The Impact of Juvenile Court Judge Ethical Orientation on Decision Making

This exploratory study examines the ethical ideologies of a sample of 76 juvenile court judges attending a conference using an Ethical Position Questionnaire. Potential effects of ethical orientation on judicial decision making are identified and discussed. The findings indicate a relatively even distribution of judges across ethical ideologies. The connection between ethical ideology and the prevailing juvenile justice philosophy across jurisdictions, and the importance and complexity of judicial education and training in juvenile justice, are discussed.     

Juvenile Court Judges' Perceptions of What Factors Affect Juvenile Offenders' Likelihood of Rehabilitation

An instrument was developed to measure whether judges perceive the likelihood of rehabilitation to be influenced by extra‐legal factors. A self‐administered questionnaire was sent to 1,040 juvenile court judges across the United States. Two indices‐extra‐legal and legal‐were created to measure the relationship between judges' perceptions and the factors they consider in their transfer decisions. Primary analysis used frequencies, cross‐tabulations, and measures of association. The factors that judges may consider in their transfer decisions are specified and vary according to state statutes. Extra‐legal factors are never included in the statutes as factors that may be considered. Nonetheless, the findings suggest that judges consider extra‐legal factors in determining an offender's likelihood of rehabilitation. The results suggest that both male and non‐minority judges' perceive that extra‐legal characteristics affect an offender's likelihood of rehabilitation. All judges seem to believe that family structure and prior record are almost equally important factors in determining offenders' likelihood of rehabilitation. Thus, although judges consider legal factors in determining an offender's likelihood of rehabilitation, they also include criteria not explicitly permitted by law.     

Just Cognition: Scientific Research on Bias and Some Implications for Legal Procedure and Decision‐Making

Common law judges have traditionally been concerned about bias and the appearance of bias. Bias is believed to threaten the administration of justice and the legitimacy of legal decision‐making, particularly public confidence in the courts. This article contrasts legal approaches to bias with a range of biases, particularly cognitive biases, familiar to scientists who study human cognition and decision‐making. Research reveals that judges have narrowly conceived the biases that threaten legal decision‐making, insisting that some potential sources of bias are not open to review and that they are peculiarly resistant to bias through legal training and judicial experience. This article explains how, notwithstanding express concern with bias, there has been limited legal engagement with many risks known to actually bias decision‐making. Through examples, and drawing upon scientific research, it questions legal approaches and discusses the implications of more empirically‐based approaches to bias for decision making and institutional legitimacy.     

How to Maintain Emotional Health When Working with Trauma

Vicarious traumatization, compassion fatigue, or secondary traumatization refers to the cumulative effect of working with survivors of traumatic life events as part of everyday work. Although this issue has been acknowledged and addressed among professionals such as police officers and medical professionals, it has been discussed less among juvenile and family court judges who also experience secondary traumatic stress. In fact, in one recent study, a majority of judges reported one or more symptoms of secondary traumatization. This article describes the common signs and symptoms of secondary trauma, job‐related factors that contribute to secondary trauma among judges, and the potential negative impact on organizational performance. The authors conclude with specific recommendations tailored for juvenile and family court judges.     

Youth Transfer Decisions: Exploring County Variations

In an effort to control violent and chronic juvenile offenders, many state legislatures have created statutes that give exclusive jurisdiction to adult criminal courts for certain violent offenses. Much research has been conducted on juvenile transfers, but relatively few studies rely on official and self‐report data to evaluate this process. By using data from four counties within Washington State, this study examines how legal, extra‐legal, and organizational variables impact waiver decisions. In cases where youths were selected for transfer proceedings, data from official records are used to compare transfers within and between counties. In addition, interview data with juvenile court personnel (e.g., juvenile court judges, probation officers, legal advisors) are used to assess the factors associated with transfer decisions. Policy implications are presented along with recommendations for future research.     

Disproportionate Representation: Communities of Color in the Domestic Violence,Juvenile Justice,and Child Welfare Systems

A number of State and Federal surveys show that communities of color are involved with the domestic violence, child welfare, and juvenile justice systems at rates that are disproportionately higher than their population size. As courts are responsible for decisions that could propel families into these systems, it has become increasingly critical that judges become aware of these trends. This article will provide an overview of the current statistics on the disproportionate representation of communities of color in the domestic violence, child welfare, and juvenile justice systems. It will discuss the factors that are contributing to these trends and present preliminary recommendations for judicial leadership and decision making.     

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.     

“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.     

INITIAL DEVELOPMENT OF A PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL FOR JUDICIAL DECISION MAKING IN CONTINUING RESTRAINING ORDERS

Probate and family court judges are increasingly called upon to make rapid decisions regarding the continuance of restraining orders. These decisions are often made without the benefit of adequate background information or an awareness of which psychological and behavioral factors are most relevant. This action‐oriented research project develops a model that brings psychosocial factors to consideration for judges making decisions regarding the continuance of restraining orders. While further evaluation of the model is needed, the project's unique methodology highlights the value of interdisciplinary collaboration, multiple methods of inquiry, and the consideration of real‐world needs and constraints in developing decision‐making tools.     

Faith in the Court: Religious Out‐Groups and the Perceived Legitimacy of Judicial Decisions

The question of whether judges’ personal characteristics and values bias their decision making has long been debated, yet far less attention has been given to how personal characteristics affect public perceptions of bias in their decision making. Even genuinely objective judges may be perceived as procedurally biased by the public. We hypothesize that membership in a religious out‐group will elicit stronger public perceptions of biased decision making. Using a survey experiment that varies a judge's religious orientation and ruling in a hypothetical Establishment Clause case, we find strong evidence that judges’ religious characteristics affect the perceived legitimacy of their decisions. Identifying a judge as an atheist (a religious out‐group) decreases trust in the court, while identifying the judge as a committed Christian has no bearing on legitimacy. These results are even stronger among respondents who report attending church more often. Thus, we argue that perceptions of bias are conditioned on judges’ in‐group/out‐group status.     

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.     

Double Whammy: Lay Assessors as Lackeys in Chinese Courts

Primarily drawing on in‐depth interviews with lay assessors and judges in Chinese courts, this study suggests that assessors are little more than lackeys. To determine the role of lay participation in decision making across different jurisdictions, this article proposes two variables. The first is whether lay assessors are separate from, or mixed with, professional judges; the second is whether the regime is democratic or authoritarian. Viewed according to these variables, China's lay‐assessor institution is subject to a double whammy: one, the superior legal knowledge of professional judges and their dominance in procedures, and two, the ultimate control of the regime over judges, who, for self‐protection, firmly control lay assessors. This article advances our understanding of the operation of the Chinese lay‐assessor institution, and more generally the relationship between lay participation and political regimes.     

Judicial Activism in the Name of the Nation: Reneging on the Integration of Immigrants in Greece

Why do courts sometimes decide to liberalize migrants’ rights, while at others restricting such rights, even contrary to the policies of elected governments? This article addresses this question in the context of Greece. It explores the causes and consequences of judicial decision making in a major decision of the Council of State that suspended the most important government reform of 2010, promoting the integration of third‐country nationals. Drawing on judicial politics scholarship, it argues that the ideological and political preferences of key judges were an important influence on the first Council of State decision considered here. However, in the final decision, intra‐court dynamics and the judges’ consideration of external political constraints influenced the court's reasoning, leading to a more moderate outcome, with important consequences for the relaunching of policy reform.     

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.     

Perspectives on Therapeutic Jurisprudence in Dependency Court in Cases Involving Battered Mothers

A qualitative study was conducted involving clients, victim advocates, and judges participating in one of Miami‐Dade County's (Florida) “therapeutic” juvenile court based programs, the Dependency Court Intervention Program for Family Violence (DCIPFV). The primary objective of this study was to assess how battered mothers’ perceptions of the dependency court judges’ actions impacted the women's motivation to take appropriate actions to promote their own, and their child(ren)'s safety.     

Inquisitorial Adjudication and Institutional Constraints in Chinese Civil Justice

Based on participatory observations of trials and extensive interviews with judges, this article examines the operation patterns of the civil justice process in China and explores the underlying reasons behind. It finds that, despite the reform efforts placing more responsibility on the litigants, the Chinese civil proceeding remains largely inquisitorial. The decline of out‐court investigation is evident, yet judges rely on a limited form of cross‐examination aimed to obtain oral testimony that can be used to justify a decision. This kind of judge‐initiated questioning becomes an inexpensive substitute for the previously labor‐intensive court investigation. The article further argues that the judges do not adjudicate based on whatever evidence presented by the litigation parties, a change mainly attributed to the institutional constraints to which the judges are subject. They respond to the incentives by handling cases efficiently with the minimum possibility of reversal and complaint. The article concludes by offering theoretical implications on the study of comparative legal process more generally.     

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.     

Detention Decision-Making in a Predominantly Hispanic Region: Rural and Non-Rural Differences

This study examines the implementation of juvenile detention policy by comparing decision making in two jurisdictions where Hispanics represent the numerical majority of the population. One jurisdiction is rural and the other is a jurisdiction with over 1000,000 population. Interviews with juvenile justice probation and parole officers and judges are combined with a quantitative analysis of official records from 1994. Detention decision making is different in these jurisdictions. There is more formal processing and detention of juveniles in the rural jurisdiction. This is attributable to a perception of the community as heterogeneous rather than homogeneous, and a lack of alternatives as compared to the non-rural jurisdiction.     

Judicial Perspectives on Family Drug Treatment Courts

Family Drug Treatment Courts are a specialized calendar or docket that operates within the juvenile dependency court. These courts provide the setting for a collaborative effort by the court and all the participants in the child protection system to come together in a non‐adversarial setting to determine the individual treatment needs of substance‐abusing parents whose children are under the jurisdiction of the dependency court. This article is intended to give judges and others a judicial perspective on FDTCs, and to offer some assistance for those who are operating or who are considering creating one.     

Small‐Group Dynamics,Ideology, and Decision Making on the US Courts of Appeals

There is some evidence that judges who specialize in particular legal areas vote in more ideologically consistent ways than do nonspecialists. Upon replicating those individual results across multiple legal areas in the US courts of appeals, we assess how this increasing reliance on ideology by specialists affects decision making by others on a three‐judge panel. We find that judges who serve with a specialist are especially likely to vote in a manner consistent with the ideological position of the specialist with whom they serve. These results suggest that specialization has the potential to facilitate panel effects across numerous legal policy areas.