This study examines the empirical research on legal representation in delinquency proceedings and situates it in the broader investigation of how states provide legal assistance to juvenile defendants. Our review of empirical studies found that attorney presence was an aggravating factor in dispositional decisions. After closely examining state statutory provisions on legal representation in juvenile delinquency proceedings, we suggest that the penalty effect of attorney presence is an artifact of the variation in state laws governing access and oversight of juvenile counsel. We conclude with suggestions for future research, policy, and practice.

Abstract:In this article, we examine the role of parental maltreatment and parental social control in violent delinquency in two different countries: Indonesia and the U.S. but we go further by asking if gender makes a difference. We use a sample of Indonesian and U.S. youths from ISRD3 data, a self-reported survey instrument administered across multiple countries. We use logistic regressions to examine the associations between parental maltreatment, parental social control and self-reported violent delinquency and test whether gender and country modifies these associations. We find that both gender and country are significant predictors of violent delinquency. Further, there are differences between Indonesian and U.S. youths in terms of the predictors that are associated with violent delinquent offending. Specifically, parental maltreatment in the form of direct exposure to parental violence is a significant predictor for U.S. youths but not Indonesian youths whereas parental supervision is a significant deterrent of violent offending for both. We also find that girls are more likely to report violent offending than males when indirectly exposed to violence. Thus, our findings reiterate that both gender and context matter.

Based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions recognizing adolescence, we examined the likelihood of parole in one state for a population of candidates whose ages ranged from 14 to 21 at time of offense. Logistic regressions tested age on release, controlling for offense, adolescence-related, and rehabilitative variables. Contrary to expectations, a parole candidate’s age at time of offense is not associated with release nor did age interact with culpability and rehabilitation measures. Instead, victim and prosecutorial opposition is related to a lower likelihood of release where the opposition effect is greater for those 18 years and older at time of offense. These findings reiterate the need for comparative research on parole decision-making as it may vary by time and place.

No abstract

Parole is one of the least visible decision-making processes in the criminal justice system. We consider decision statements that support or reject release as symbolic of organizational concerns beyond the candidate’s individual attributes. To draw out the symbolic, we focus on decision statements issued to 33 juvenile lifers previously ineligible for parole. We find that what is meaningful to a parole board is highly selective, and there is no generalized presumption of mitigated culpability and capacity for rehabilitation. Rather release is justified based on childhood abuse, peer dependency and a redemptive self. In contrast, denying narratives selectively highlight the seriousness of the sentencing offence by focusing on the ‘horrific,’ and the retributive requirement for more time to be served.