Rethinking Juvenile Justice

Scott, Elizabeth S.; Steinberg, Laurence

doi:10.2307/j.ctv103xdxp

Cited by 87 publications

(165 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

159

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is also important to remember that these analyses only considered outcomes related to reoffending. The effects of placement on many noncrime, developmental outcomes critical to positive adjustment in early adulthood are generally unknown (Scott and Steinberg, 2008). It may be that, even though this analysis attempts to balance over age at placement, there are substantive, underlying differences based on age and maturity that contribute in unique and offsetting ways to the overall null effect observed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, the policy question germane to this debate is finding the level of punishment and/or treatment within the juvenile justice system that maximizes the public safety benefits of confinement (Bhati and Piquero, 2008). A demonstration of capacity for effective punishment and the efficient use of resources are essential to the survival of the juvenile court (Schneider, 1990;Scott and Steinberg, 2008). If longer stays in institutional facilities are not producing gains in reduced offending, then it is questionable whether this use of resources is either justifiable or politically attractive .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Estimating a Dose‐response Relationship Between Length of Stay and Future Recidivism in Serious Juvenile Offenders*

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of sanctions on subsequent criminal activity is of central theoretical importance in criminology. A key question for juvenile justice policy is the degree to which serious juvenile offenders respond to sanctions and/or treatment administered by the juvenile court. The policy question germane to this debate is finding the level of confinement within the juvenile justice system that maximizes the public safety and therapeutic benefits of institutional confinement. Unfortunately, research on this issue has been limited with regard to serious juvenile offenders. We use longitudinal data from a large sample of serious juvenile offenders from two large cities to 1) estimate a causal treatment effect of institutional placement, as opposed to probation, on future rate of rearrest and 2) investigate the existence of a marginal effect (i.e., benefit) for longer length of stay once the institutional placement decision had been made. We accomplish the latter by determining a doseresponse relationship between the length of stay and future rates of rearrest and self-reported offending. The results suggest that an overall null effect of placement exists on future rates of rearrest or self-reported offending for serious juvenile offenders. We also find that, for the group placed out of the community, it is apparent that little or no marginal benefit exists for longer lengths of stay. Theoretical, empirical, and policy issues are outlined. NIH Public Access Author ManuscriptCriminology. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 January 4. Recent policies have narrowed the jurisdiction of juvenile court by removing the most serious offenders through various mechanisms, which include waiver, statutory exclusion, and lowering the age of majority (Fagan, 2008;Feld, 1998Feld, , 1999Griffin, 2003;Zimring, 1998). These changes have been occurring in an ongoing cycle for nearly three decades, capped by a frenzy in the 1990s, when virtually every state acted in some way to "toughen up" laws governing the processing of serious juvenile offenders. The removal of many serious offenders from juvenile court jurisdiction has raised basic questions about the viability of the juvenile court itself (Fagan, Kupchik, and Liberman, 2007). Given this political environment, demonstrating the effectiveness of the juvenile courts' treatment and confinement practices is essential for informed debate about future juvenile justice policy.It is important to understand what prompted all this change in the first place. In reaction to increases in rates of youth violence in the 1980s (Blumstein and Wallman, 2000), both policy makers and the public lost confidence in the capacity of the juvenile court to fulfill its mission of effectively treating and/or deterring serious juvenile offenders from committing future crimes (Moon, Cullen, and Wright, 2003). Zimring (1998) suggests that the perception of leniency led to a related perception of increased public safety risks. Perceived short stays in juvenile facilities also offended the popular and...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating a Dose‐response Relationship Between Length of Stay and Future Recidivism in Serious Juvenile Offenders*

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The diminished responsibility of young people for offending is thought to require mitigated sanctions to avoid permanently life‐changing penalties and provide room for reform. Compared with adults, youths’ immature judgment reflects differences in appreciation of risk, appraisal of short‐ and long‐term consequences, self‐control, and susceptibility to negative peer influences (Scott and Steinberg, ). The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Roper v. Simmons (2005) to abolish executions of juvenile offenders in the United States provides the backdrop for our discussion of the reduced criminal responsibility of young people.…”

Section: Justifications For the Special Legal Treatment Of Juvenile Omentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many justifications have been put forward for treating juveniles differently from adults. It has been argued that juveniles have less mature judgment; poorer emotion regulation; and self‐regulation; poorer decision making in offending opportunities; and poorer executive functioning, reasoning, abstract thinking, and planning (Scott and Steinberg, ). Arguably, juveniles have poorer impulse control and are more likely to take risks and commit crimes for excitement rather than according to a rational cost–benefit assessment.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Young Adult Offenders

Farrington

Loeber

Howell

2012

Criminology & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Until the 19th century, the legal system of the United States treated juvenile and adult law-breakers alike (Fox, 1970). In the late 1800s, however, the country's evolving perceptions of adolescence as a developmental stage distinct from adulthood resulted in critical legal reforms, such as age-segregated correctional institutions for youth (Scott & Steinberg, 2008). Other meaningful, systemic changes appeared at the end of the 19th century when the Progressive Movement fostered the creation of a dedicated juvenile court (Rothman, 1978).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Judges’ Perceptions of Screening, Assessment, Prevention, and Treatment for Substance Use, Mental Health, and HIV among Juveniles on Community Supervision: Results of a National Survey

Scott

Lurigio

Dennis

2017

Juvenile Family Court J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Juvenile Justice-Translational Research on Interventions for Adolescents in the Legal System (JJ-TRIALS) National Survey was funded in part to describe the current status of screening, assessment, prevention and treatment for substance use, mental health, and HIV for youth on community supervision within the US juvenile justice system. Surveys were administered to community supervision agencies and their primary behavioral healthcare providers, as well as the juvenile or family court judge with the largest caseload of youth on community supervision. This article presents the findings from the judges’ survey. Survey results indicated juvenile and family court judges were open to innovations for improving the court’s performance, rated their relationships with collaborators highly, and appreciated the impact of screening, assessment, prevention, and treatment on judicial practices.

show abstract

Rethinking Juvenile Justice

Cited by 87 publications

References 0 publications

Estimating a Dose‐response Relationship Between Length of Stay and Future Recidivism in Serious Juvenile Offenders*

Estimating a Dose‐response Relationship Between Length of Stay and Future Recidivism in Serious Juvenile Offenders*

Young Adult Offenders

Judges’ Perceptions of Screening, Assessment, Prevention, and Treatment for Substance Use, Mental Health, and HIV among Juveniles on Community Supervision: Results of a National Survey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About