skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 44237 Find in a Library
Title: DISPOSITION PROCESS UNDER THE JUVENILE JUSTICE STANDARDS PROJECT
Journal: BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW  Volume:57  Issue:4  Dated:(JULY 1977)  Pages:732-753
Author(s): S Z FISHER
Corporate Author: Boston University
Managing Editor
School of Law
United States of America
Date Published: 1977
Page Count: 22
Sponsoring Agency: Boston University
Boston, MA 02215
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: AN OVERVIEW AND A CRITIQUE OF THE DISPOSITION PROCESS DELINEATED IN THE PROPOSED STANDARDS DRAFTED BY THE JUVENILE JUSTICE STANDARDS PROJECT ARE PRESENTED.
Abstract: THE DISPOSITION PROCESS IS DESCRIBED IN THE PROJECT'S VOLUMES ON DISPOSITIONS, DISPOSITIONAL PROCEDURES, JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND SANCTIONS, AND CORRECTIONS ADMINISTRATION. THE MAJOR ELEMENTS OF THE DISPOSITION PROCESS ARE SUMMARIZED AS THEY RELATE TO SUBSTANTIVE LIMITS AND GOALS, PROCEDURAL AND EVIDENTIARY REQUIREMENTS, AND MODIFICATION AND ENFORCEMENT. THE CRITIQUE ENCOMPASSES THREE ASPECTS OF THE DISPOSITION PROCESS: SCOPE OF THE JUDGE'S DECISION; DISPOSITION CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES; AND CRITERIA FOR MODIFYING THE DISPOSITION. THE STANDARDS PURPORT TO EFFECT A RADICAL SHIFT IN JUVENILE COURT PHILOSOPHY AWAY FROM REHABILITATION AND TOWARD JUST DESERTS. HOWEVER, THE STANDARDS REFLECT SUBSTANTIAL CONFUSISON AND AMBIVALENCE ABOUT THE SHIFT. THE JUST DESERTS PRINCIPLE IS EVIDENT IN THE STANDARDS' TREATMENT OF GRADED MAXIMUM PENALITIES; THE REQUIREMENT THAT, WITHIN THE MAXIMUMS, THE COURT SELECT THE PENALTY MOST APPROPRIATE TO THE DELINQUENT'S CULPABILITY AND DEGREE OF MORAL RESPONSIBILITY; RESTRICTIONS ON THE COURT'S POWER TO BASE SENTENCES ON OFFENDER-RELATED INFORMATION; AND ABOLITION OF PAROLE. HOWEVER, OTHER ASPECTS OF THE STANDARDS QUALIFY AND, IN SOME CASES, CONTRADICT THE JUST DESERTS PRINCIPLE, AS IN THE ABSENCE OF MINIMUM SENTENCES, AMBIGUITY REGARDING GROUNDS FOR REDUCTION OF DISPOSITION, AND RESTRICTIONS ON CUSTODIAL DISPOSITIONS. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE STANDARDS' PURPORTED ADOPTION OF JUST DESERTS SENTENCING IS BELIED BY THE INCORPORATION OF SUCH OPPOSING PRINCIPLES AS PREVENTION AND REHABILITATION AND THAT THE STANDARDS FAIL TO ARTICULATE A COHERENT INTERRELATIONSHIP AMONG VARIOUS SENTENCING AIMS AND CRITERIA. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED).
Index Term(s): Critiques; Dispositions; Juvenile adjudication; Juvenile courts; Juvenile justice system; Standards
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=44237

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.