A Systematic Observational Study of a Juvenile Drug Court Judge

The shift of the juvenile justice system from its initial rehabilitative ideal toward a more punitive orientation highlights the need to systematically document key elements of the juvenile drug court model. In particular, it is important to clearly document the role of the juvenile court judge because he or she is considered vital to this program model. The current study used participant observation as well as confidential questionnaires on which youth shared their perceptions of the judge. Findings show the judge‐participant interactions typically were brief, varied by the participants' level of compliance with the program, and that sanctions were given twice as often as rewards. Youth perceived the judge to be fair, respectful, and concerned about their lives. Discussion focuses on the significant opportunity that juvenile drug court judges have for positively influencing the lives of drug‐involved youth.     

Policies Regarding the Prosecution of Juvenile Murderers: Which System and Who Should Decide?

The fate awaiting the juvenile charged with murder varies considerably from state to state. In some jurisdictions the youth (depending on age) would have to be prosecuted in juvenile court and receive at worst the most severe sanction available in that forum. In other locations the juvenile could have to be tried in adult court or could be sent there by either a judge or a prosecutor, and would be eligible for an adult sentence, including possibly the death penalty. This study examines the country's various policies regarding the prosecution of juvenile murderers, as well as the implications behind both using the juvenile versus the adult court for these prosecutions and extending the transfer power to the prosecutor versus the judge.     

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.     

Judges’ Perceptions of Screening,Assessment, Prevention,and Treatment for Substance Use, Mental Health,and HIV among Juveniles on Community Supervision: Results of a National Survey

Juvenile Justice‐Translational Research on Interventions for Adolescents in the Legal System (JJ‐TRIALS) National Survey was funded in part to describe the current status of screening, assessment, prevention and treatment for substance use, mental health, and HIV for youth on community supervision within the US juvenile justice system. Surveys were administered to community supervision agencies and their primary behavioral healthcare providers, as well as the juvenile or family court judge with the largest caseload of youth on community supervision. This article presents the findings from the judges’ survey. Survey results indicated juvenile and family court judges were open to innovations for improving the court's performance, rated their relationships with collaborators highly, and appreciated the impact of screening, assessment, prevention, and treatment on judicial practices.     

程序性制裁制度的法理学分析

程序性制裁所针对的是侦查人员、检察人员和审判人员违反法律程序的行为,并以宣告诉讼行为无效为其基本制裁方式。这种“程序违法直接导致实体结论无效”的制裁方式,可以维护刑事诉讼程序的有效实施,使得程序正义价值得到现实的保障,促使法院不成为警察、检察官和下级法官违反法律程序的“帮凶”和“共犯”,并对其违反法律程序的行为在举行司法审查的前提下,作出违法和无效之宣告。当然,作为一种追究法律责任的方式,程序性制裁也有其内在的局限性。尽管如此,程序性制裁对于维护诉讼程序的实施仍具有其不可替代的意义。     

From Centre Stage to Spear Carrier: The Repositioning of the English Juvenile Court

The approach of the new millennium poses significant challenges for the way in which the youth justice system in general, and the juvenile (now youth) court in particular, develops in the future. The past one hundred years of the juvenile court in England and Wales have seen its role both flow and ebb. It currently faces further significant repositioning. The author distinguishes four themes which have influenced the marginalisation of the juvenile court: bifurcation, diversion, manageralism and legislation of the court.     

“YOUTH IS ENMESHED IN A HIGHLY DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILY SYSTEM”: EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILIES,PARENTAL INCARCERATION,AND JUVENILE COURT DECISION MAKING*

Although prior work has substantiated the role of external attributes in juvenile court decision making, no study to date has examined how family situational factors as well as maternal and paternal incarceration affect juvenile court officials' responses to troubled youth. Using quantitative and qualitative juvenile court data from a large urban county in the southwest, this study draws on attribution theory to examine how family structure, perceptions of family dysfunction, and parental incarceration influence out‐of‐home placement decisions. Findings reveal that juvenile court officials' perceptions of good and bad families inform their decision making. This study emphasizes the need to unravel the intricate effects of maternal and paternal incarceration and officials' attributions about families and family structure on juvenile court decision making.     

The Effect of Prior Youth Court Dispositions on Current Disposition: An Application of Societal-Reaction Theory

This paper tests hypotheses implicit in the societal-reaction perspective concerning the nature and pattern of the relationship between prior and current youth court dispositions. The dispositional stage is the most critical decision-making level which young offenders encounter in their contact with the youth court system. Previous research has produced inconsistent results in the attempt to determine which model or models of justice underlie dispositional decisions by youth court judges. Log-linear modeling is employed on 16,636 youth court cases in Canada in 1993/1994 to determine the nature and magnitude of the relationship between current and prior dispositions. The results indicate that prior youth court dispositions exert a significant impact on current dispositions, even when relevant variables are controlled. Evidence is found mainly of stabilization—the repetition of the same type of disposition—and also of escalation in dispositions. These findings provide support for the societal-reaction theory and possibly for the desert-based theory of sentencing.     

The role of the sociologist as mitigation expert in a sentencing hearing

This paper examines Louisiana’s habitual offender statute and the role of a sociologist as a mitigation expert/criminologist in a specific case. The paper includes a summary of the habitual offender statute; the literature/theories used by the sociologist in his testimony; the trial judge’s decision; and the decision of the three-judge panel of the appellant court, particularly the minority opinion. The case has been returned to the district court for re-sentencing and the trial judge is under no obligation to accept the panel’s decision; but in practice must justify any lenient sentence. The use of sociology as mitigation in criminal cases generally is discussed. The author has worked in over 300 criminal cases since 1988, most of which were capital murder, but also include second-degree murder, manslaughter, armed robbery, rape, and habitual offender hearings.     

论当庭宣判

当庭宣判对于实现实体公正、程序公正以及提高诉讼效率都具有非常重要的意义。在我国,定期宣判被普遍化而当庭宣判则成为例外的做法,这种现象弱化了法庭审判的功能,导致许多案件的一审、二审甚至再审程序被架空,加剧了司法腐败和司法不公,同时妨碍了社会公众对审判活动的监督。这一问题的出现有着复杂的原因:庭前和庭审阶段存在的问题使法官难以当庭宣判;立法上存在的缺陷使法官不愿当庭宣判;错案追究制使法官不敢当庭宣判。要实现当庭宣判制度,必须进行相应的制度改革。     

中国“例制”构建中的法院角色和法官作用

我国案例指导制度中的法院角色和法官作用有着鲜明的特色,案件审理阶段法院和办案法官往往并没有参与案例指导的意识,而是在案件裁判后由审判庭之外的综合部门通过遴选的方式确定典型案例,经编辑后报审判委员会研究讨论,再逐级报最高人民法院确定并发布。指导性案例的产生不是按照管辖制度自然地"涌现",而是被人为地"发现",这一点明显不同于国外的做法。相比较,"涌现"方式符合司法经济原则和司法规律,而"发现"方式充满人为因素,成本高而效率相对较低。案例指导制度不应被管辖制度"牵着鼻子走",而应当通过变更管辖制度,与司法规律相适应。     

法院监察目标之设定及其实现机理

与行政监察不同,法院监察应该确立三个独特的目标,包括保障诉权实现、促进司法独立以及落实司法责任制等。中国关于法院监察的立法层次偏低,全国人大应在合适时机制定统一的《监察法》,并对法院监察作出相应规定。在此之前,法院监察可以通过适当植入异体监督因素的方式来抑制同体监督的不利影响,提高监察行为的实效性。法院行政管理者集监察与法官惩戒权限于一身的制度安排有害于司法独立。省级以下法院人财物统一管理改革为实现法院监察与法官惩戒权限的彻底分离提供了契机。法官惩戒权可以统一由国家和省级法官惩戒委员会行使,由此必须在制度上重塑法院监察与法官惩戒之间的关系。     

“韩寒代笔门”事件的证据法分析

"韩寒代笔门"事件业已成为公共事件,韩寒拟以方舟子侵犯名誉权为由起诉至法院,如果成案,法院将面临判断方舟子一方提出的"韩寒有代笔"这一主张是否属实的难题。方韩案中关于韩寒有无代笔的证明责任可以由法院裁量分配。方舟子一方采用间接证据证明的方式证明其主张,但由于方舟子一方所适用的经验法则具有盖然性,不同主体会得出不同结论,方舟子一方的推论过程存在极大争议。方韩案中,尽管法院有权行使自由裁量权判定代笔事件的真伪,但考虑到确证裁判可能引起的社会舆论压力,法院最有可能作出"证据不足以认定存在代笔事实"的"真伪不明"结论,适用证明责任规则,回避事实争议。即使代笔事件未得到确证,方舟子并非必然承担名誉权侵权责任,法院可以通过对过错要件的认定实现言论自由权与名誉权的利益平衡。方韩之争过程中,公众的证据科学意识得到前所未有的提升,但也暴露出一些非理性之处。     

THE “TRUE” JUVENILE OFFENDER: AGE EFFECTS AND JUVENILE COURT SANCTIONING

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.     

A Pilot Assessment of a School‐Based Youth Court in a Resource‐Poor African‐American Urban School District: Lessons Learned From Youth Court Volunteers

This study assesses the benefits of youth court participation for volunteers (N = 14) serving as jurors in an urban school‐based youth court. Focus group and questionnaire data indicate that volunteers are capable of providing more effective sanctioning decisions than adults. Volunteers reported developing citizenship skills including learning about the law and decision‐making skills. The youth court leaders developed self‐confidence and maturity while learning the conflict resolution skills necessary for rendering dispositions and conducting trials. We interpret our findings within the context of the youth court literature, the issue of the school‐to‐prison pipeline, and Elijah Anderson's analysis of the Code of the Street.     

Recommendations for Judicial Action on Adoption Disruption

Abstract Adoption disruption is examined by a brief literature review and by the presentation of findings from a juvenile court case review process. Among the findings is the crucial role played by a juvenile court judge who intervened with emphasis on post-placement services for adoptive families and children, which minimized the risk of the placements to disrupt. Recommendations are offered to assist the juvenile justice system when decisions must be made that will effect unstable adoptive placements.     

The Impact of Safe Harbor Legislation on Court Proceedings Involving Sex Trafficked Youth: A Qualitative Investigation of Judicial Perspectives

The passage of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) facilitated the conceptual shift in reframing youth involved in sex trafficking as victims, rather than criminals. Many states have passed legislation in the form of Safe Harbor laws to protect sex trafficked juveniles from criminal charges and provide rehabilitative services (Polaris, 2015). Nevertheless, limited research has examined the impact of Safe Harbor laws and the role juvenile and family court judges play in how minor victims of sex trafficking are treated by the court system. Consequently, the purpose of this qualitative study was to examine juvenile and family court judges’ knowledge and perceptions of Safe Harbor legislation and identify legal challenges when presiding over cases involving sexually exploited youth. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with a national sample (N = 82) of family and juvenile court judges. Findings suggest that respondents perceive Safe Harbor laws to have positively affected both attitudes and practices, although several challenges and unintended negative effects were identified. Further, dispositional issues, difficulties with case identification, legal and policy issues, and challenges with interagency collaboration were identified as ongoing issues to address. Legal implications as well as practice and policy considerations based on the study findings are discussed.     

Plainly Wrong

English law and wider common law jurisprudence have endorsed the condition that an appellate court should reject a trial judge's finding of fact which it believes is ‘plainly wrong’. Courts have not explained what makes a finding plainly wrong, however. Scholars have largely ignored the issue. This article draws on recent work in epistemology to provide a new analysis of the plainly wrong standard. Rationally, a court should not believe both (1) that a judge is a better fact finder and (2) that the judge was wrong to find some fact. If it does believe both, it should abandon the belief it is less confident of. So, a court should reject a judge's finding if it is more confident that it is wrong than that the judge is a better fact finder. This analysis has implications for review of administrative fact finding and for judicial deference generally.     

Youth justice conferencing and indigenous over-representation in the Queensland juvenile justice system: a micro-simulation case study

Restorative justice conferencing for young offenders is firmly established in Australian juvenile justice, and legislated conferencing schemes are operating in all Australian states and territories. While there is some variation in the terms used to describe restorative justice conferences (e.g., family group conferencing, family conferencing, or youth justice conferencing), there is much more consistency in how the conferencing process is managed across Australian jurisdictions. In Queensland youth justice conferencing is a process that brings together an offender, the victim and their supporters to discuss the harm caused by the offending behaviour and provide the young person with an opportunity to take responsibility for his or her behaviour and make amends. This paper begins by briefly sketching the development of restorative justice conferencing in Queensland and describes the Juvenile Justice Simulation Model (JJSM), a micro-simulation model developed for criminal justice policy analysis in Queensland, Australia. We use this micro-simulation model to conduct an experimental exploration of the effects that youth justice conferencing has on system-wide outcomes for indigenous young people. The model simulates the impact of interventions up until 2011 on the number of finalised youth justice court appearances. Our results indicate that youth justice conferencing is unlikely to reduce the over-representation of indigenous young people in the juvenile justice system. The simulations demonstrated that, by the 2011, youth justice conferencing would result in a 12.5% decrease in finalised court appearances. Unfortunately, this decrease was more apparent for non-indigenous young people (13.7% decrease in court appearances) than for indigenous young people, who had a 10.5% decrease in court appearances. This differential impact of conferencing is due to the different court appearance profiles between indigenous and non-indigenous young offenders, with indigenous young people initiating offending at an earlier age and offending more frequently than non-indigenous young offenders.     

Children Who Have Been Traumatized: One Court's Response

A court that is trauma‐informed can assist with the process of identifying children in need of trauma‐focused services and can provide education and direction to families frustrated by prior treatment failures. The unique role of the juvenile court judge as a community convener offers an opportunity to increase community awareness about the impact of trauma, and to promote the adoption of evidence‐based treatment for trauma victims. This article outlines the way that increased trauma awareness and trauma screening within a family court system mobilized the development of effective resources for children and families affected by trauma.