NCJ Number
45576
Date Published
1978
Length
29 pages
Annotation
A NORMATIVE MODEL IS DEVELOPED TO COMPARE WHAT SHOULD TAKE PLACE IN JUVENILE COURT CASE PROCESSING AND WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS TO PROVIDE A MEASURE OF COURT PERFORMANCE.
Abstract
THE MODEL ASSUMES THREE STAGES IN THE PROCESSING OF JUVENILES THROUGH THE COURTS: (1) INTAKE, WHICH SHOULD PROVIDE A FOUNDATION FOR ALL FOLLOWING PROCESSING DECISIONS; (2) ADJUDICTION; AND (3) DISPOSITION. IN THE MODEL THE INTAKE PROCESS BEGINS WITH THE INITIAL INVESTIGATION AND INTERVIEW AND ENDS WITH EITHER DISMISSAL, INFORMAL HANDLING, OR REFERRAL TO THE PROSECUTOR AND DEFENSE COUNSEL. IDEALLY, THIS WORK SHOULD BE DONE BY HIGHLY-TRAINED SPECIALISTS. A NATIONAL SAMPLE OF 462 COURTS CONDUCTED AS PART OF THIS STUDY FOUND THAT 87 HAD FULL-TIME INTAKE PERSONNEL (41 PERCENT); 64 COURTS HAD PROBATION WORKERS PERFORM INTAKE UNDIFFERENTIATED FROM THEIR OTHER DUTIES (29 PERCENT); AND 61 COURTS HAD VARIOUS OTHER ARRANGEMENTS WITH SOME DELEGATION OF INTAKE TO SPECIFIC MEMBERS OF THE COURT STAFF. IN THE UNDIFFERENTIATED AND COMPOSITE COURTS THE INTAKE WAS OFTEN LIMITED TO A CURSORY GATHERING OF FACTS AND THE ACTUAL SCREENING INTAKE WAS PERFORMED BY THE JUDGE DURING THE PRELIMINARY HEARING. THESE OFTEN FAILED TO INFORM THE DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHTS IN A MEANINGFUL MANNER. COURTS WITH SEPARATE INTAKE DEPARTMENTS SPENT TIME MAKING SURE THE YOUNG PERSON AND THE FAMILY UNDERSTOOD THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL, HELPED FIND COUNSEL, AND PROVIDED MORE EFFECTIVE SCREENING OF CASES BEFORE THEY REACHED THE COURT. IN THE MODEL THE DEFENSE COUNSEL REVIEWS ALL INFORMATION BEFORE THE CASE ENTERS THE COURT PROCESS. IN PRACTICE ATTORNEYS SPENT WIDELY VARYING AMOUNTS OF TIME REVIEWING EACH CASE. THE SAMPLE SHOWED ONLY 17 PERCENT OF COURTS EMPLOYED LAWYERS FULL TIME, 11 PERCENT PART TIME. PROSECUTORS HAD INFLUENCE ON THE CASE IN 75 PERCENT OF THE COURTS AND DEFENSE ATTORNEYS HAD INFLUENCE IN 66 PERCENT. IN ONLY 11 PERCENT DID ATTORNEYS HAVE 'GREAT INFLUENCE.' THIS PROBABLY EXPLAINS THE SMALL INVOLVEMENT OF DUE PROCESS IN THE COURT HEARINGS. CONTRASTED TO THE MODEL, THE FIELD STUDY ALSO SHOWED THAT EVALUATIONS BY EXPERTS OCCURRED ONLY IN CASES OF SERIOUS EMOTIONAL, SOCIAL, OR PHYSICAL PROBLEM OR IN CASES IN WHICH A SERIOUS DISPOSITION WAS BEING CONSIDERED. IN ACTUAL PRACTICE, THE JUDGE IS THE MOST INFLUENTIAL ACTOR, FOLLOWED BY THE PROBATION OFFICER. DISPOSITIONS OF CASES WERE REVIEWED WITHIN 6 MONTHS BY 40 PERCENT OF COURTS; NO PERIODIC REIVEWS AT ALL WERE CONDUCTED BY 53 PERCENT. GREATER ATTENTION TO INTAKE AND MORE ACTIVE INVOLVEMENT BY DEFENSE AND PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS IS RECOMMENDED. (GLR)