Adultification in Juvenile Corrections: Examining the Orientations of Juvenile and Adult Probation and Parole Officers

Legislative activity, court decisions, and other activities have left open to question how distinct is the juvenile justice system from the criminal justice system. While several scholars have considered adultification of juvenile courts, no study has systematically examined the adultification of juvenile corrections. The present study assesses whether one type of juvenile corrections, probation and parole, has been adultified by comparing the professional orientations of juvenile and adult probation and parole officers. The study finds that juvenile probation and parole officers do differ from adult officers across several dimensions of professional orientation that are critical to the distinctiveness of the juvenile justice system. Specifically, our analyses show that compared to adult probation and parole officers, juvenile officers tend to more strongly adhere to ideals of treatment, welfare, and offender-focused probation and parole supervision.     

Taking the Law Into Our Own Hands: Structured Sentencing, Fear of Violence, and Citizen Initiatives in Washington State

This paper examines the impact of citizen initiatives on Washington State's system of structured sentencing. Criminal justice sentencing guidelines were implemented in Washington's juvenile court system in 1978 and in its adult felony courts in 1984. In the twenty years since, both systems have experienced significant changes, many of which impact judicial and administrative discretion. Early modifications to the guidelines were driven by legislative and administrative concerns (budgeting, prison population management). More recent changes have been driven by citizen initiatives fostered as a response to public fear of crime and violence. Increasingly, the public has rejected the advice and management of adult sentencing guidelines by criminal justice professionals, and taken a direct hand through the initiative process in setting the limits of judicial and administrative discretion. As a result, structured sentencing has become more complicated and less internally consistent. It remains unclear whether this is the inevitable price of growth in single issue politics and more direct public involvement in the determination of sentencing policy     

Legal,Psychological, and Behavioral Outcomes

States have responded to the public's outrage at rising juvenile crime by revising their transfer statutes to make it easier to transfer juvenile offenders for trial and sentencing in criminal court and possible incarceration in adult prisons. These changing trends in juvenile justice raise three questions about what actually happens to juveniles once they are in the adult criminal justice system. To what extent does trial in adult court and/or incarceration in adult prisons promote or retard community protection, juvenile offenders' accountability, and the development of competencies in juvenile offenders? This article discusses state transfer laws and the legal consequences of criminal court prosecution, and analyzes current research on deterrence effects of transfer laws, conviction and sentencing in juvenile versus criminal court, recidivism rates in juvenile versus criminal court, and conditions and programming in juvenile versus adult correctional facilities. The research findings have two important implications for juvenile justice policy: the number of juvenile cases transferred to criminal court should be minimized, and imprisonment of juveniles in adult facilities should be avoided whenever possible. These implications are discussed, and directions for future research are identified.     

JUVENILE CRIME AND WHY WAIVER IS NOT THE ANSWER

Many states deal with the issue of juvenile crime by charging juveniles as adults. This is done by a method of waiver. Waiver allows adult criminal courts to have the power to exercise jurisdiction over juveniles.¹ In effect, a juvenile is tried and sentenced as an adult when his or her case is waived (removed) from the juvenile court to the adult court. Waiver in juvenile (youths seventeen and younger) cases should never be allowed because juvenile offenders are too immature and incompetent to appreciate the nature of their crimes and because the juvenile justice system is a more appropriate place to rehabilitate juvenile offenders.     

When does Race and Gender Matter? The Interrelationships between the Gender of Probation Officers and Juvenile Court Detention and Intake Outcomes

Racial and gender disparities in case outcomes have recently been explained by a focus on the characteristics of court officers within the context of the interplay between discretion, stereotyping, and the perceptions of decision-makers. Using data within a single juvenile court jurisdiction, the present study continues this line of inquiry to assess: (1) how race and gender, individually and in combination, influence juvenile justice decision-making and (2) how court outcomes for certain race/gender combinations are conditioned by the gender of the court officer. Results indicate that, to some degree, the race and gender of the youth along with the gender of the court officer influenced case outcomes; however, the findings were not always in the expected direction. The results have implications for broadening the contexts of detention and intake decision-making, and may also better inform efforts to address the equitable treatment of youth in the juvenile justice system.     

Public Opinion of Teen,Classroom, and Formal Court Styles

The present research examined the views of a community sample regarding teen court, classroom court, and formal/traditional court. Participants read vignettes of teen offenders who had committed crimes of high or low severity and were given relatively severe or mild sentences through one of the three courts. Results revealed stronger support for teen court than the other courts, a general preference for harsh sentences, and a preference for match between crime and punishment. The results of this study indicate that teen courts are seen as providing an appropriate means to sentence juvenile offenders and are likely to receive public support for their continued operation.     

Informing Juvenile Justice Policy: Directions for Behavioral Science Research

Recent policy initiatives threaten to reduce the rehabilitative mission of the juvenile court or eliminate the court entirely. This article lays out a framework for an empirical assessment of these developments. It first evaluates the available and potential empirical support for three hypotheses about juveniles that might justify maintaining a separate, rehabilitation-oriented juvenile justice system: the hypotheses that, compared to adults, juveniles are more treatable, less culpable, and less deterrable. On the assumption that the continued existence of a rehabilitation-oriented juvenile court can be justified, it then provides suggestions as to how existing intervention strategies for juveniles could benefit from research attention to several substantive and methodological issues. These include refining outcome criteria and sampling strategies, matching offender and program characteristics, reexamining intervention efficacy, and focusing on decision makers and resource allocations.     

INTERORGANIZATIONAL UTILITY OF WELFARE STIGMA IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM*

The appropriation of “welfare stigma” or stereotypes about poor people's overreliance and abuse of public aid in two core criminal justice functions is examined: felony adjudication in a court system and space allocation in a jail. Through a comparative ethnographic study in which an abductive analysis of data (20 months of fieldwork) was used, we show that criminal justice gatekeepers utilize welfare stigma to create stricter eligibility criteria for due process in criminal courts and occupancy in jails. Specifically, the number of court appearances, motions, trials, jail beds, food, showers, and medical services is considered by professionals to be the benefits that individuals seek to access and abuse. Professionals view their role as preventing (rather than granting) access to these resources. The comparative nature of our data reveals that welfare stigma has interorganizational utility by serving two different organizational goals: It streamlines convictions in courts, which pulls defendants through adjudication, and conversely, it expands early release from jails, which pulls inmates out of the custody population. In the context of diminishing social safety nets, our findings have implications for understanding how discretion is exercised in an American criminal justice system increasingly tasked with the distribution of social services to the urban poor.     

Reflections on International Criminal Justice

Judge Cassese presents arguments in favour of the use of international courts in order to punish war crimes. He argues that the application of justice through a court is better in certain circumstances than amnesties. He examines the merits of international courts rather than national courts, but acknowledges that at present there are several major stumbling blocks to an effective international criminal justice system.     

Socializing Distrust of the Justice System through the Family in Juvenile Delinquency Court

Juvenile delinquency courts in the United States generally require parents to attend all court hearings, but little is known about how parents' experiences in the court process affect their discussions of the justice system with their court‐involved children. Using multiperspectival and longitudinal data combining observations with interviews of parents and youth in two courts, this research finds that many parents discuss the legal process in negative terms with their children when parents are outside the presence of legal authorities. This research adds to the literature on legal socialization by examining how parents' perceptions of law and their experiences with the court become part of the socializing content provided by parents to their court‐involved children. Creating a more meaningful role for parents in the juvenile justice process may potentially lead to more positive discussions of the court process between parents and juvenile defendants.     

Diversion Under Malaysian Juvenile Justice System: a Case of Too Little Too Late?

The concept and practice of diversion are not a novel phenomenon. For many years, diversion from formal adjudication by court has been widely adopted as an important feature of various juvenile justice systems across the countries. There are different forms of diversion programmes which have been designed and implemented with the aim to divert children from direct contact with formal criminal process. Various researches on diversion programmes have disclosed positive impacts on their effectiveness in handling children in conflict with the law. This article focuses on criminal process under current Malaysian juvenile justice, in which the concept of diversion is still a strange subject. It highlights issues under current juvenile criminal justice and examines the possibility of integrating diversion programmes as alternative measures to deal with children in conflict with the law. Introduction of diversion programmes as part of the current system is seemed as potential alternative measures to improve the effectiveness of the current Malaysian juvenile justice system.     

Female Defendants and Criminal Courts in Taiwan: An Observation Study

It has long been contended that the criminal justice system extends the influence of patriarchy in society. Feminist and critical criminologists have produced countless examples of the male domination in the criminal justice system. Critics of law and criminal justice point out that the system treats women the same way as does the mainstream society (MacKinnon 1989, 1991; Smart 1989). Therefore, criminal justice cannot be expected to remedy injustices legally before they are recognized as injustices socially. Sociological studies in crime and delinquency have also neglected gender issues. By employing the qualititaive research approach of field observation, this study focuses on how practitioners in three criminal courts in Southern Taiwan interact with female defendants. The findings point out that the court system was unbending in treating the observed defendants in a condescending manner, and expedited the trial process to pronounce the defendants’ guilt. The study aims to offer explicit and nuanced empirical evidence of how gender complicates courtroom interaction. Evidence from this study also forms the basis for policy recommendations and future reform in the criminal justice system.     

Contingent-Fee Lawyers and Their Clients: Settlement Expectations, Settlement Realities, and Issues of Control in the Lawyer-Client Relationship

One hallmark of Herb Jacob's analyses of criminal courts—extensive consideration of the interaction among actors–was less pronounced in his work on civil justice, which was more focused on institutions and the politics behind the laws that those institutions administered. In the research I report here, my emphasis is squarely on the actors in the civil justice process: the relationship between contingency-fee lawyers and clients, and how that relationship plays out in the settlement process. In Felony Justice, Herb, and his coauthor James Eisenstein, focus on the courtroom workgroup as a case-processing (and, largely, case-settling) machine; clients are relatively peripheral. In my account, clients, both current and future, are extremely important in how the lawyer works to settle cases. In the criminal court workgroup, lawyers do not worry about where future clients will come from because police secure them. In contrast, the contingency-fee lawyer has constant concerns about future clients, and I argue, this concern provides a control over lawyers that prior analyses of the contingency fee have largely missed. This dynamic also may explain why the courtroom workgroups, or court communities, found in the criminal courts do not appear to exist in the civil justice system.     

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES FOR HISTORICAL ANALYSES

One of the most obvious deficiencies in the literature on the criminal justice system is reflected in the lack of research on the historical development of the police, courts, and corrections. Even more evident is the paucity of research which is theoretically or methodologically grounded. As a result of the failure of historians to specify their a priori assumptions, methodology, and theoretical perspective, it is difficult for consumers of the literature to appreciate how researchers have selectively sampled and interpreted historical events and arrived at their conclusions. This article addresses this problem by adapting and applying to historical research on the juvenile justice system some of the theoretical and methodological insights presented by Thomas S. Kuhn (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and George Ritzer (1975) Sociology: A Multiple Paradigm Science. The study focuses upon outlining the assumptions and methodology underlying three theoretical perspectives which have been consciously or unconsciously adopted by a majority of historical researchers: the march of progress, social context, and conflict perspectives. After outlining these perspectives, a selective review of the juvenile justice literature is offered in order to demonstrate how these orientations have been applied in interpreting the origin, development, operation, and impact of the juvenile court and juvenile reformatory. Finally, suggestions are offered which provide general guidelines for applying these perspectives to any aspect of the criminal justice system within an historical context.     

THE JUVENILE PENALTY: A COMPARISON OF JUVENILE AND YOUNG ADULT SENTENCING OUTCOMES IN CRIMINAL COURT*

This study uses criminal court data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (PCS) to investigate the sentencing of juvenile offenders processed in adult criminal court by comparing their sentencing outcomes to those of young adult offenders in similar situations. Because the expanded juvenile exclusion and transfer policies of the 1990s have led to an increase in the number of juveniles convicted in adult courts, we argue that it is critical to better understand the judicial decision making processes involved. We introduce competitive hypotheses on the relative leniency or severity of sentencing outcomes for transferred juveniles and interpret our results with the focal concerns theoretical perspective on sentencing. Our findings indicate that juvenile offenders in adult court are sentenced more severely than their young adult counterparts. Moreover, findings suggest that juvenile status interacts with and conditions the effects of other important sentencing factors including offense type, offense severity and prior criminal record. We discuss these results as they relate to immediate outcomes for transferred juveniles, criminal court processes in general and the broader social implications for juvenile justice policy concerning the transfer of juveniles to criminal court.     

Patronage and Rationalization: Reform to Criminal Procedure and the Lower Courts in Chile

This article analyzes how the lower criminal courts in Chile transitioned from an inquisitorial to an adversarial justice system between 2000 and 2005 as part of the Criminal Procedure Reform. Drawing on the frame analysis of the street‐level bureaucracy and judicial ethnography, I examine the transition between two different types of judicial bureaucracy from the perspective of the actors who implemented the reform. The study is based on in‐depth interviews with officials and judges of both inquisitorial and adversarial courts, administrative managers of the new courts, and actors who designed the administrative reorganization of lower criminal courts. The study involved a three‐month, weekly observation in an inquisitorial court in Santiago de Chile. The article emphasizes the specificity of the Chilean judiciary, where both inquisitorial and adversarial criminal courts still coexist.     

Delivering Justice in Indigenous Sentencing Courts: What This Means for Judicial Officers,Elders, Community Representatives,and Indigenous Court Workers

Indigenous sentencing courts are now an established form of innovative justice practice in most Australian jurisdictions. Whether such processes, which involve the participation of local community elders or representatives in sentencing an offender, provide a “better” form of justice is still up for debate. Recidivism analyses have yet to find that these courts are more likely to reduce reoffending than their mainstream counterparts. Some scholars argue that this is not the sole purpose of the courts and that other measures of “success” should be utilised when evaluating their performance. This article uses interviews with judicial officers, elders, community representatives, and Indigenous and non‐Indigenous court workers to explore what the courts are seeking to achieve and how that translates into a different form of doing justice.     

Controlling School Crime: An Examination of Interorganizational Relations of School and Juvenile Justice Professionals

Abstract Crime in and around schools creates a climate of fear among students and teachers, and disrupts the learning environment. Effective control of school crime demands the cooperative efforts of school and juvenile justice officials. This paper examines the interorganizational relations between school principals, teachers, and juvenile probation officers by comparing survey results from three cities. Findings reveal significant differences onmethods for controlling school crime; and on due process and sharing of school and court records. School and court officials do cooperate in working with students who are under probation supervision; but the extent of their interaction is characterized by a low level of interorganizational relations.     

The Courts in a Fragmented Criminal Justice System

The U.S. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice under President Johnson in 1967 outlined a central role for courts in the criminal justice system. That role, however, has been somewhat diminished by the dominance of plea bargaining and the legislative enactment of mandatory minimum sentences that limit judges’ discretion. At the same time, judges have become more involved in specialized courts dealing in cases involving drugs and mental illness. A major topic of concern is the lower courts, which in many areas have changed little since the 1960s Commission. In those places, the traditional adversary process is not operating well, with many defendants pleading guilty unnecessarily in a system that may be designed primarily to collect fees. In violent crime cases, the imposition of capital punishment remains a controversial issue for states that is not likely to be resolved by a new national commission. The central court functions of sentencing and overseeing plea bargains are discussed elsewhere in this volume.     

What happens when a reform works? The need to study unanticipated consequences of mandatory processing of domestic violence

One of the primary facets of the sociology of law is concerned with the relationships between formal rules and regulations having the force of governmental social control and the values, norms and practices of those who enforce them (or not). This “law in action” perspective enables research to test out the differential impact on legal decisions of both formal and informal aspects of social control (Hawkins, 1992). One of the limitations of recent work on domestic violence is that it focuses too narrowly on one or two negative sanctions, e.g., arrest or restraining orders, to the exclusion of the other options and the mix of formal and informal decisions in the criminal justice system as a whole (Reiss, 1974). This research attempts through a close analysis of the workings of the Quincy, Massachusetts criminal justice system in response to domestic violence, to identify the consequences, unanticipated and anticipated, of decisions made in several domains (public, police, prosecutors, and courts) of the criminal justice system. This study uses in-depth interviews with batterers, victims and criminal justice agency and related personnel as well as agency policies, training materials and records to examine possible unintended consequences of aggressive intervention in cases of domestic violence. This study will explore the impact of the Quincy Domestic Violence Program, considered to be a national model, on the lives of victims and offenders who are treated by the court. We have selected the District Court at Quincy, Massachusetts as our research site. It has a well deserved national reputation treating abusers systematically from the initial intake by arresting officers through close supervision in probation.