Juvenile Courts after 100 Years: Past and Present Orientations

Juvenile institutions were developed in the nineteenth century. In the United States, they prompted an extension of the parens patriae doctrine, which provided a basis for the creation of the juvenile court a century ago. The protective orientation of the court was intended both for juvenile delinquents and children in danger. Important changes have occurred since the 1960s. Procedural guarantees for delinquents and de-institutionalisation of children in danger have created a clear distinction between the two groups. Diversion has introduced an alternative to the court process. Policies aimed at young offenders have moved gradually in the direction of the adult criminal court model. The article presents an overview of this evolution, essentially for North America.     

A Detailed Cost Evaluation of a Juvenile Drug Court that Follows the Juvenile Drug Court Model (16 Strategies)

Although juvenile drug courts (JDCs) have now been in operation for 17 years, there is still no definitive appraisal as to this model's cost effectiveness and in particular, no detailed cost analysis of a JDC program following the 16 strategies until this one. The cost data presented in this paper build on the process and outcome evaluations performed on the Clackamas County Juvenile Drug Court (CCJDC). The criminal justice costs incurred by participants in drug court are compared with the costs incurred by eligible non‐participants. CCJDC participants had far more positive outcomes than those who did not participate in the program. In the two years after drug court entry, CCJDC participants cost the taxpayers $961 less per participant than similar individuals who did not attend the drug court program.     

Why Juvenile Courts Should Address Family Violence: Promising Practices to Improve Intervention Outcomes

The prevalence of domestic violence in juvenile court cases justifies modifying our interventions to reflect this unfortunate reality. This article focuses primarily on juvenile victimization of parents and the model programs emerging in juvenile courts to address it. Part I examines family violence's prevalence in the juvenile court caseloads, despite its lack of consideration in most dispositions. Part II begins with a comparative analysis of the drug court trend and discusses the trend's applicability for specialized family violence applications in the Juvenile Court. The King County (Wash.) Juvenile Court's Step‐Up Program is introduced, which directly addresses family violence with intervention programs for youth perpetrators and abused parents, followed by the Santa Clara County (Calif.) Juvenile Court's Family Violence program, shown as a model worthy of replication. Part III details the process by which the Travis County (Texas) Juvenile Court is implementing a program similar to these models. Part IV concludes that juvenile courts must address family violence as an overt or underlying issue in many cases and must identify and address the danger to our troubled youths, whether offender or victim. I argue that the domestic violence community's treatment expertise must inform our juvenile courts' interventions with violent, often insular, families. In Travis County, we are committed to learning as much as possible about youth resilience–to identify and treat battered and battering teens to prevent the inter‐generational cycle from repeating itself while making our homes, communities, and schools safe.     

Juveniles' Competence to Stand Trial: A Comparison of Adolescents' and Adults' Capacities as Trial Defendants

Abilities associated with adjudicative competence were assessed among 927 adolescents in juvenile detention facilities and community settings. Adolescents' abilities were compared to those of 466 young adults in jails and in the community. Participants at 4 locations across the United States completed a standardized measure of abilities relevant for competence to stand trial (the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool—Criminal Adjudication) as well as a new procedure for assessing psychosocial influences on legal decisions often required of defendants (MacArthur Judgment Evaluation). Youths aged 15 and younger performed more poorly than young adults, with a greater proportion manifesting a level of impairment consistent with that of persons found incompetent to stand trial. Adolescents also tended more often than young adults to make choices (e.g., about plea agreements) that reflected compliance with authority, as well as influences of psychosocial immaturity. Implications of these results for policy and practice are discussed, with an emphasis on the development of legal standards that recognize immaturity as a potential predicate of incompetence to stand trial.     

Moroccan adolescent suspect offenders in the Netherlands: ethnic differences in offender profiles

Ethnic minority youths are over-represented in the juvenile justice system in Western societies. However, research on the nature of crime committed by these youths is lacking. In the present study, offending patterns of incarcerated native Dutch adolescents and adolescents of Moroccan origin were compared. Criminal record data were used to examine the offence history of 291 incarcerated adolescents. Offender types were determined through latent class analysis. Adolescents of Moroccan origin were incarcerated more often, for more offences and at a younger age than native Dutch adolescents. A four-class model of offender types was found: property offenders, violent offenders, sexual offenders and arsonists. Property offenders were mainly Moroccan adolescents, the other offender types consisted predominantly of native Dutch adolescents. Moroccan adolescents in pre-trial arrest in the Netherlands can be characterized as early starting offenders who persist in being incarcerated for property-based crime.     

JUVENILE WAIVER AS A MECHANISM OF SOCIAL STRATIFICATION: A FOCUS ON HUMAN CAPITAL*

The historic transformations of the criminal justice system must be justified and interpreted through the effects on criminals (Maruna and Immarigeon, 2011). The push for harsher sentencing policies for juvenile offenders specifically through the use of juvenile waiver to criminal court is one such policy that is not well understood in terms of its effects on offenders, especially in terms of broader outcomes beyond recidivism. We use data from the Pathways to Desistance Study, which consists of a sample of adolescent offenders followed for 7 years postadjudication, to investigate the effect juvenile waiver has on human capital acquisition and yield among 557 adolescents from Maricopa County, Arizona. By using various matching specifications, our findings demonstrate that juveniles transferred to adult court experience no deleterious effects on human capital in terms of educational acquisition compared with similar youth retained in the juvenile system, yet they still earn considerably less income 7 years postadjudication. These results suggest that an important and unintended collateral consequence of juvenile waiver is an increase in social stratification potentially through labeling and labor market discrimination.     

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.     

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.     

Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Juvenile Drug Court: Comparisons to Traditional Probation

Juvenile Drug Courts have been in operation in the United States for over 20 years, yet their effectiveness and design have been challenged throughout the literature. Using data collected from a Juvenile Drug Court (JDC) in Southeast Texas, this project sought to determine if the JDC intervention reduced recidivism compared to a comparison sample of juvenile offenders. Results indicate that the recidivism rates of participants in the JDC were lower than the comparison group, suggesting that the Drug Court intervention was successful. The program completion rates for JDC youths were also higher for those with fewer infractions. Although the JDC youths had statistically lower infractions, the intervention overall appears to need strengthening. A close inspection of program components could document which programmatic skills are tied to efficacy, leading to the achievement of better outcomes.     

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.     

百年嬗变:美国少年司法之溯源、衍变及展望

少年司法肇始于美国,至今已有110余年的历史。但美国少年司法发展历程并非一帆风顺,先后历经前少年法院时期、少年法院创设与探索期、少年权利时期以及少年司法晚近变革期等四个主要阶段。其间,少年司法政策因实证主义兴起与新刑事古典主义复兴等社会思潮交叉影响不免时常进退辗转,甚至出现少年法院废除论的主张。对美国少年司法与未成年人保护追根溯源及总结,以吸取其改革中的经验与教训,以供构建我国少年司法制度反省、参酌和借鉴实有必要。     

Effects of jurors’ gender and attitudes toward intellectual disability on judgments in cases involving disabled juvenile defendants

Because many juvenile offenders are intellectually disabled and have their cases tried by jurors in adult criminal court, it is important to understand factors that influence jurors’ judgments in such cases. Using a mock trial methodology, we explored the relations among jurors’ gender, attitudes toward intellectual disability, and judgments in a criminal case involving an intellectually disabled 15-year-old girl accused of murder. Men mock jurors’ judgments were not influenced by their preexisting biases, but women's were: the more women favored special treatment for disabled offenders, the less likely they were to suspect the disabled juvenile was guilty and the less likely they were to convict her. Implications for actual cases involving disabled juvenile defendants are discussed.     

Do Criminal Court Outcomes Vary by Juvenile Transfer Mechanism? A Multi-Jurisdictional,Multilevel Analysis

In recent decades, the number of juvenile defendants transferred to criminal court has increased dramatically, in large measure due to an expansion of available transfer mechanisms. While transfer traditionally occurred by judicial waiver of jurisdiction, alternatives have emerged and eclipsed judicial waiver as the primary route to adult court. The present study examines whether the mechanism of waiver—judicial, prosecutorial, or legislative—affects sentencing outcomes for juvenile defendants transferred to adult court. Results from multilevel models that control for state-level variation indicate that sentencing outcomes are inextricably tied to method of transfer. Most notably, non-criminal outcomes are most likely for cases that arrive in criminal court by legislative waiver. This suggests that legislative waiver is an ineffective means of sending juvenile offenders to criminal court, and provides some empirical support for the notion that judicial waiver is the most appropriate method of transfer.     

Legislative Waiver Reconsidered: General Deterrent Effects of Statutory Exclusion Laws Enacted Post‐1979

In recent years, the juvenile justice system has undergone a “get tough” transformation. One component of the system which has experienced substantial alteration is the mechanism by which states allow for the waiver of juvenile offenders to adult criminal court. Most of the state systems now have some form of transfer procedure in place and many allow for the automatic transfer (or statutory exclusion) of juveniles who have been charged with certain offenses. Although the effects of waiver laws on individuals have received much empirical attention, their effects on the respective states’ aggregate level violent juvenile crime rates are less understood. In this study, we examine the relative effects of legislative waiver laws in 22 states that have added statutory exclusion provisions since 1979. In doing so, we assess whether legislative waiver should be reconsidered.     

Assessing the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency: An Evaluation of a Court‐Based Delinquency Prevention Program

In 2002, the State of Ohio mandated juvenile courts to provide prevention for at‐risk youth. This study examined official court records to evaluate the effectiveness of a prevention program administered by the Greene County Juvenile Court. A sample of 362 youth referred to the program for the years 2002 to 2009 by concerned caretakers, teachers, and police was analyzed. Consistent with intake goals, 81.7% of clients were referred for at‐risk but not actually delinquent behaviors. Completion of the prevention program did not predict future court referrals, but neither did seriousness of referral behavior. Children with two biological parents were significantly more likely to complete the program, whereas referrals to Strengthening Families Program and substance abuse screening significantly predicted program noncompletion. Implications for policy and research are discussed.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• This article highlights efforts by county juvenile court to implement a secondary prevention program for at‐risk but not officially court‐referred youth.
• Delinquency prevention research depends on good juvenile court data and adequate comparison groups.
• Evidence‐based predelinquent interventions with external process and outcome evaluations should be the standard.

     

Delinquent Careers and Criminal Policy

This article critically examines the prevailing judicial waiver statutes that require juvenile court judges to make individualized determinations as to a youth amenability to treatment and danger to society. It concludes that such decisions cannot be made with an acceptable degree of accuracy using current methods of clinical diagnosis or prediction, and that the broad discretion given judges in making transfer decisions results in inconsistent and discriminatory applications that undermine the fairness and predictability of the process. In light of the expanding research on the development of delinquent careers, it contends that a legislative redefinition of juvenile court jurisdiction that automatically excludes certain youths from the juvenile court on the basis of their present offenses and past records not only identifies more accurately those youth who should be prosecuted as adults, but also increases the fairness, rationality, and predictability of the adulthood determination. It suggests that an application of "just deserts" principles to the juvenile court waiver decision could have salutary consequences for youths, the juvenile and criminal justice systems, and social control.     

Presidential address: Juvenile justice at the crossroads: Presidential address to the academy of criminal justice sciences

Three interacting factors appear to significantly affect our treatment of youths and thus our juvenile justice policy: ideology, the media, and politics. As a result of these factors, although juvenile violent crime is decreasing, legislatures still advocate a harsh, punitive stance toward youthful offenders. Legislative initiatives have resulted in determinate sentencing for juveniles, more youths handled by the adult criminal court, and more youths sentenced to adult institutions. Recent evidence suggests that the public supports more prevention and early intervention strategies for youths and favors rehabilitation rather than punishment. These conflicting trends suggest that we are at a crossroads: the juvenile justice system can continue its harsh, reactive stance, or it can choose a more proactive approach. The members of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences have an opportunity to play an active role in the development of criminal justice policy.     

Psychological and behavioral adjustment in female youths with high or low psychopathic traits

The aim of the present study was to analyze the role of psychopathic traits in female juvenile delinquency. Using a sample of 236 young females from the Juvenile Detention Centers of the Portuguese Ministry of Justice and schools in the Lisbon area, a group of female youths with high psychopathic traits (n = 118; M = 15.84 years of age; range = 14–18 years of age) and a group of female youths with low psychopathic traits (n = 118; M = 15.77 years of age; range = 14–18 years of age) were formed based on the Portuguese version of the Antisocial Process Screening Device-Self-report (APSD-SR). The results showed that young females with high psychopathic traits start engaging in criminal activities and come into contact with the justice system earlier in life; exhibit higher levels of behavioral problems, conduct disorder, delinquent behaviors and serious criminality; and demonstrate lower levels of self-esteem and pro-social behavior. The importance of some variables in predicting group membership (high versus low psychopathic traits) was established through a binary logistic regression. Our findings reinforce the importance of the psychopathy construct for the early identification of potentially high-risk female youths and for the assessment of female youths who have already come into contact with the judicial system.     

青少年黑社会性质组织犯罪的特点与成因分析——以重庆万州区张波、张涛黑社会性质组织犯罪为视角

青少年黑社会性质组织犯罪除了具备黑社会性质组织犯罪的一般特征外，在犯罪主体、组织形式、犯罪行为方式、非法控制程度、经济实力等方面都有其特殊性。青少年黑社会性质组织犯罪的成因，除了犯罪主体的个人原因外，主要是由于在社会转型期，留守儿童存在社会化障碍，社会闲散人员的文化生活匮乏，弱势群体的广泛存在、利益主体的多层次性导致价值观多元化；同时，国家机关公信力下降，社会管理出现局部缺失，这些现象刺激了青少年黑社会性质组织的产生和发展。     

未成年人犯罪司法解释问题之省思

未成年人犯罪是不同于成年人犯罪的一类特殊的社会现象,刑事法对该现象的研究应该有不同于成人刑法的特殊视角。基于完整的少年司法制度短期内无法登堂入室的现实情况,应该充分重视通过司法解释的管道来达到理想与现实的有效沟通。所以,未成年人犯罪的刑法司法解释应该以现代少年刑事政策为灵魂,以保守实质解释论为基本立场,适时借鉴人格刑法学的相关理论来展开探索。