SOME MISLEADING CONCEPTIONS IN SENTENCING RESEARCH

Most studies of sentencing practices in both adult and juvenile courts have compared the relative power to predict dispositions of “legal” variables, such as the seriousness of offense and previous arrest record, and “extralegal” variables, such as race and social class. It is suggested that this is a misleading model for research on the decision-making process in juvenile courts. Instead, results presented here indicate that the juvenile court uses a model of substantive decision-making oriented toward the character and social environment of offenders. Social background variables are found to be more important determinants of disposition than either “legal” or “extralegal” variables.     

The Use of Citizen Review Boards with Juvenile Offender Cases: An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of a Pilot Program

This study evaluates a Citizen Review Board (CRB) program designed to review juvenile offender cases. The sample includes 157 juvenile offenders that were first‐time adjudicated offenders. The youth were randomly assigned by the juvenile judge either to receive review by the CRB or go through the regular court process. Sixty‐eight of the youth were reviewed by the CRB and 89 made up the control group. Data were collected on both groups for more than three years. Program outcomes examined for the study included court processing time, placement and treatment facility changes, and re‐offense rates. Findings suggest that the youth served by the CRB program had statistically fewer out‐of‐home placements in treatment programs during the course of the study and more time had elapsed between the date of the original offense and the re‐offense for youth reviewed by the CRB. The rise in the number of juvenile offenders going through the nation's court systems, as well as a rise in the number of citizen review boards, indicate a need for further examination about how CRBs can best serve the juvenile court system and the youth served by that system.     

The judicial response to crime and the criminal: A utilitarian perspective

This paper examines the hypothesis that the sentencing decision of the criminal court is consistent with utilitarian principles and that the judiciary uses the length of incarceration as an instrument for the maximization of societal well-being. A theoretical model is developed, whose principal arguments are offender and offense attributes, resource costs, the availability of alternative sanctions, and the general crime rate. Four questions are considered: (i) How does a utilitarian court respond to a general increase in crime? (ii) How does the availability of alternative sanctions affect the length of incarceration ? (iii) How does a utilitarian court respond to offenders who are more likely to recidivate? (iv) How does the court respond to offenders who commit more serious offenses? The model is empirically evaluated, using cross-sectional data for the state of Georgia for individuals sentenced to prison in 1978 for a UCR index offense. The theoretical model provides few specific behavioral rules for the court to follow. Answers to the foregoing four questions are shown to depend upon both the efficacy of sanctions and the cost of the administration of those sanctions. It is not possible to predict, for example, how a utilitarian court should respond to a rise in crime or how it should respond to offenders who are likely to commit more serious offenses. The empirical analysis shows that, in fact, the sentence length varied inversely with the general offense rate, with the likelihood of imprisonment, and with the length of postprison probation. The evidence also indicates that sentences vary with the individual's original record but not with the offender's age or race. With the exception of possible gender bias, the court's sentencing behavior was consistent with utilitarian principles.     

Individualization,criminalization, or problem resolution: A factorial survey of juvenile court judges' decisions to incarcerate youthful felony offenders

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.     

Female Delinquents: the Effect of Offense Characteristics on Adult Criminal Careers in the 1958 Philadelphia Birth Cohort

This paper uses the official juvenile offenses among delinquent girls in the 1958 Philadelphia Birth Cohort to investigate the two overarching questions. This research investigates the nature of delinquency conduct, offense-by-offense, and its relationship to adult crime status. Although it is convenient to think of an offender’s delinquency career as a whole, such a career actually consists of one or more specific offenses, and offense conduct can be worth studying in its own right. Thus, it is necessary to determine whether the timing, type, severity, court disposition, and so on, of these juvenile offenses can be used to predict adult career pathways. An extensive review of the literature revealed that investigations of early offense conduct and its connection to adult crime are exceedingly scarce. This study indicates as follows. First, the way a delinquent begins her criminal career is predictive of the adult trajectory that will be followed. Second, we also found that aspects of the first few offenses doe influence whether delinquent girls do continue committing crimes as adult. The strongest predictor of adult crime status was juvenile court dispositions.     

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.     

The Conditioning Effects of Race and Gender on the Juvenile Court Outcomes of Delinquent and “Neglected” Types of Offenders

Drawing upon concepts from prior research that emphasize race and gender stereotyping, the present research compares how delinquent and “neglected” types of offenses (i.e. status offenses, probation violations, youth charged with contempt) are treated across three juvenile court outcomes. Beyond how offense type may directly impact case outcomes, we also investigated whether race and gender influenced juvenile justice processing within each offense type. Using data from two Mid-Atlantic States, results indicated that type of offense, race, and gender resulted in both severe and lenient case outcomes depending on the stage examined. By including different types of offenses that represent a significant percentage of youth that have been relatively neglected in prior research, the current study provides greater insight into the contexts of race and gender disparities in juvenile justice decision-making. The implications of the findings and directions for future research are also discussed.     

The Effect of Race on Juvenile Justice Processing

Studies concerning differential treatment of minority youths in the juvenile justice system have not provided conclusive evidence. However, previous literature has revealed methodological problems which may account for the inconsistency among previous studies. Multi-stage design, adequate control of legal and non-legal variables, and refined measurement of social variables have been demonstrated as crucial elements in resolving the inconclusiveness in previous studies. The purpose of this study is to employ these approaches to detect case-handling bias at three stages of juvenile justice processing: detention, adjudication, and disposition. Data were obtained from juvenile cases reported to the Ohio trial court in 1989. A total of 2,334 court cases were randomly sampled from 17 Ohio counties. Research findings showed a differential treatment of minority juveniles at the detention stage. Further, detention status was also found to have an increasing impact at the two subsequent decision points.     

JUVENILITY AND PUNISHMENT: SENTENCING JUVENILES IN ADULT CRIMINAL COURT*

The study outlined in this article addressed a key limitation of prior research on the punishment of juveniles transferred to adult court by employing propensity score matching techniques to create more comparable samples of juvenile and young adult offenders. Using recent data from the Maryland State Commission on Criminal Sentencing Policy, it tested competing theoretical propositions about the salience of juvenile status in adult court. Findings indicate that even after rigorous statistical matching procedures, juvenile offenders are punished more severely than their young adult counterparts. We found no evidence that this “juvenile penalty” is exacerbated by an offender's race or gender, but it does vary starkly across offense type and mode of transfer, being driven primarily by drug crimes and discretionary waivers. The import of these findings is discussed as they relate to the future of juvenile justice policy regarding the continued use of juvenile transfer to adult court.     

Legal, Individual, and Environmental Predictors of Court Disposition in a Sample of Serious Adolescent Offenders

Historically, the juvenile court has been expected to consider each youth's distinct rehabilitative needs in the dispositional decision-making process, rather than focusing on legal factors alone. This study examines the extent to which demographic, psychological, contextual, and legal factors, independently predict dispositional outcomes (i.e., probation vs. confinement) within two juvenile court jurisdictions (Philadelphia, Phoenix). The sample consists of 1,355 14- to 18-year-old male and female juvenile offenders adjudicated of a serious criminal offense. Results suggest that legal factors have the strongest influence on disposition in both jurisdictions. For example, a higher number of prior court referrals is associated with an increased likelihood of secure confinement in both jurisdictions. Juveniles adjudicated of violent offenses are more likely to receive secure confinement in Phoenix, but are more likely to be placed on probation in Philadelphia. Race is unrelated to dispositional outcome, but, males are consistently more likely than females to be placed in secure confinement. Importantly, individual factors (e.g., developmental maturity) generally were not powerful independent predictors of disposition. Finally, an examination of the predictors of juvenile versus adult court transfer in Phoenix indicated that males, older juveniles, and those with a violent adjudicated charge were more likely to be transferred to adult court, while juveniles scoring high on responsibility as well as those juveniles with an alcohol dependence diagnosis were more likely to be retained in juvenile court.     

GENDER BIAS IN THE DISPOSITION OF JUVENILE COURT REFERRALS: THE EFFECTS OF TIME AND LOCATION*

Theory based on sex role traditionalism predicts a more punishing decision for female than for male offenders, while theory based on chivalry (paternalism) predicts greater leniency by the courts for female offenders. This paper tests these two models using a large sample (36,680) of juvenile court referrals in metropolitan, urban, and rural locations spanning a nine-year period. Nonparametric analysis of covariance is used to control for differences in offense, previous contact with the court system, and other background variables. Evidence of gender bias in dispositions was found. The patterns of bias across time, location, offense committed, and previous referral to the court system supports the persistence of chivalry and a decline in sex role traditionalism in court decisions. Greater punishment for girls than boys was found only for repeat offenders committing more serious offenses. Even in those cases, girls were more likely to be taken out of the home environment by the courts through a custody transfer while boys were more likely to be sent to a lock-up facility.     

Factors Influencing Intake Disposition in a Juvenile Court

Abstract This study examined whether a juvenile court's practices were consistent with its declared philosophy and whether it accommodated the goals of serving individual justice and protecting societal interests. The results showed that intake disposition was determined primarily by the type of prior disposition rather than by the seriousness of the current offense or by the social background of the juvenile.     

The effect of transfer mechanism from juvenile court on conviction on a target offense in criminal court

The question of whether juvenile offenders should be handled in criminal court has been addressed by a number of studies. However, few have examined the effectiveness of the type of transfer mechanism and how it relates to protecting the public. Whether the mechanism used to transfer juvenile offenders to criminal court has any effect on the likelihood of being convicted of a target offense criminal court is examined here. It was found that the juveniles sampled in this study had a greater chance of being convicted on their target offense in criminal court if they were sent there via judicial waiver than if they were excluded from juvenile court jurisdiction by statute.     

Juvenile delinquency and the juvenile justice system: U.S. and India

The paper deals with comparative issues in the definition, nature, and extent of juvenile delinquency, juvenile law, juvenile justice with special reference to India and the United States. Through an analysis of comparative data on patterns of delinquency differentials on the variables of sex, age, social class, and type of offense, the paper identifies the similarities between the two countries. The paper notes one exception regarding patterns of delinquency that indicate a relatively negligible involvement of the Indian juveniles in the crime of rape due to the cultural and socialization differences. The paper discusses the provisions under the Children Act of 1960 in India and points that both in philosophy and practice, the parens patriae doctrine in juvenile justice fares better in the Indian context. Unlike in the U.S., juveniles in India do not have certain Constitutional due process rights, such as the right to an attorney, yet the children courts in India serve as criminal courts and the Indian act provides for greater procedural safeguards. The paper also suggests that the disposition of juvenile cases in India results in lesser hard-core institutional commitment than in the U.S. and that the maximum period of punishment does not exceed the limits provided for the offense as stipulated by the Indian act.     

The Nature of Programs Used in Response to Delinquent Behavior Among Juveniles

The history of responses to juvenile misconduct indicates that a wide variety of approaches have been used. Even prior to the establishment of the first juvenile court at Cook County, Illinois, in 1899 some alternatives were attempted in an effort to deal with younger offenders. A major premise underpinning the establishment of juvenile court jurisdiction during the early 1900's was to provide a wider range of options by selecting effective responses that would operate in the best interests of the child. To a large extent, this search continues today. In this paper the focus is only on public offense and status offense cases. We will not examine other areas of responsibility such as welfare services for youth, child abuse, neglect and foster care.

An examination of programs in existence reveals a high degree of diversity. The literature on this topic is quite scattered and there are few organized means available by which to compare and contrast so many different programs. A purpose of this paper is to provide students a framework by which to view various courses of action that have characterized responses to misconduct among juveniles. Considering interventions according to (1) focus, (2) process, (3) degree of restriction, and (4) vehicle provides a basis for comparing and contrasting the many different programs in existence.

Liberal use of specific examples of more recent programs are included that reflect contemporary thought as well as possible future direction. Readers should note that the aim is not to evaluate whether a given program is effective. However, contrary to Martinsons' insistence that “nothing works,” Ross and Gendreau provide examples of programs that have demonstrated effectiveness. Examples utilized in this paper were selected from among those indicating positive results.     

Book reviews

During the 1980s correctional officials focused considerable energy on the development of intermediate sanctions as alternatives to incarceration. One such alternative is electronically monitored home detention. Although the electronic monitoring equipment was not commercially available until late in 1984, programs were operating in all 50 states by 1990. This study presents a comparative analysis of three electronic monitoring programs: a program for adults charged with a criminal offense and unable to obtain pretrial release; a program designed as an alternative to incarceration for convicted adult offenders; and a program for adjudicated juvenile burglars. Each program operated in the same jurisdiction, used essentially the same equipment, and imposed similar rules and restrictions on behavior. The analysis focuses on comparisons of program delivery, clients' performance, and programmatic sources of variation. The implications of the findings for future program development and evaluation are discussed.     

THE CONCEPTUALIZATION OF DISCRIMINATION IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE PROCESS: THE IMPACT OF ADMINISTRATIVE FACTORS AND SCREENING DECISIONS ON JUVENILE COURT DISPOSITIONS

Research on race, sex, and social class discrimination in the juvenile justice process has yielded mixed results. These conflicting findings have been attributed to the use of diverse research strategies and various methodological shortcomings. There are, however, two potentially important issues that have not been previously addressed: the need to examine the juvenile justice system as a process, rather than as a series of separate and unrelated decision points, and the failure to control for the impact of administrative factors such as pretrial detention. The purpose of the research reported here is to examine the impact of race, sex, and social class on juvenile court dispositions while controlling for pretrial detention and appropriate legal factors. The analytical strategy employed permits an examination of the impact of these factors over three stages of the juvenile justice process: referral, adjudication, and disposition.
Findings indicate that while legal factors and pretrial detention decline in importance as predictors of disposition as one moves from an examination of all referred to adjudicated youth, race and social class become more important. These results are discussed in terms of their methodological significance and their implications for the conceptualization of discrimination in the juvenile justice process.     

Diversion in the Canadian Juvenile Justice System: A Tale of Two Cities

Abstract The present study attempted to evaluate the effectiveness of diversion in the juvenile justice system by comparing two different communities. One community has a formalized, well-established diversion program whereas the other community utilizes the Family Court to a much greater extent. Preliminary data suggests no difference in recidivism for a matched sample of young offenders. The implications of the study are discussed in terms of future research on diversion and the need for appropriate comparison groups. In the past two decades, diversion programs have been one of the major innovations within the juvenile justice system. These programs have attempted to divert juveniles from the formal process involving court hearings by creating alternative interventions at the policy and community level. The basic premises underlying these programs is that the formal court system may do more harm than good by labeling youngsters as “delinquent” and rendering them more vulnerable by involvement in an adversary process (Reference numbers 4, 12, 14). Diversion programs that provide youngsters with an opportunity to make restitution or perform community services are compensation for their misbehavior are seen as more immediate and meaningful consequences than awaiting a formal adversarial court hearing (5, 13). However, diversion programs have not met with universal acceptance. Critics have pointed out that programs, in fact, “widen the justice net” by processing children who never would have gone to court anyway (3, 7). As well, concerns have been raised as to the protection of clients' legal rights in the diversion program and the dangers of “double jeopardy” in the event that failure in a program could lead to an even more severe disposition by the court (8, 9). The debate over the effectiveness of diversion programs has been fueled by the lack of research. Although there are many studies that suggest the success of this approach (1, 6, 10), the research has suffered in its credibility due to the absence of appropriate control groups. The present study attempted to fill this significant void in previous evaluations of diversion, by comparing two communities in southwestern Ontario with different approaches to juvenile justice. The cities of Windsor and London are approximately 200 km apart, with comparative populations (200,000 vs 250,000). Windsor has well established diversion programs with substantial support of community agencies, the police force and Crown Attorney's office. This program is described in detail elsewhere (2, 11) so will not be outlined here. London has no such program and consequently has an obviously greater number of youngsters handled through the formalized juvenile court. The authors hoped to capitalize on this “naturally occurring difference” in approach between the two cities by examining the rate of recidivism of young offenders as well as determine their attitudes (and that of their parents) toward the interventions they received. The hypotheses in the pilot studies outlined were that the diversion program youth in Windsor would have a more positive attitude about their intervention and would be less likely to recidivate than a matched sample of youth in London, based on the theoretical underpinning of diversion as well as the results of previous outcome studies.     

Predicting Outcomes with Juvenile Court Case Histories

This report supplements a prior article in this journal (Rogers and Williams, 1994). Utilizing Ted Palmer's 1991 formulation, we identified a set of indicators relevant to juvenile court decision-making and to policy formulation. Here, through a more stringent statistical technique, we provide additional evidence of the potential that juvenile court histories possess for both theory and practice. We explore case materials gained and maintained by juvenile probation officers as a way of generating outcome predictors for whether youth receive probation or institutionalization. Using discriminant function analysis, we obtain relatively good prediction. Delinquency history and social psychological variables are found to enhance prediction of case outcomes. Contrary to some scholars, we believe the juvenile court is here to stay. Thus, the fundamental issue becomes one of making it a more efficient, effective instrument for reintegrating youths it must serve. As this institution approaches its centennial in 1999, we believe the court must become a focal point of research. This article is intended to further that task. After identifying the three strongest predictive variables (offense after first hearing, alienation, and denial of blame), we employ our seven key indicators as a guide for illustrating their everyday application for juvenile probation officers working with their youthful clientele.