Solution Without a Problem: Judges' Perspectives on the Impacts of the Introduction of Public Defenders on Israel's Juvenile Courts

• NCJ Number: 209215
• Journal: British Journal of Criminology Volume: 45 Issue: 2 Dated: March 2005 Pages: 183-200
• Author(s): Allan Borowski; Mimi Ajzenstadt
• Date Published: March 2005
• Length: 18 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United Kingdom

Annotation

This article presents the major findings of a study that examined the views of Israeli juvenile court judges and other major court actors regarding the impacts of mandating public-defender representation for juveniles who cannot afford a private attorney.

Abstract

The article begins with a brief history of Israel's juvenile court, followed by a review of previous research on legal representation in the juvenile court. The current study differed from these previous studies in involving in-depth interviews with major court actors over a prolonged period in order to obtain their perceptions of the effects of mandating the use of public defenders in juvenile court. Interviews were conducted between late 2000 and early 2002, which encompasses the early stages of the use of public defenders in Israel's juvenile court. Forty in-depth interviews were conducted at 6 urban sites across Israel. Six interviews were with juvenile court judges (there were only 8 in the entire country), 14 with public defenders, 12 with juvenile probation officers, and 8 with prosecutors. This article focuses on interviews with the judges. The major themes that emerged from the judges' interviews were the need for public defenders, the problems associated with public defender representation, the ideal and the actual roles played by public defenders, the judges' attitudes toward the public defenders, and whether the introduction of public defenders involves a shift in the court's underlying philosophy. The judges constructed the ideal or preferred role of the public defender as "defender of the court" rather than of the juvenile defendants, indicating some resistance by the judges to adversarial challenges to established procedures and a cohesive courtroom workgroup. Thus, in spite of apparent changes in juvenile court procedures to reflect the justice model of adult courts, the nonadversarial welfare model of the juvenile court continues to mold the attitudes and procedures of the court. A 48-item bibliography