Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study involves an examination of the relative impact of legal and extra-legal variables on dispositional outcomes bhi pre-court and court level officials in the juvenile court system. A number of studies have documented variations in case processing by police, probation officers and judges in the Juvenile Court. They reveal that differential criteria influence the disposition decisions of cases seen bY these officials. Results from this studi' demonstrate that legalfactors play a more important role in the official processing of juvenile offenders than extra-legal variables. Screening decisions by probation officers depend primarily on legal aspects of the case and secondarily on physical attributes of the defendant; legal variables and social variables are more salient in judicial level decision-making.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arnold, W. R. Race and ethnicity relative to other factors in juvenilecourtdispositions . American Journalo Sociologj, 1971, 77, 211-277.

Becker, H. S. Outsiders: Studies in the sociologi' of deviance. New York: Free Press. 1963.

Black, D. J. & Reiss, A. J., Jr. Police control of juveniles. American Sociological Review, 1970, 35, 63-77.

Blalock, H. M., Jr. TheorY construction. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969.

Blalock, H. M., Jr. Social statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1972.

Blankenship, R. L. & Singh, B. K. Differential labeling of juveniles: A multivariate analysis. Criminology, 1976, 13, 471-490.

Ferdinand. I-. N. & ILuchterhand. E.G. Inner-city youth, the police. the Juvenile court. and justice. Soctil Problems, 1970. 17, 510-527.

Fisher, F. M. The identification problem in econometrics. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1966.

Goldman, N. The differential select tion of juvenile offenders/for court appearance e. New York: National Council on Crime and Delinquency. 1963.

10.

Kitsuse, J. I. & Cicourel, A. V. A note on the uses of official statistics. Social Problems, 1963, 11, 131-139.

11.

Miller. M. K. Health status, health resources and consolidated structural parameters: Implications for public health care policy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania Sate University, 1975.

12.

Murphy, P. T. Our kindly parent the state. New York: Viking, 1974.

13.

Namboodiri, N. . Krishnan, C. , Lewis, F. & Blalock, H. M.,Jr. Applied multistariate analysis and experimental design. New York: McGraw Hill, Inc., 1975.

14.

Paxii. I. & HBriar S. Police encounters xxith jueniles. Americal Journal of Sociology, 1964. 7), 206-214.

15.

Scariptt. H. R. & Stephe nson R. M. uenile court dispositions: Factors in the decision-making process. (iou' aolt / Ia)i'/ioquc o, 1971. 1 142-151.

16.

Sulln an. J. I. Multiple indicators and complex causal models. In H. M. Blalock. Jr. (Ed.), Ca sal not/lel/s in the isoi ru/. e'nm Cix C hicago: %idine-Atherton, Inc., 1971.

17.

Sulli an. I & O'Connor, R. E. Electoral choice and popular control of public police The case of the 1966 house elections. -Ioteriao Politicia .a(! N tie Reiievi. 1972. 66 1256-1268.

18.

Terry. R. M. Discrimination in the handling of juvernile offenders by social-control agencies . Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 1967 4 218-230.

19.

Thorn htrx. I. P. Race. socioeconomic status and sentencing in the jus enilejustice sv stem . TheJournal olf (CrniitaI air a/ti (Crioiltti/iui. 1973 64 90-98.

20.

Wei ncr. NC I & Wiillie.(. . Decisions bs us enile officers, American Journal of Sociology, 1971. 7 199-21(.

21.

Werthman, C. & Priliain, I. (Yang members and the police. In ). .I. Bordua (Ed.). The Police: six sociological essays. New York: Wiley, 1968.

22.

Wolfgang, i Q I he police and the delinquent in txr o cities In Si heceler (Ed.), (Cont it.ilgl tileitiquenit. Nes YorkV Wile!. 1968.

23.

WoItol eirntic III . igho. R N.I & Sellin, T. 1)ilinillueftr 1in a hrtirdt i i/t. Chicago: Vnixersits of Chicago Press. I97'2.

Disposition Decisions by Juvenile Court Probation Officers and Judges: A Multivariate Analysis

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References