Criminal Dispositions of New Mexico Juveniles Transferred to Adult Court

1991 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 393-407 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marilyn Houghtalin ◽  
G. Larry Mays

One of the lingering controversies surrounding the juvenile justice system in the United States is the transfer of juvenile offenders to adult criminal courts, ostensibly for more severe dispositions. This issue especially has been of concern as the “get-tough” movement seemingly has gained momentum over the past two decades. This article examines the waiver process in New Mexico to establish the characteristics of the juveniles subject to the process and to determine the actual, instead of symbolic, criminal court dispositions of juveniles tried as adults.

1989 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stella P. Hughes ◽  
Anne L. Schneider

Victim-offender mediation as a dispositional alternative is a fairly recent addition to the juvenile justice system. The number of mediation programs has been increasing during the past decade, but little is evident about the design and implementation of these programs. This article reports findings from a survey of 240 juvenile justice organizations in the United States. Program designs, goals, and perceptions of effectiveness are discussed.


2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 372-397
Author(s):  
Enshen Li ◽  
Mingyue Su

China’s juvenile justice system has grown and changed substantially since the 1980s. While considerable research focuses on institutional treatment of juvenile delinquents, little attention has been paid to the diversion processes and measures that allow troubled juveniles to be directed away from the formal justice system. Through a comparison with juvenile justice in the United States, this article aims to investigate the development of the juvenile diversion framework in China. We argue that despite their similar efforts to divert juvenile delinquents from traditional court proceedings, in practice China’s diversionary arrangements diverge from those of their US counterparts. Unlike in the United States, Chinese juvenile diversion does not operate according to welfarist or restorative models. Rather, juvenile diversion in China is a managerialism-driven scheme that rests on two key pillars: institutional diversion, which imposes punishment and control on juvenile offenders pursuant to their level of offending and dangerousness, and noninstitutional diversion, which revolves around risk-based management and correction through community-level interventions. We conclude that China’s distinctive sociolegal culture and political priorities have shaped a practice that appears to be at odds with the officially advertised narratives of the state’s juvenile justice policy.


2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith M. Dunkerly ◽  
Julia Morris Poplin

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to challenge the “single story” narrative the authors utilize counterstorytelling as an analytic tool to reveal the paradox of exploring human rights with incarcerated BIPOC teens whose rights within the justice system are frequently ignored. Shared through their writing, drawing and discussions, the authors demonstrate how they wrote themselves into narratives that often sought to exclude them.Design/methodology/approachThis paper centers on the interpretations of Universal Human Rights by Black adolescents involved in the juvenile justice system in the Southeastern region of the United States. Critical ethnography was selected as we see literacy as a socially situated and collaborative practice. Additionally, the authors draw from recent work on the humanization of qualitative methods, especially when engaging with historically oppressed populations. Data were analyzed using a bricolage approach and the framework of counterstorytelling to weave together the teens' narratives and experiences.FindingsIn using the analytic tool of counterstories, the authors look at ways in which the stories of colonially underserved BIPOC youth might act as a form of resistance. Similarly to the ways that those historically enslaved in the United States used narratives, folklore, “black-preacher tales” and fostered storytelling skills to resist the dominant narrative and redirects the storylines from damage to desire-centered. Central then to our findings is the notion of how to engage in the work of dismantling the inequitable system that even well-intentioned educators contribute to due to systemic racism.Research limitations/implicationsThe research presented here is significant as it attempts to add to the growing body of research on creating spaces of resistance and justice for incarcerated youth. The authors seek to disrupt the “single story” often attributed to adolescents in the juvenile justice system by providing spaces for them to provide a counternarrative – one that is informed by and seeks to inform human rights education.Practical implicationsAs researchers, the authors struggle with aspects related to authenticity, identity and agency for these participants. By situating them as “co-researchers” and by inviting them to decide where the research goes next, the authors capitalize on the expertise, ingenuity and experiences' of participants as colleagues in order to locate the pockets of hope that reside in research that attempts to be liberatory and impact the children on the juvenile justice system.Social implicationsThis study emphasizes the importance of engaging in research that privileges the voices of the participants in research that shifts from damage to desire-centered. The authors consider what it may look like to re-situate qualitative research in service to those we study, to read not only their words but the worlds that inform them, to move toward liberatory research practice.Originality/valueThis study provides an example of how the use of counterstorytelling may offer a more complex and nuanced way for incarcerated youth to resist the stereotypes and single-story narratives often assigned to their experiences.


Author(s):  
Ingrid V. Eagly

After a sustained period of hypercriminalization, the United States criminal justice system is undergoing reform. Congress has reduced federal sentencing for drug crimes, prison growth is slowing, and some states are even closing prisons. Low-level crimes have been removed from criminal law books, and attention is beginning to focus on long-neglected issues such as bail and criminal court fines. Still largely overlooked in this era of ambitious reform, however, is the treatment of immigrants in the criminal justice system. An unprecedented focus on immigration enforcement targeted at “felons, not families” has resulted in a separate system of punitive treatment reserved for noncitizens, which includes crimes of migration, longer periods of pretrial detention, harsher criminal sentences, and the almost certain collateral consequence of lifetime banishment from the United States. For examples of state-level solutions to this predicament, this Essay turns to a trio of bold criminal justice reforms from California that (1) require prosecutors to consider immigration penalties in plea bargaining; (2) change the state definition of “misdemeanor” from a maximum sentence of a year to 364 days; and (3) instruct law enforcement agencies to not hold immigrants for deportation purposes unless they are first convicted of serious crimes. Together, these new laws provide an important window into how state criminal justice systems could begin to address some of the unique concerns of noncitizen criminal defendants.


2018 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 61
Author(s):  
Seth Kershner

Occupy Wall Street. Black Lives Matter. The #MeToo movement. Over the past decade, the United States has seen a surge in activism around civil rights, broadly defined as the right to be free from discrimination and unequal treatment in arenas such as housing, the workplace, and the criminal justice system. At times, as when activists are arrested at a protest, calls for civil rights can also be the occasion for violations of civil liberties—certain basic freedoms (e.g., freedom of speech) that are either enshrined in the Constitution or established through legal rulings. While civil rights are distinct from civil liberties, students often struggle to articulate these differences and appreciate the links between the two concepts. Complicating this distinction is the fact that historically reference materials have tended to cover either one or the other but not the two in combination. Combining these two concepts in one work is what makes a revised edition of the Encyclopedia of American Civil Rights and Liberties so timely and valuable.


2011 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 271-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Kwame Ame

AbstractIn a country where implementing children's rights in general remains a major challenge, the idea of according rights to children in conflict with the law can be a daunting task. With too many other children's problems to deal with such as the millions of street children and child laborers, female circumcision, and sexual violence against female children, the needs and rights of juvenile offenders could easily be relegated to the bottom of the government's priorities for children. Nonetheless, by virtue of ratifying the UNCRC in 1990, Ghana has made a commitment to address the needs and respect the rights of children in Ghana including its juvenile offenders. Thirteen years after ratifying the CRC, the Ghanaian Parliament passed the Juvenile Justice Act 2003 (Act 653). What rights does the Act accord children in conflict with the law? Do the policies and practices of the new juvenile justice system measure up to the standards of the Convention? These are the key questions addressed in this paper. The paper concludes that vis a vis the CRC, the new Juvenile Justice Act looks good on paper but argues that there is a colossal gap between policy and practice. The paper ends with suggestions on how to effectively protect the rights of children in conflict with the law.


2016 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 72-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corina Schulze ◽  
Valerie Bryan

Through the framework of power-control theory (PCT), we provide a model of juvenile offending that places the gendered-raced treatment of juveniles central to the analysis. We test the theory using a unique sample that is predominately African American, poor, and composed entirely of juvenile offenders. Multivariate models compare the predictive power of many variables, including ones central to PCT, on status offenses and other, more serious, offenses. Gender and race variables were found to be significant, but varied in their impact across models. The interaction between these variables suggests that being Black and female increases the likelihood of sanctioning for status offenses, but not other types of offenses. Contrary to the theory, single-mother-headed households do not seem to produce more delinquent girls than other types of households. The overall findings of this study indicate that patriarchy and white privilege are continuing characteristics of the juvenile justice system.


2006 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 390-397 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tania Simoncelli

Over the past fifteen years, the United States has witnessed an extraordinary expansion in the banking and mining of DNA for law enforcement purposes. While the earliest state laws governing forensic DNA limited collection and retention of DNA samples to sexual offenders – on the theory that these persons were especially prone to recidivism and most likely to leave behind biological evidence – today forty-three states collect DNA from all felons, twenty-eight from juvenile offenders, and thirty-eight from those who commit certain categories of misdemeanors.A few states have expanded their databases beyond convicted criminals. Virginia, Louisiana, Texas, and California have authorized DNA retention from persons merely arrested for various offenses, although to date only Virginia has implemented such a program. At the federal level, an ill-considered statute that allows for the seizure and storage of DNA from anyone arrested and from non-U.S. citizens detained under federal authorities was recently signed into law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document