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: 50995 Find in a Library
Title: JUSTICE FOR JUVENILES - INTAKE AND CASE PROCESSING IN THE JUVENILE COURT
Author(s): P M CREEKMORE
Date Published: 1977
Page Count: 210
Sponsoring Agency: UMI Dissertation Services
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
Sale Source: UMI Dissertation Services
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
United States of America
Type: Thesis/Dissertation
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: INDEPTH STUDY OF SEVEN COURTS AND DATA FROM A NATIONAL SAMPLE WERE USED TO EXAMINE EFFECTS OF COURT STRUCTURE AND ROUTINELY AVAILABLE COUNSEL ON INTAKE, PROCESSING, AND DISPOSITION OF JUVENILE CASES.
Abstract: THE SEVEN COURTS, GIVEN FICTITIOUS NAMES, ARE IDENTIFIED AS BEING IN URBAN, MIDDLE-SIZED CITY, AND SEMIRURAL AREAS OF THE NORTHEAST AND CENTRAL UNITED STATES. FOUR HAD STRUCTURED INTAKE, PROCESSING, AND DISPOSITION PROCEDURES WITH HIGH REGARD FOR DUE PROCESS. TWO OF THESE HAD LEGAL COUNSEL ROUTINELY AVAILABLE TO JUVENILES. THE OTHER THREE HAD INFORMAL STRUCTURES. INTAKE, CASE PROCESSING, CASE CHARACTERISTICS, ADJUDICATION, AND DISPOSITION ARE DISCUSSED IN DETAIL FOR EACH COURT AND THE RESULTS COMPARED WITH DATA GATHERED FROM A NATIONAL SAMPLE. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE STRUCTURED COURTS HAD SEPARATE INTAKE DEPARTMENTS, THAT THE INTAKE OFFICERS HANDLED EACH CASE MORE FAIRLY, AND THAT THERE WAS LITTLE TEMPTATION TO MIX THE PROBATION AND THE INTAKE FUNCTIONS. IN THE TWO WITH COUNSEL AVAILABLE, DISCRIMINATION BY RACE AND SEX DISAPPEARED. HOWEVER, DISCRIMINATORY HANDLING WAS FOUND IN BOTH THE INFORMAL AND THE FORMAL COURTS WHEN SUCH COUNSEL WAS NOT AVAILABLE. ADJUDICATION ALSO SHOWED SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES RELATED TO COURT STRUCTURE. AGAIN, AVAILABLE LEGAL COUNSEL RESULTED IN LESS DISCRIMINATORY HANDLING. THE STUDY CALLS THE PROCESSING OF STATUS OFFENDERS THE LEAST SATISFACTORY PART OF THESE FINDINGS. REGARDLESS OF COURT STRUCTURE, STATUS OFFENDERS HAD PROBLEMS SECURING DUE PROCESS. REASONS FOR THIS ARE DISCUSSED. SUGGESTIONS FOR JUVENILE COURT REFORMS CONCLUDE THE STUDY. COMPREHENSIVE TABLES PRESENT SURVEY DATA. THE STUDY INTERVIEW SCHEDULE AND A BIBLIOGRAPHY ARE INCLUDED. (GLR)
Index Term(s): Due process model; Juvenile adjudication; Juvenile court intake; Juvenile court procedures; Juvenile courts; Juvenile status offenders; Right to Due Process; Studies
Note: UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN - DOCTORAL DISSERTATION
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=50995

*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.