. Publicly funded lawyers have become primarily plea mitigators, assisting the state in seeing to the welfare and ‘the best interests of the child’. A study of Hong Kong will lead to a broader understanding of how a welfare-oriented system can work in a time when juvenile justice systems around the world emphasize human rights, due process and children’s rights.
... Although ultimately responsible for the disposition decision, the judge typically receives oral and/or written reports and recommendations from the prosecution, the defense, and the probation department. The recommendations offered by representatives of these subsystems reflect diversified interests and perspectives (Sanborn 1996). Probation officers may try to operationalize institutional rules that give effect to notions of individualized treatment, whereas prosecutors are likely to reflect community interests in retribution and social defense (Singer 1996;Harris 2007). ...
Both theory and research in the study of race in the juvenile justice system have attempted to identify the contexts in which race matters. The objectives of the present research are to examine the roles that race and the history of prior offending, individually and in combination, have on juvenile justice outcomes at detention, intake, adjudication and judicial disposition. An interpretation of the focal concerns/loosely coupled perspective is used as a backdrop to analyze data from a Midwestern county juvenile court to address these objectives. While race and the history of prior offending individually explained case outcomes, the interrelationship between the two with court decision-making, for the most part, was not found to exist. The overall results suggest that prior offending may not be racialized as hypothesized in this juvenile court but being black by itself results in unjust treatment.
... Fader et al. (2001) also found maternal substance abuse, history of family violence, and history of dependency referrals to be related to institutional placement. Moreover, several studies have found that the amount of prior services utilized and a history of chronic offending were predictive of disposition severity (Sanborn, 1996;Lyons, Baerger, Quigley, Erlich, & Griffin, 2001;Schwalbe et al., 2009). Finally, factors such as the parents' willingness to cooperate and the youth's responsiveness to rehabilitation can also have some effect on judicial decisions (Applegate et al., 2000). ...
The role and decision-making process of the juvenile court judge continue to remain important areas of both research inquiry and judicial practice. These areas, however, have remained understudied within the research literature. The current study attempts to extend the research surrounding this topic by surveying a sample of juvenile court judges (n = 40) from Kentucky. Judges were asked to respond to a series of questions to gauge their attitudes and perceptions on factors that influence their decision-making processes, as well as how they define their role in the juvenile court system, with the goal to inform judicial research and practice for the betterment of juvenile justice. Our findings suggest that judges perceive their roles as being unique and distinct from their counterparts in adult criminal court, and that judges place a great deal of weight on individual behaviors of juveniles in making disposition decisions. Strengths and weaknesses of this study are discussed, in addition to areas for future research.
... 10. Within the need for further theoretical development and research is the recognition of the complexity of the juvenile court where there are many stages in the system that involve different decision makers at each stage and different goals whereby the effects of racism may have more or less of an influence and/or play out differently at one stage compared with another (e.g., Bishop, Leiber, & Johnson, 2010;Harris, 2009Harris, , 2007Sanborn, 1996Sanborn, , 2001Singer, 1996). Recall that greater effects with the macro-level community characteristics and/or race/ ethnicity at the individual level were discovered at intake than at adjudication and judicial disposition. ...
Framed within the racial/ethnic threat thesis, the present research examined the relative effects of the size of minority populations and the ratios of White-to-minority unemployment on intake, adjudication, and judicial disposition decision making within juvenile court proceedings. Communities with greater Black and Hispanic presence and greater economic equality were expected to increase the social control for youth up to a point, where social control would then diminish. These relationships were anticipated to be stronger for Blacks than Hispanics. The overall pattern of results failed to yield support specifically for these hypothesized effects and in general, for the minority threat perspective. Implications for theory and future research are discussed.
... However, as Pope and Feyerherm also note, family factors may be typescripts for "race" within juvenile justice proceedings. Consistent with this view, Bishop and Frazier's (1996) interviews with justice officials led them to conclude that single-parent minority families are perceived as somehow "more broken," more dysfunctional, than single-parent white families (see also, Leiber & Mack, 2003;Rodriguez, Smith & Zatz, 2009;Sanborn, 1996). Significant race interactions were observed in each of the studies cited. ...
The presence of race differentials in case outcomes has recently been explained by a focus on the characteristics of the decision makers within the context of the interplay between discretion, a reliance on stereotyping, and the perceptions of decision makers. We continue this line of inquiry by assessing what effects the gender of the intake officer may have in understanding the treatment of male youth. Using data from juvenile court records within a single juvenile court jurisdiction, the research is guided by two general questions. Do female and male officers make similar intake decisions once relevant legal and extralegal considerations related to the youth are controlled? Do female and male officers rely on similar legal and extralegal considerations and give equal weight to those considerations when making intake decisions? The results from our inquiry have implications for broadening the scope of the contexts of intake juvenile justice decision making, especially in terms of how the characteristics of decision makers influence case outcomes. The implications of the results may also better inform efforts that address the equitable treatment of youth in the juvenile justice system.
... Young and colleagues (2006) highlighted that the juvenile justice systems traditionally relied on unstructured clinical judgements and such a method was demonstrated to have considerable detrimental impact on the accused and the community in that the former is not always consistently dealt with. The extant literature suggest that the indeterminacy of the decision criteria in juvenile justice systems allowed for personal prejudices and biases to influence decisionmaking processes (Corrado & Turnbull, 1992;Hoge, 2002;Johnson & Secret, 1995;Sanborn, 1996), thereby affecting dispositional outcomes. ...
The Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) framework is regarded as the forefront of offender rehabilitation in guiding youth offender risk assessment and interventions. This article discusses the juvenile justice system in Singapore and the local research that has been conducted in relation to the RNR framework and the associated Youth Level of Service (YLS) measures. It describes a journey that saw the implementation of the RNR framework across the juvenile justice agencies and highlights the challenges that were faced during the implementation process on the ground. Finally, the article concludes by providing future directions for the implementation of the RNR framework in Singapore.
... For example, over the years there have been numerous studies that have examined the extent to which race, legal criteria, and extralegal factors influence case processing and case outcomes in the juvenile justice system (e.g., Bell & Lang, 1985;Bishop & Frazier, 1988;DeJong & Jackson, 1998;Leiber, 1994;Leiber et al., 2007;Leiber and Johnson, 2007;Mears, 1998;Sanborn, 1996). Most of these studies have discovered that crime severity, prior record and other legal considerations predict decision making (e.g., Tracy, 2002). ...
... Studies that have been able to incorporate needs-related predictors have found that substance abuse, family problems, or school problems are considered along with offense-related factors (self-identifying reference; Campbell and Schmidt, 2000;Sanborn, 1996) or are even better predictors than legal factors (Horowitz and Wasserman, 1980). Some find that the effects that are conditioned by race and gender (Leiber and Mack, 2003), suggesting that images of presenting needs and correctional solutions may be racialized and/or gendered as well (see also Frazier and Bishop, 1995;Pope and Feyerherm, 1990). ...
Existing research on dispositional decisions typically models the outcome as merely placed or not placed. However, this does not accurately reflect the wide variation in residential options available to juvenile court actors. In this research, we combine data from ProDES, which tracks adjudicated youth in Philadelphia, with data from the Program Design Inventory, which describes over 100 intervention programs, to further examine the factors that influence court actors' decision making in selecting an appropriate program for a juvenile offender. We find that even after controlling for legal and needs-based factors, race continues to exert a significant influence, with decision makers being significantly more likely to commit minority youth to facilities using physical regimen as their primary modality and reserving smaller, therapeutic facilities for their white counterparts. Using focal concerns theory as an explanatory lens, we suggest that court actors in this jurisdiction employ a racialized perceptual shorthand of youthful offenders that attributes both higher levels of blame and lower evaluations of reformability to minority youth.
... Despite the dominance of file studies in decision-making research, some researchers have criticized its use (Applegate, Turner, Sanborn, Latessa, & Moon, 2000;Kunin, Ebbesen, & Konecni, 1992;MacDonald & Chesney-Lind, 2001;Mears, 1998;Sanborn, 1996;Sheehan, 2001). Some have stated that the information in juvenile court records varies according to the author of the information, the amount of time available to prepare it, and the degree of access to family members to gather the information (Kunin et al., 1992;Sheehan, 2001). ...
This study examined (1) the information present in juvenile court records in Belgium (Flanders) and (2) whether there are differences in information between records that mention a mental disorder and those that do not.
The file study sample included 107 court records, and we used a Pearson's chi-square test and a t-test to analyze the information within those records.
Information in juvenile court records varied considerably. This variability was evident when we compared juvenile court records with and without mention of a mental disorder. Significantly more information about school-related problems, the functioning of the minor, and the occurrence of domestic violence was included in records that mentioned a mental disorder compared with records that did not.
The content of the juvenile court records varied, particularly with regard to the mental health status of the minor in question. We suggest guidelines to standardize the information contained in juvenile court records.
... Some studies find representation is beneficial, whereas others suggest that represented youth may be more severely sanctioned, even after controlling for offense type and characteristics of the juvenile (Burruss & Kempf-Leonard, 2002;Feld, 1988). For example, Sanborn (1996) engaged in extensive interviews with court officials, including probation officers, defense attorneys, and prosecutors, in three juvenile courts in urban, suburban, and rural communities and found benefit to representation. He concluded that judges gave preferential treatment to cases represented by privately retained counsel and explained this result by suggesting that the judges felt "the family had already been penalized sufficiently by having to pay for a lawyer's services" (p. ...
The presence of counsel for juveniles in the courtroom seems advantageous from a due process perspective, yet some studies suggest that juveniles receive harsher dispositions when represented by an attorney. This study tested whether a “counsel penalty” existed regardless of attorney type and, guided by prior sentencing literature, used a more comprehensive model to determine the influence of extralegal and contextual factors that may amplify the counsel penalty. Utilizing official data from a Northeastern state in a multilevel modeling strategy, this study found that regardless of the type of counsel retained, harsher sentences were received as compared with cases in which a juvenile was not represented by counsel even after controlling for offense type. Moreover, minority youth with public defenders and males with private counsel received harsher sentences while community characteristics did not appear to have a significant influence on sentencing decisions.
... As stated previously, one reason research in the area of misdemeanor sentencing is lacking is due to the widespread use of discretion that has led to portrayals of these courts as procedurally bankrupt and dispensers of rough justice (Barkai, 1978;Neubauer, 1992;Ragona & Ryan, 1983). Some have argued that contextual perspectives may not be able to account for juvenile justice decision making due to the informality and the discretionary nature of the juvenile court (e.g., Mears, 1998;Sampson & Lauritsen, 1997;Sanborn, 1996). It could be possible that this belief is also applicable to adult misdemeanor court proceedings. ...
This research examines the validity of an integrative theoretical approach that consists of the “liberation hypothesis” and the “focal concerns” perspective to assess the extent racial discrimination is likely to occur in misdemeanor decision making involving less serious cases. We examined decisions involving the prioritizing of cases, the granting of a continuance, conviction, and incarceration in a large county court in a southeastern state. The results fail to provide support for the belief that the likelihood of race effects is increased in cases involving less severity. Race, however, is found to influence misdemeanor decision making directly and indirectly and in interaction with a number of independent variables. The implications of the findings for future research and policy are discussed.
This study examined judge‐juvenile verbal interaction characteristics, demographics, and demographic match at adjudication and their associations with juveniles’ behavioral outcomes. Data were collected from audio recordings of hearings and case files from 86 delinquency cases adjudicated in an urban juvenile court in the Southwestern United States as part of a larger research project involving observable procedural justice. Results suggest that some juvenile, judge, and match characteristics had significant associations with both judge‐juvenile interactions (e.g., length of conversations) and juvenile case outcomes (e.g., fewer continuances). We detail these findings and offer considerations for court practice.
This study examines the empirical research on legal representation in delinquency proceedings and situates it in the broader investigation of how states provide legal assistance to juvenile defendants. Our review of empirical studies found that attorney presence was an aggravating factor in dispositional decisions. After closely examining state statutory provisions on legal representation in juvenile delinquency proceedings, we suggest that the penalty effect of attorney presence is an artifact of the variation in state laws governing access and oversight of juvenile counsel. We conclude with suggestions for future research, policy, and practice.
The current study examined the influence of race on juvenile court outcomes across various offense types. This study builds on previous research in the field by utilizing the symbolic threat perspective as a foundation for understanding differences in juvenile disposition. It is hypothesized that the influence of race varies across offense types (misdemeanors and felonies) for the pre‐detention and disposition outcomes. Data from a sample of juvenile court referrals from two Midwestern juvenile courts were utilized and partitioned by race. Results were mixed and not always in the hypothesized direction. However, the results indicated that race did have an influence on both pre and post adjudication juvenile court outcomes, an effect which varied by type of offense and race. This study illustrates the importance of examining juvenile court outcomes from a multi‐stage approach that includes legal and extra‐legal factors.
Introduction A Developmental Perspective The Community Context Medical and Mental Health Needs of Incarcerated Youth Mental Illness and Juvenile Offending Substance Abusing Youth and Juvenile Offending Assessing Risk and Amenability to Treatment Disproportionate Minority Confinement/Contact Individualized Treatment Programming Case Exemplar Evidence-Based Practice Nursing's Contributions to the Field Conclusion Websites/Resources References
This study addresses the issue of how race and urban poverty affect minority overrepresentation in the juvenile justice system, using data from 2,003 court cases referred to 13 urban Ohio juvenile courts in 1989. Results of logistic regression analyses show that: 1) minority offenders are more likely to be detained that whites; 2) detention status augments juveniles' chances of being adjudicated and confined; 3) minority juveniles who are from welfare families are more likely to be confined than their self-sustaining counterparts. A cultural stereotype based on juveniles' race and class constitutes the basis of differential treatment.
While prior research usually focused on factors that prevent people from making fair judgment (extralegal factors), this paper looks at people's ability to choose the just punishment. This article is based on two detailed sentencing surveys, a citizens survey and a judicial actors survey, in order to examine whether the concern for justice is general or limited to legal professionals. A just punishment is defined as 1) coherent (always proportional to the same criteria - the perceived seriousness of the offense), 2) moderate (must be a choice that may be acceptable from a majority of actors). Results on the proportion of coherent and moderate sentences are first presented. We then discuss the profile of the "just actor".
Introduction The first juvenile court in the United States was established in Chicago in 1899. With the realization that children had specific developmental needs different from adults, and in association with a rehabilitative as opposed to punitive focus, juvenile courts developed a parens patriae model. As time progressed, it became evident that such a model needed to be balanced with police power, that is, protecting the constituents of one’s state. During this process there were a variety of developments within the juvenile court system. Many of these are not in the best interests of the child; do not take into account developmental and mental health needs; and do not use mental health services in assessing these issues. Examples of these issues include court-by-court variation in determining juvenile competency to stand trial or understand Miranda rights, transfer of youth to adult systems, and mandatory waiver to adult court. With regard to the latter, Grisso (1997) reports on evidence that youths’ immaturity creates a substantial risk that they cannot approach their trials in adult court with the requisite understanding and decision-making capacities to assure a fair legal process. At the present time, there is concern over a shift from juvenile court having a more rehabilitative model to the criminalization of juvenile court (Quinn, 2002). Intensified youth violence and a decrease in public support for youth offenders have contributed to a more punitive concept, certainly from a public perspective. However, jurisdictions are variable, with some juvenile courts continuing to focus heavily on rehabilitation. © Cambridge University Press 2007 and Cambridge University Press, 2009.
While prior research usually focused on factors that prevent people from making fair judgment
(extralegal factors), this paper looks at people’s ability to choose the just punishment.
This article is based on two detailed sentencing surveys, a citizens survey and a
judicial actors survey, in order to examine whether the concern for justice is general or
limited to legal professionals. A just punishment is defined as 1) coherent (always proportional
to the same criteria – the perceived seriousness of the offense), 2) moderate
(must be a choice that may be acceptable from a majority of actors). Results on the proportion
of coherent and moderate sentences are first presented. We then discuss the profile
of the “just actor”.
Research on juvenile and adult sentencing has been characterized by theoretical, methodological, and empirical limitations that preclude adequate description, prediction, or assessment of decisionmaking processes and outcomes. Five limitations are prominent: emphasis on atheoretical, empirical attempts, generally unsuccessful, to increase predictive accuracy; limited conceptualizations of dependent variables (e.g., incarceration versus nonincarceration); overreliance on individual, offender-level data with minimal reference to victims, practitioners, or contextual factors; failure to incorporate analytically multiple research methods; and inattention to intended and unintended uses and effects of sentencing. These limitations can be highlighted by focusing on a context--juvenile justice--in which the goals of sentencing are varied, conflicting, and, due to recent reforms, changing. Using interview and survey data, the present research examines juvenile sentencing reform in Texas to highlight these limitations and to outline an analytical framework for improved description, modeling, and assessment of sentencing.
The Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) is a standardized instrument designed to assist juvenile justice system personnel in assessing risk and needs in their clients and in case planning. The measure is presented as an alternative to the unstructured informal assessments that so often guide decisions in these systems. It is relevant to all phases of the judicial process, including decisions regarding pretrial detention, transfers and waivers, preadjudicatory diversion, and sentencing. It is particularly relevant to case planning in community and institutional settings. The instrument is described, issues in application discussed, and the available psychometric information reviewed.
Existing research on the criteria used by juvenile court judges in choosing dispositions is limited in two respects. First, the predictor variables included in most investigations have been limited either in number or in the quality of their measurement. Second, research has not focused on sentencing decisions for serious offenders. Using a factorial survey of juvenile court judges, the present study seeks to determine what factors shape disposition decisions for juvenile felony offenders. The results suggest that judges focus primarily on offense characteristics, and are influenced only marginally by the offender's social characteristics. These findings are more consistent with the view that juvenile courts are becoming “criminalized” than with the view that individualized treatment is the goal. An alternative interpretation—that judges may be problem solvers, trying to dispose of cases efficiently—also is proposed.
Objectives: Attribution theory is used to frame a study on concentrated disadvantage and youth correctional confinement. Method: Population of delinquent referrals and a random sample of 50 youth case file records from a large urban juvenile court in the southwest are analyzed. Results: Black and Latino/Latina youth were more likely than their White counterparts to be institutionalized. Youth from areas with high levels of concentrated disadvantage were more likely to be confined than youth from more affluent areas. Court officials' perceptions of disadvantage play an important role when deciding whether youth should remain in the community or be incarcerated. Conclusions: Race, ethnicity, and concentrated disadvantage play a significant role in juvenile justice. Court officials perceive areas of disadvantage as high risk and dangerous for youth. Unfortunately, correctional confinement appears to be one way to address youths' vulnerable state. This study sheds light on the importance of economic landscapes in the administration of justice and the delivery of services.
Research Summary:In response to the growing trend of violent juvenile crime, the Virginia legislature enacted the Juvenile Justice Reform Package in 1996. This legislation created two new classes of transfers: automatic and prosecutorial certifications. This article examines the prosecutor's decision to certify a juvenile offender to adult court in Virginia for intake cases in 1997 and 1998. Although the law gives the prosecutor the authority to certify all cases that meet certain criteria, only a portion of those are actually certified, which indicates that other factors must be impacting the decision. A number of factors relating to present and prior offenses, offender's social history characteristics, and the location of the courts were examined. Location of the court was important in influencing prosecutorial certification in Virginia.Policy Implications:The policy implications of the following three key findings are discussed: (1) Small percentage of waiver-eligible offenders at intake are actually transferred; (2) Considerable variation in certification practice across localities; (3) Serious juvenile offenders are more likely to be waived. The analysis of juvenile records was supplemented with qualitative interviews with key decision makers in the transfer process, including a sample of judges, prosecutors, court service unit directors, and probation officers. These key decision makers provided feedback to improve the certification processes. Key feedback included the need for information systems to follow the flow of transfer cases through the system and the need for a three-tiered placement system within the adult system whereby offenders are separated by age and maturity.
This study examines the independent and interactive effects of race and gender on juvenile justice decision making. Using data from a sample of juvenile court referrals from two midwestern juvenile courts, this study looks at males and females separately by race. The results indicate that the effect of race on the pre-adjudication detention and disposition outcomes varies by gender. The severity or leniency of the outcomes is determined by race, gender, and an interaction of the two. This study underscores the need to examine juvenile justice decision making with a multistage analysis to unravel the intricate effects of race and gender.
The research reported in this paper develops a typology of American metropolitan juvenile courts through factor analysis of 96 court characteristics and a cluster analysis of courts based on indicators of five derived factors representative of structural dimensions. The data were collected through a mail and telephone survey of court personnel in a saturated sample of 150 metropolitan juvenile courts. The empirical typology is presented and its implications for future comparative studies and studies testing differential processing are discussed.