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: 69382 Find in a Library
Title: PROCEDURAL REFORM AND THE REDUCTION OF DISCRETION - THE CASE OF THE JUVENILE COURT
Author(s): M SOSIN
Corporate Author: University of Wisconsin, Madison
Institute for Research on Poverty
United States of America
Date Published: 1977
Page Count: 34
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice/
Rockville, MD 20849
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Madison, WI 53706
US Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare
Washington, DC 20201
US Dept of Justice

US Dept of Justice
Washington, DC 20531
US Dept of Justice NIJ Pub
Washington, DC 20531
Grant Number: 76NI-99-0009; 75NI-99-0010; 76JN-99-0001
Publication Number: 399-77
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
NCJRS paper reproduction
Box 6000, Dept F
Rockville, MD 20849
United States of America
Document: PDF
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: FOCUSING ON DUE PROCESS GUARANTEES, THE STUDY TESTS THE UTILITY OF PROCEDURAL REFORMS IN REDUCING JUVENILE COURT DISCRETION.
Abstract: THE U.S. SUPREME COURT'S DUE PROCESS MANDATES EMPHASIZED IN KENT, GAULT, AND WINSHIP (E.G., THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL, THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES, AND THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT) INTEND TO CONTROL UNFAIR, DISCRETIONARY BEHAVIOR IN JUVENILE COURTS. THE REPORT SURVEYS A RANDOM SAMPLE OF 600 COURTS IN 400 COUNTIES (POPULATION OVER 50,000) WITH REGARD TO FOUR TYPES OF IMPACT OF THE DUE PROCESS MANDATES: (1) COMPLIANCE TO THE MANDATES, (2) INCREASED INPUT OF JUVENILES AND THEIR ADVOCATES AT ADJUDICATION, (3) INFLUENCE OF THE MANDATES ON STAGES OTHER THAN THE ADJUDICATION STAGE OF THE HEARINGS, AND (4) ALTERATIONS IN OUTCOMES OR THE QUANTITY OF DECISIONS. BASED ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE REPLIES OF 277 JUDGES AND 237 ADMINISTRATORS (NEARLY A 60 PERCENT RESPONSE RATE), RESULTS INDICATE THAT (1) NEARLY ONE-THIRD OF LISTED MANDATES WERE NOT COMPLIED WITH IN A GIVEN COURT AS REPORTED BY THE JUDGE, (2) THE RELATIONS AND INFLUENCE OF ALL LEGAL ACTORS AT ADJUDICATION (JUDGE, DEFENSE ATTORNEY, PROBATION OFFICERS) HAD NOT CHANGED AT ALL, (3) THE MANDATES HAD A SOMEWHAT LARGER INFLUENCE ON DISPOSITION THAN ADJUDICATION, AND (4) THE MANDATES APPEARED TO HAVE NO EFFECT ON AGGREGATE CASE OUTCOMES AND DID LITTLE TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF COMMITMENTS AND FORMALLY HANDLED CASES. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT OTHER FORMS OF LEGAL CHANGE WOULD BE MORE USEFUL. STATISTICAL CHARTS AND TABLES SUPPORT THE RESULTS, AND 21 REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED.
Index Term(s): Judicial discretion; Juvenile adjudication; Juvenile court procedures; Juvenile due process; Regulations compliance
Note: INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH ON POVERTY DISCUSSION PAPERS
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=69382

*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.