Toward Clarification of the Concept of ‘Minority’ Status and Decision-Making in Juvenile Court Proceedings

Abstract

Although researchers have studied the influence of being a minority on juvenile court processing and case outcomes, few have adequately conceptualized and tested for the atfferent effects being Latino may have relative to being African American or being white. There has also been a failure to consider all available case outcomes at the stage of intake and decision making across the juvenile justice system. In either situation, race/ethnic differences may be obscured or enhanced The objective of the present research was to study decision-making within juvenile court proceedings in the state of Iowa to fill these voids.Utilizing an interpretation of conflict theory that emphasizes stereotyping upon decisionmaking, the results suggest that differences exist in the case processing and outcomes of Latinos, Afncan Americans, and whites. Separating the outcome of release from diversion and a recommendation for further intervention at intake also provide evidence of race/ethnic differences that may have not been othenvise identified *

Differentiating among racial/ethnic groups and its implications for understanding juvenile justice decision making

“…Similar to previous research (e.g., Leiber, 1994Leiber, , 1995, differences by and among racial/ethnic groups were evident and these differences were conditioned by the stage examined and involved both receiving more lenient and more severe case outcomes. For example, all minority first time offenders were less likely to participate in informal probation at intake than White first time offenders.…”

A multilevel analysis of juvenile court processes: The importance of community characteristics

“…As previously shown, attributions can be linked to specific racial/ethnic groups and can affect offenders in different ways. For example, stereotypes unique to Blacks (Bridges & Steen, 1998;Leiber & Stairs, 1999;Sampson & Laub, 1993), Hispanic/Latinos (Leiber, 1995;Mata & Herrerías, 2002;Portes, 1990), and American Indians (Bynum & Paternoster, 1984;Leiber, 1994;Young, 1990;Zatz, Lujan, & Snyder-Joy, 1991 (Maupin & BondMaupin, 1999;Dannefer & Schutt, 1982), while American Indians are treated less severely than Blacks (Leiber, 1994 While a few studies have examined how juvenile court processing impacts juvenile offending, none have systematically taken into account how various juvenile court outcomes influence adult offending. In order to examine how particular juvenile court outcomes (e.g., diversion, detention, and disposition) affect reoffending, this study will integrate statewide adult criminal history information to juvenile court data and examine how various juvenile court outcomes affect recidivism of juveniles post age 17.…”

The Impact of Victimization, Mental Health Problems, and Disabilities on Juvenile Justice Processing: Does Gender Matter?

“…The lack of race effect at adjudication has been explained by either a “corrective effect,” where judges attempt to correct disparities occurring at earlier decision points, or as a result of “tight coupling” at this stage; that is, judges are more constrained by legal criteria compared to those making arrest and detention decisions (Bishop et al, 2010). It is possible that Black youth were arrested and treated harshly at intake (where there is less scrutiny and legal oversight), and then treated neutrally at adjudication due to the increased influence of law at this stage (Leiber, 1995). Future research should explore the interaction between victimization, mental health, disabilities, and race.…”