Does Speed Matter? The Association Between Case Processing Time in Juvenile Court and Rearrest

2021 ◽  
pp. 088740342110355
Author(s):  
Abigail Novak ◽  
Elizabeth Hartsell
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Offenders ◽  
Processing Time ◽  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
Case Processing ◽  
Processing Times ◽  
Time Restrictions ◽  
First Time ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Case Characteristics

The present study assessed the relationship between case processing time and rearrest among a sample of first-time juvenile offenders referred to the Florida juvenile justice system and examined the extent to which this association varied by youth and case characteristics. Propensity score analyses suggested youth with longer case processing times had higher odds of being rearrested within 1 year compared to youth with shorter case processing times. Subgroup analyses suggested differences in the effects of case processing time by youth and case-level characteristics. According to results, policymakers should prioritize implementing and enforcing case processing time restrictions in their jurisdictions, particularly for detained youth and remain aware of the potential ensnaring implications of longer case processing times to reduce rearrest rates for first-time juvenile offenders.

Gender-Responsive Intervention for Female Juvenile Offenders: A Quasi-Experimental Outcome Evaluation

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie R. Anderson ◽  
Brinn M. Walerych ◽  
Nordia A. Campbell ◽  
Ashlee R. Barnes ◽  
William S. Davidson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Offenders ◽  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
Group Home ◽  
Outcome Evaluation ◽  
Home Treatment ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Female Juvenile Offenders ◽  
Quasi Experimental

The increasing proportion of girls in the juvenile justice system has prompted courts to develop gender-responsive services. The present study examined data from a mid-sized county juvenile court to examine the effects of a group home intervention for girls. The study compared group home participants ( n = 172) with girls who did not receive group home treatment ( n = 814) using propensity score matching (PSM). Girls who received group home treatment were significantly less likely to re-offend in the 2-year follow-up period. Policy and practice implications for gender-responsive services as well as future directions for research are discussed.

提高刑责年龄: 保护或伤害? (RAISING THE AGE OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY: PROTECTION OR HARM?)

1999 ◽  
Vol 33 (01n02) ◽  
pp. 87-96
Author(s):  
铁荣 卢
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Offenders ◽  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
Substantial Improvement ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Major Factors ◽  
Protection Order

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.

The Exploration of Risk and Protective Score Differences Across Juvenile Offending Career Types and Their Effects on Recidivism

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen M. Cox ◽  
Peter Kochol ◽  
Jennifer Hedlund
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Offenders ◽  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Assessment Data ◽  
Juvenile Offending ◽  
Chronic Offenders ◽  
Court Referrals

Despite an abundance of research on serious and violent juvenile offenders, few studies have linked juvenile offending career categories to juvenile court risk assessments and future offending. This study uses juvenile court referrals and assessment data to replicate earlier categorizations of serious, violent, and chronic offenders; to examine risk and protective score differences across these categories; and to assess whether risk and protective score constructs differentially predict adult criminality across these offender categories. Based on a sample of 9,859 juvenile offenders who aged out of Connecticut’s juvenile justice system between 2005 and 2009, we found that (1) our categorization of juvenile career types mirrored earlier work, (2) comparing risk and protective factors across and within juvenile career types identified distinct patterns, and (3) the juvenile risk and protective assessment subscales were not predictive of adult arrests for chronic offenders but were predictive for nonchronic juvenile career types.

Violent Youth in Adult Court: Process and Punishment

1986 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cary Rudman ◽  
Eliot Hartstone ◽  
Jeffrey Fagan ◽  
Melinda Moore
Keyword(s):  
Urban Areas ◽  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Time Averaging ◽  
Case Processing ◽  
Violent Youth ◽  
Alternatives To Incarceration

Despite the widespread transfer of violent youth from juvenile to criminal court, there is little empirical knowledge of the transfer process, rate of transfer, or of case outcomes, sentences, and placements of transferred juveniles. This study examines these issues for 177 violent youths considered for transfer in four urban areas, comparing court outcomes for youths transferred to criminal court with those for youths retained in juvenile court. Varying procedures, criteria, and court rules result in case processing time averaging 2.5 times greater for transferred youth. Most spend this time in detention. Violent youth considered for transfer are adjudicated at a high rate for the offenses as charged in both juvenile and criminal court. Plea bargaining for charges rarely occurred. Youth considered for transfer but retained by the juvenile court received maximum commitments and placements within the jurisdictional limits of the juvenile justice system. Transferred youth convicted in criminal court received even more severe sanctions both in nature and length. Alternatives to incarceration were rarely used by either the juvenile or criminal court.

scholarly journals Parity or Disparity? Outcomes of Court-Involved Youth With and Without Disabilities

2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 368-377
Author(s):  
Aleksis P. Kincaid ◽  
Amanda L. Sullivan
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Offenders ◽  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
Research Policy ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Youth With Disabilities ◽  
Court Involvement ◽  
Court Involved

Youth with disabilities are overrepresented in the juvenile justice system, but few studies have investigated the mechanisms by which this occurs. In this study, we considered how juvenile court adjudication and length of commitment in secure facilities contributed to disproportionality in court involvement and detention, addressing an important gap in the intersection of disability and juvenile justice literature. Using linked educational and juvenile justice records of 41,812 youth, we sought to ascertain whether, among juvenile offenders, youth with disabilities had higher likelihood of adjudication as delinquent or placement in secure facilities for longer periods of time compared to youth without disabilities. Results indicated that youth with and without disabilities were adjudicated and placed similarly, suggesting that disparities contributing to overrepresentation of youth with disabilities in detained populations may manifest earlier in youths’ involvement in the justice system. We conclude with implications for research, policy, and practice.

Psychosocial Predictors of Clinicians' Recommendations and Judges' Placement Orders in a Juvenile Court

2008 ◽  
Vol 35 (11) ◽  
pp. 1429-1448 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip C. O'Donnell ◽  
Arthur J. Lurigio
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
Community Setting ◽  
Clinical Information ◽  
Cook County ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Juvenile Courts ◽  
Sentencing Decisions ◽  
Forensic Assessments ◽  
The Relationship

A large proportion of youthful offenders who enter the juvenile justice system have psychiatric disorders and psychosocial risk factors that perpetuate delinquency, and addressing these issues has been a growing concern of juvenile courts nationwide. This study examines the relationship between the clinical information provided through comprehensive forensic assessments and clinicians' recommendations for placement (community setting vs. secure facility) and judges' sentencing decisions. The sample included 248 youth, ranging from 11 to 17 years old, who were adjudicated in the Cook County (Chicago) Juvenile Court. A reliable and valid approach for coding psychosocial variables is also presented as a prototype for future research. Consistent with previous studies, results show that judges are inclined to adopt clinical recommendations and that the material provided by comprehensive clinical evaluations could diminish the effects of offense and delinquency-based factors on dispositions.

Racial Determinants of the Judicial Transfer Decision: Prosecuting Violent Youth in Criminal Court

1987 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 259-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Fagan ◽  
Martin Forst ◽  
T. Scott Vivona
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Offenders ◽  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Racial Differences ◽  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
Violent Offenders ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Minority Adolescents ◽  
Capital Crimes

In the past decade, juvenile justice policy has shifted from “the best interests of the child” to approaches blending punishment and rehabilitation. The result has been efforts to narrow juvenile justice system jurisdiction, especially for violent, serious, and chronic offenders. Judicial transfer is the most widely applied mechanism to remove juvenile offenders to criminal jurisdiction. Transferred youth, particularly violent offenders, often receive lengthy prison sentences. A disproportionate share of male, minority adolescents are arrested for serious and violent crime. Thus, the harsh consequences of transfer, compounded by racial disparities in both juvenile and criminal justice processes have major implications for serious juvenile offenders considered for transfer. Transfer as a juvenile court disposition has received little scholarly attention, and racial determinants of transfer have yet to be analyzed. This study examines racial differences in judicial transfer decisions for chronically violent delinquents in four urban juvenile courts. Though minority youth were transferred more often, race was not predictive of transfer in multivariate models combining offense and offender characteristics. Rather, offense characteristics and defendant's age at the time of the offense are the strongest contributors to the transfer decision. Murder, in particular, is a determinant of transfer. The results suggest that juvenile court judges have adopted implicit policies to reserve transfer for older violent offenders, especially those charged with capital crimes.

American juvenile justice system: history in the making

2013 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 275-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron Meng ◽  
Roland Segal ◽  
Eric Boden
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Offenders ◽  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
Reasonable Doubt ◽  
Court System ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
The 19Th Century ◽  
Mandatory Sentencing

Abstract The original theory behind separating juvenile offenders from adult offenders was to provide care and direction for youngsters instead of isolation and punishment. This idea took hold in the 19th century and became mainstream by the early 20th century. In the 1950s and 1960s, public concern grew because of a perceived lack of effectiveness and lack of rights. The Supreme Court made a series of rulings solidifying juvenile rights including the right to receive notice of charges, the right to have an attorney and the right to have charges proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In the 1980s, the public view was that the juvenile court system was too lenient and that juvenile crimes were on the rise. In the 1990s, many states passed punitive laws, including mandatory sentencing and blanket transfers to adult courts for certain crimes. As a result, the pendulum is now swinging back toward the middle from rehabilitation toward punishment.

Juvenile Justice: Overview

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosemary C. Sarri
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Offenders ◽  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Mentally Ill ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
Organization Structure ◽  
Children Of Color ◽  
Short Period ◽  
Key Issues

The juvenile justice system was established with the 1899 founding in Chicago of the Juvenile Court, an institution that spread to all the states in a short period of time. The history, organization, structure, and operations of the system are described along with its growth along with increasing Among the key issues examined are: gender, overrepresentation of children of color, placement of mentally ill and abused or neglected children, human rights, and re-integration of juvenile offenders after their returning home.

The Automatic Waiver of Juveniles and Substantive Justice

1993 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 253-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon I. Singer
Keyword(s):  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Regression Analysis ◽  
Juvenile Offenders ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
Single Parent ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Grand Jury ◽  
Case Processing ◽  
Substantive Justice ◽  
Legislative Waiver

Legislative waiver bypasses juvenile court and juvenile justice officials by initially transferring jurisdiction over juveniles arrested for serious offenses to criminal court. Supporters of legislative waiver argue that the exclusion of offense categories from juvenile court jurisdiction best meets the punishment-oriented objectives of waiver. However, a logistic regression analysis of case processing decisions in a state with automatic transfer provisions revealed that juvenile offenders from single-parent households were more likely to face a grand jury indictment than juveniles from dual-parent households.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document