Juvenile Justice Decision-Making as a Longitudinal Process

Thornberry, Terence P.; Christenson, R. L.

doi:10.2307/2579055

Cited by 15 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several scholars (Bishop & Frazier, 1988;Fagan et al, 1987;McCarthy & Smith, 1986;Thornberry & Christenson, 1984) note that the significance of ethnicity for court outcome may be tied to other decisions made throughout the judicial process. This study supports this view.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The lack of consistent findings may be due to a variety of methodological shortcomings such as inadequate measures (Bishop & Frazier, 1988), failure to control for salient covariates or to consider multiplicative effects (Bell & Lang, 1985;Bishop & Frazier, 1988;Cohen & Kluegel, 1978;Myers & Tallarico, 1986), small or restrictive samples (Bishop & Frazier, 1988), lack of comparable data across multiple jurisdictions (Sampson & Laub, 1993), and focus on a single court encounter or a single decision point within an encounter, which cannot detect any cumulative effect of race (Bishop & Frazier, 1988;McCarthy & Smith, 1986;Thornberry & Christenson, 1984). This study overcomes several of these issues by examining a wide range of offenders across multiple jurisdictions using multivariate techniques that allow the assessment of direct, indirect, and moderating effects of ethnicity on treatment referrals through juvenile courts.…”

Section: Ethnic Bias In Court Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Offender Ethnicity and Mental Health Service Referrals from Juvenile Courts

Breda

2003

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Juvenile courts play a critical role in facilitating access to mental health services for the large number of offenders with or at risk of emotional or behavioral problems. This research examines the decision of the court to refer offenders to treatment and whether offender ethnicity affects the referral decision. Results suggest that ethnicity has no independent effect on treatment recommendations. Rather, ethnicity modifies the effects of other variables, particularly legalistic variables such as petitioning and adjudication. Implications of the findings for research on ethnic disparities in juvenile court decision making as well as for Black offenders who are disproportionately involved in the juvenile justice system are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ethnic Bias In Court Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Offender Ethnicity and Mental Health Service Referrals from Juvenile Courts

Breda

2003

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In some research, the influence of extralegal factors dissolves after legal factors are controlled (Belknap, 2001;Carter, 1979;Clarke & Koch, 1980;Dannefer & Schutt, 1982;Fenwick, 1982;Kempf-Leonard & Sontheimer, 1995;Phillips & Dinitz, 1982;Teilmann & Landry, 1981). However, other research has revealed that extralegal factors continue to influence juvenile court outcomes even when legal factors are included (Bishop, 2005;Bishop & Frazier, 1996;Bray, Sample, & Kempf-Leonard, 2005;Conley, 1994;Frazier & Bishop, 1995;Guevara, Herz, & Spohn, 2006;Guevara, Spohn, & Herz, 2004;Leiber, 1994;Thornberry & Christensen, 1984;Wordes & Bynum, 1995;Wordes et al, 1994). Pope and Feyerherm's (1990) review of 46 studies on juvenile court outcomes emphasized the need to take extralegal factors such as race into consideration.…”

Section: Research On Racial Disparities In Juvenile Court Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Findings from previous research, however, are inconsistent. Some studies have revealed direct race effects (Bishop & Frazier, 1996;Bortner, Sunderland, & Winn, 1985;Conley, 1994;Frazier & Bishop, 1995;Thornberry & Christensen, 1984;Wordes & Bynum, 1995;Wordes, Bynum, & Conley, 1994). Other studies have found that the effect of race is indirect 1996;Bortner & Reed, 1985;Frazier & Bishop, 1995;Poole & Regoli, 1980).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Racial Disparities in Juvenile Court Outcomes: A Test of the Liberation Hypothesis

Guevara

Boyd

Taylor

et al. 2011

Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After decades of research, the exact impact of race on juvenile court outcomes is still a complex matter. The focus of this study is to address the liberation hypothesis as a potential explanation for racial disparities in juvenile court outcomes. This perspective has not previously been applied to juvenile court outcomes. Results from the analyses demonstrate the differential effect of legal and extralegal factors on serious and less serious cases. The results of this study indicate that legal factors such as crime seriousness or prior criminal record and extralegal factors such as race have a varying influence on juvenile court outcomes, and this influence varies depending on the outcome examined and the race of the youth.

show abstract

“…Among these legal factors, a youth's prior record is an especially important predictor of disposition (Matarazzo, Carrington, & Hiscott, 2001). In particular, the severity of a juvenile's sanctions for prior adjudicated offenses significantly influences the likelihood that a youth is placed in secure confinement (Carrington & Moyer, 1995;Henretta, Frazier, & Bishop, 1986;Lee, 1996;Phillips & Dinitz, 1982;Stryker, Nagel, & Hagan, 1983;Thornberry & Christensen, 1984).Although current research confirms the secondary role of individual and contextual factors in shaping juvenile courts dispositions (Niarhos & Routh, 1992;Campbell & Schmidt, 2000), some researchers have found that certain extralegal factors, including the presence or absence of substance abuse problems, family dysfunction, deviant peer associations, antisocial attitudes, and antisocial personality factors, are related to dispositional outcome, even after controlling for legal factors (Hoge et al, 1995;Campbell & Schmidt, 2000). Other studies have found that certain contextual factors, such as whether the juvenile is attending school, working, or living in a two-parent household, are associated with dispositional outcomes, even after controlling for legal and offender characteristics, but the findings of this research have been inconsistent (Cohen & Kluegel, 1978;Kueneman & Linden, 1983;Kueneman et al, 1992;Thomas & Cage, 1977).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Legal, individual, and environmental predictors of court disposition in a sample of serious adolescent offenders.

Cauffman

Piquero

Kimonis

et al. 2007

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Historically, the juvenile court has been expected to consider each youth's distinct rehabilitative needs in the dispositional decision-making process, rather than focusing on legal factors alone. This study examines the extent to which demographic, psychological, contextual, and legal factors, independently predict dispositional outcomes (i.e., probation vs. confinement) within two juvenile court jurisdictions (Philadelphia, Phoenix). The sample consists of 1,355 14-to 18-year-old male and female juvenile offenders adjudicated of a serious criminal offense. Results suggest that legal factors have the strongest influence on disposition in both jurisdictions. For example, a higher number of prior court referrals is associated with an increased likelihood of secure confinement in both jurisdictions. Juveniles adjudicated of violent offenses are more likely to receive secure confinement in Phoenix, but are more likely to be placed on probation in Philadelphia. Race is unrelated to dispositional outcome, but, males are consistently more likely than females to be placed in secure confinement. Importantly, individual factors (e.g., developmental maturity) generally were not powerful independent predictors of disposition. Finally, an examination of the predictors of juvenile versus adult court transfer in Phoenix indicated that males, older juveniles, and those with a violent adjudicated charge were more likely to be transferred to adult court, while juveniles scoring high on responsibility as well as those juveniles with an alcohol dependence diagnosis were more likely to be retained in juvenile court. KeywordsAdolescence; Juvenile justice; Waiver to adult court; Sentencing; Maturity NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptThe contemporary juvenile justice system must balance the two competing challenges of optimally providing for youths' positive development and ensuring public safety (Grisso, 2003), with the former goal differentiating it from adult criminal courts. Although landmark juvenile cases, including Kent v. U.S. (1966) and In re Gault (1967) have reduced differences between adult and juvenile courts by providing juveniles with more procedural guarantees of due process, they have also highlighted the enduring role of personal and environmental characteristics specific to each youth (e.g., maturity, behavioral and emotional factors) in dispositional decision-making (In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 1967; Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 1966). In theory, the primary goal of the juvenile justice system is to administer "custommade" dispositions to youths based on a case-by-case consideration of each youth's distinct rehabilitative needs (Connell, 1980;Horwitz & Wasserman, 1980). This customization should result in different juvenile court dispositions for adolescent offenders whose personality characteristics and social backgrounds differ but who may commit similar offenses. In practice, however, as is the case in adult criminal courts, dispositional decisions in conte...

show abstract

Juvenile Justice Decision-Making as a Longitudinal Process

Cited by 15 publications

References 0 publications

Offender Ethnicity and Mental Health Service Referrals from Juvenile Courts

Offender Ethnicity and Mental Health Service Referrals from Juvenile Courts

Racial Disparities in Juvenile Court Outcomes: A Test of the Liberation Hypothesis

Legal, individual, and environmental predictors of court disposition in a sample of serious adolescent offenders.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About