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

Abstract

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.

The Effect of Extralegal Factors in Decision-Making About Juvenile Offenders in Chile: A Quasi-Experimental Study

“…Criminal records are decisive as well, but they depend on the type of the previous offense (escalation vs. de-escalation) and whether the offender was on probation or parole at the time when they committed the offense (Spohn, 2009). Several researchers from the United States have found that legal factors are central in imposing harsher sentences (Campbell & Schmidt, 2000; D’Angelo, 2002; Leiber & Mack, 2003; Minor et al, 1997; Ruback & Vardaman, 1997; Spohn, 2009). Since the spirit of the juvenile justice system has, in recent decades, moved from focusing on the offender to the offense itself, the weight of legal factors has become more decisive (Catlin et al, 2011; Smith & Rosier, 2015).…”

A ‘central paradox’: Judicial decision-making in cases of sexual offending by young people

“…While some literature exists on the sentencing of young people (Bishop et al, 1996; Cleland, 2016; D’Angelo, 2002; Lehmann et al, 2019; Mears et al, 2014; Sheehan & Borowski, 2013), this focuses almost entirely on sentencing outcomes rather than the judicial decision-making process (ie how sentencing decisions are arrived at). Harris’s (2008) study, which involved collecting observational and interview data from three Californian courthouses to investigate how Judges construct young offenders, is a key exception.…”

Characterizing the Effects of Symbolic and Racial Threat on Charge Modifications in the Juvenile Court

“…First, minority bench presence was defined as whether or not the county wherein the family court circuit resides in had at least one minority serving on the bench during the juvenile’s adjudication and is derived from a roster from the South Carolina Judicial Department (0 = minority bench presence , 1 = no minority bench presence ). Inclusion of this predictor is predicated on the emerging and nascent evidence that Black judges, on average, have a more traditional “child saving” approach to juvenile justice, which has a significant impact on service matching and may influence the political threat aspect of racial threat (D’Angelo, 2002, Leiber et al, 2016).…”