Police Decisions for Dealing With Juvenile Offenders

• NCJ Number: 91121
• Journal: British Journal of Criminology Volume: 23 Issue: 3 Dated: (July 1983) Pages: 249-262
• Author(s): J Mott
• Date Published: 1983
• Length: 14 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United Kingdom

Annotation

An analysis of juvenile offender handling in six English police departments revealed few differences in criteria governing the decision to caution or prosecute. Most first offenders of all ages and both sexes were cautioned, and virtually all recidivists were prosecuted.

Abstract

The sample population of 470 males and 128 female offenders between 10 and 17 years old for whom a decision was made on whether to caution or prosecute during October and November 1978 was drawn from the Metropolitan Police, Leicestershire, Sussex, Nottinghamshire, Northamptonshire, and Staffordshire departments. The victim or the victim's agent reported one-half of the boys' offenses, and the police detected 23 percent. The most important reasons for prosecuting first offenders were the juvenile's denying the offense or the victim insisting on prosecution. Another common reason was seriousness of the offense, such as burglary or wounding. Police appeared to consider the amount of damage or loss and parents' willingness to offer compensation in making their decisions. Only 12 percent of the male recidivists and 14 percent of the girls were cautioned, usually because of social service departments' advice that other action was already being taken. The data suggested that social service agencies cannot provide information or advice in many cases because the juvenile is unknown to them. This study and others indicate that one-quarter to one-third of male juvenile first offenders and less than 10 percent of the female first offenders who are cautioned are likely to reoffend within 2 years. Thus, cautioning for first offenders appears as effective as lenient court disposals. These results also suggest that some variation in cautioning rates may be explained by the types of offenders and reoffending rates of the local juvenile population and public attitudes toward offending. Tables and 14 references are provided.