50.2 Girls and the Juvenile Justice System: Specialty Courts and Approaches to Work With Commercially Sexually Exploited Youth in the Los Angeles County Juvenile Court System

Author(s):  
Eraka Bath
2001 ◽  
Vol 81 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
RONALD J. SEYKO

On November 17, 1995, the governor of Pennsylvania signed into law Special Session Act 33 of 1995, which redefined the purpose of Pennsylvania's juvenile justice system to incorporate the principles of the Balanced Approach and Restorative Justice (BARJ) philosophy. This article describes the genesis of the new law, explains the BARJ model, and illustrates the effect that the law is having on the juvenile court system in Allegheny County. The article specifically focuses on the numerous projects that the Allegheny County juvenile probation department has instituted to meet the BARJ obligation.


1982 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Hancock ◽  
Meda Chesney-Lind

Females are treated differently from males in the juvenile justice system. While the majority of males appear in juvenile court on charges of illegal behaviour, most females appear on “status offence” grounds, that is, for behaviour that only juveniles under a particular age can be brought to police or court attention. Females charged on moral or status offences are treated more harshly than males. However, when they are charged with illegal behaviour, females are treated more leniently which is appropriate, since delinquent girls are generally involved in less serious criminal behaviour than boys. In principle, the juvenile court was set up to protect juveniles and, by giving wide powers of discretion to law enforcers, to facilitate decisions in young offenders' best interests. In practice, particular categories of youth are treated more harshly than others. Evidence indicates that those females appearing on status offence charges (often from socially and economically disadvantaged backgrounds) are discriminated against on the basis of their sexual behaviour. This paper describes the present situation and outlines the failures of attempts at legislative changes in the definition and processing of juvenile status offenders in the United States and Australia. These examples show that the double standard of juvenile justice is international; not simply an artifact of one nation's court system. Treating status offence problems within a criminal justice system has destructive and damaging effects which may only intensify the problems from which such youth are ostensibly being protected.


2009 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Angkasa Angkasa ◽  
Saryono Hanadi ◽  
Muhammad Budi Setyadi

Legal fundament of implementation of restorative justice in the phase investigation of juvenile justice system  in Indonesia stated in article 5 sentence (1) Law No. 8 Year 1981 concerning KUHAP; article 42 Law No. 3 Year 1997 concerning juvenile court, article 16 sentence ( 1) letter (l), sentence (2) and article 18  Law No. 2 Year 2002 concerning Police Department of Republic of Indonesia, Confidential Telegram of Kabareskrim No. Pol. TR/359/DIT,I/VI/2008. Mediation Perpetrator and Victim in the course of Jurisdiction of Child in jurisdiction territory of prison in Purwokerto, in the form of peace among victim and perpetrator of this child, is conducted in inspection phase, is in prosecution phase and inspection of justice have never been conducted by mediation. Implementation of Mediation in case of child in Jurisdiction territory of Bapas Purwokerto, not yet earned a Restorative Justice Model. This Matter is based on fact that goals of this mediation practice tend to only aim to decontrol continuation. Kata kunci: Juvenile Justice System; Restorative Justice Model; Mediation; prison


1973 ◽  
Vol 32 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1119-1124 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger Woodbury

The study investigated (1) the differences in attitudes toward legal agencies between white and black delinquents, (2) group differences on anomie scales and (3) intergroup correlational analyses among attitudes toward legal agencies and anomie scales. A random sample of delinquents (73 white and 73 black) were administered measures of attitudes toward the police, juvenile court, probation and anomie. t tests of significance and z tests using Fisher's r to z transformation assessed group differences. White delinquents had more unfavorable attitudes toward the juvenile court while black delinquents had more hostile attitudes toward the police. White delinquents had more feelings of valuelessness and hopelessness. Black delinquents had more of powerlessness. Correlations suggest that attitudes toward legal agencies and those of anomie may be acquired independently.


Plural ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 185-193
Author(s):  
Eduardo Gutierrez Cornelius

Resenha de Chávez-García, Miroslava. States of Delinquency: Race and Science in the Making of California’s Juvenile Justice System. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2012.


2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 305-329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer H. Peck

In 2002, the reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 required that states participating in the Formula Grants Program must put forth a good faith effort at addressing juvenile delinquency and the presence of minority youth at all decision-making points of the juvenile justice system without the use of numerical quotas. The last decade has brought about increases in states’ efforts at identifying and assessing the extent of disproportionate minority contact (DMC) across juvenile court contacts. Many states have already implemented or are currently implementing intervention and prevention efforts at reducing DMC. However, the segments of identification, assessment, and intervention are only three of the five phases of the DMC mandate. In light of the progression of the DMC mandate since its original implementation in 1988, the purpose of this essay is to spark discussion on the future of examining DMC in the juvenile justice system through a researcher’s perspective. Various topics that relate to DMC are presented as ideas for readers to consider, as they progress with their research agendas.


1984 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 415-422 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shirley M. Hufstedler

This article is an expanded version of an address given before the 1984 Conference: “Rethinking Juvenile Justice,” sponsored by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency. The article traces the evolution of the Juvenile Court and discusses the pressures placed upon the juvenile justice system at the same time it punishes, incapacitates and reforms youthful offenders. The author challenges juvenile justice planners to develop humane, cost-effective, and community-based alternatives as a means of reducing the current confusion over the proper role of the juvenile court.


2019 ◽  
Vol 85 (4) ◽  
pp. 453-470 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aleksis P. Kincaid ◽  
Amanda L. Sullivan

The overrepresentation of youth with disabilities in the juvenile justice system is a persistent concern, but estimates of their involvement vary dramatically due to differences in how disability is conceptualized and when involvement in juvenile justice is measured. This study linked juvenile court and educational records for 230,760 students in one state to describe the involvement of students with and without disabilities in juvenile court. Overrepresentation of students with disabilities was not robust to sociodemographic controls (relative risk ratio [RR] = 1.07) but varied by disability category such that students with emotional or behavioral disorders (RR = 1.98) and other health impairments (RR = 1.12) remained overrepresented. Students with disabilities were charged with more severe offenses than their peers without disabilities and were more likely to be petitioned to court with a higher degree of offense even after controlling for the type of offense. Implications for policy, practice, and research are discussed.


1999 ◽  
Vol 33 (01n02) ◽  
pp. 87-96
Author(s):  
铁荣 卢

香港的刑事责任年龄是七岁,即七岁以下的儿童,是不会被推定为有罪。这刑责年龄是国际标准上最低之一。近日本地的法律改革委员会建议将它提高至十岁,香港儿童权利委员会更建议以十四岁为刑责年龄。提高刑责年龄的后果,是所有在法定刑责年龄以下的违法少年都不再需要负法律责任,他们不需要经警司警诫或司法审讯,极其量只能由少年法庭引用保护令来保护他们。本文讨论影响青少年犯罪的三种重要因素,现时处理违法少年的方法,和在研究提高刑责年龄的可行性时,在少年司法制度中需要考虑的因素,特别是在没有彻底改善现行的少年司法制度时,广泛地运用保护令所带出之问题,最后建议一些处理方法。 In Hong Kong, the age of criminal responsibility is seven, i.e. any person aged below seven shall not be convicted of a crime. This age is one of the lowest in the world. Recently, the Law Reform Commission has recommended to raise the age to ten; the Committee on Children's Rights even suggested raising it to 14. If the age of criminal responsibility is to be raised, juvenile offenders would no longer be cautioned by the police or prosecuted in the juvenile court, although care or protection order can be granted o them. This article outlines the major factors affecting juvenile crimes and the current methods in handling juvenile offenders. It also identifies several crucial factors for consideration, in particular the negative effect of using care or protection order when no substantial improvement in the juvenile justice system has been made, if the age of criminal responsibility is to be raised. Several recommendations to improve the juvenile justice system are highlighted too.


Criminologie ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 189-213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Trépanier

This paper provides an overview of some of the changes undergone by the juvenile justice system in Quebec since 1960, with a particular attention to the evolution of its legal framework. Major legislative changes have stressed children's rights and diversion. The underlying philosophy of the law has been changed extensively, particularly concerning young offenders. Statistics reveal that the number of court referrals has increased considerably over time, and that diversion policies have been unable to change this trend. Juvenile court dispositions seem to show a greater degree of intervention than before.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document