Knowledgeable Judges Make a Difference: Judicial Beliefs Affect Juvenile Court Transfer Decisions

Abstract

This study examined how judicial knowledge and attitudes about transfer affects transfer decisions by juvenile court judges. Participants included 232 juvenile court judges from around the country who completed a vignette survey that presented a prototypical case involving a serious juvenile offender. Participants were asked to decide whether the juvenile should be transferred and to rate his rehabilitative potential. Judges who believed in the deterrent effects of transfer were more likely to recommend that the juvenile be transferred and to rate him as having lower rehabilitative potential. More experienced judges saw greater rehabilitative potential in the juvenile and were less likely to transfer him to the criminal court. Overall, judges tended to think that transfer lacked general and specific deterrent effects, endorsed rehabilitative over punitive goals in sentencing, and felt positively about the juvenile justice system's effectiveness in handling serious offenders. Yet, a sizable minority of judges felt otherwise. The implications of the findings for judicial education and legal advocacy are discussed.j fcj_1063 15..24

Educational Instructors’ Attitudes Toward Juvenile Inmates: The Effect of the Inmate’s Role in a Criminal Event and the Instructors’ Belief in a Just World

“…Previous studies on the correctional staff's attitudes toward adolescent offenders mainly focused on specific variables. These included the respondents' demographic characteristics (e.g., Ben-David & Reuven, 2015;Bohsiu, 2000;Marsh & Evans, 2006;Mears, 2001;Sprott, 1999) and beliefs (e.g., Davis, Severy, Kraus, & Whitaker, 1993;Greene & Evelo, 2013;Mears, Hay, Gertz, & Mancini, 2007;Redding & Hensl, 2011), and the characteristics of the juvenile offenders (e.g., Farnum & Stevenson, 2013;Najdowski & Bottoms, 2015). This approach lacks sensitivity to the complexity of juvenile correctional settings and issues.…”

The impact of waiver to adult court on youths’ perceptions of procedural justice.

“…In addition to procedural disparities, there have also been numerous studies examining the role of criminal justice actors in the juvenile justice system and the transfer process. Studies have shown that, in addition to legal factors, juvenile court judges take their own attitudes about the offender and their beliefs about transfer effectiveness into consideration when making waiver decisions (D’Angelo, 2007; Redding & Hensl, 2011). In other words, juvenile court judges are likely to take numerous factors into account when considering a juvenile waiver, which could affect youth’s perceptions of fair treatment in the juvenile system.…”

Offenders, Ideologies, and Legal and Extralegal Factors: Juvenile Court Judges' Perspectives on Disposition Decisions

“…Feder (1997a, 1997b) found support for both rehabilitation and specific deterrence and incapacitation strategies among juvenile judges in Florida during the "get tough" era. Redding and Hensl (2011) report that juvenile judges still believe rehabilitation is the best way to approach juvenile offenders. Bishop (2006) and Merlo and Benekos (2010) suggest that we may have overestimated the extent to which the system has gotten "tough" with juveniles; utilizing several national level indicators (e.g., youth waived to adult court, out of home placement dispositions, juvenile probation dispositions), Merlo and Benekos (2010) suggest that the rehabilitation ethos is alive and well in juvenile justice.…”

“…Bishop (2006) and Merlo and Benekos (2010) suggest that we may have overestimated the extent to which the system has gotten "tough" with juveniles; utilizing several national level indicators (e.g., youth waived to adult court, out of home placement dispositions, juvenile probation dispositions), Merlo and Benekos (2010) suggest that the rehabilitation ethos is alive and well in juvenile justice. What is missing from our current knowledge is the extent to which the different social control ideologies frame judges' disposition decisions, especially regarding specific types of offenders (e.g., property, violent, status); and, of course, judges' individual perspectives matter for the disposition of cases (Catlin et al, 2011;Redding & Hensl, 2011).…”