Legal, individual, and environmental predictors of court disposition in a sample of serious adolescent offenders.
Authors:
- Elizabeth CauffmanElizabeth Cauffman
- Alex R. PiqueroAPAlex R. Piquero
- Eva KimonisEKEva Kimonis
- Laurence SteinbergLSLaurence Steinberg
- Laurie ChassinLCLaurie Chassin
- Jeffery FaganJFJeffery Fagan
- 1 December 2007
- journal article
- Published by American Psychological Association (APA) in Law and Human Behavior
- Vol. 31 (6) , 519-535
Abstract
Historically, the juvenile court has been expected to consider each youth's distinct rehabilitative needs in the dispositional decision-making process, rather than focusing on legal factors alone. This study examines the extent to which demographic, psychological, contextual, and legal factors, independently predict dispositional outcomes (i.e., probation vs. confinement) within two juvenile court jurisdictions (Philadelphia, Phoenix). The sample consists of 1,355 14- to 18-year-old male and female juvenile offenders adjudicated of a serious criminal offense. Results suggest that legal factors have the strongest influence on disposition in both jurisdictions. For example, a higher number of prior court referrals is associated with an increased likelihood of secure confinement in both jurisdictions. Juveniles adjudicated of violent offenses are more likely to receive secure confinement in Phoenix, but are more likely to be placed on probation in Philadelphia. Race is unrelated to dispositional outcome, but, males are consistently more likely than females to be placed in secure confinement. Importantly, individual factors (e.g., developmental maturity) generally were not powerful independent predictors of disposition. Finally, an examination of the predictors of juvenile versus adult court transfer in Phoenix indicated that males, older juveniles, and those with a violent adjudicated charge were more likely to be transferred to adult court, while juveniles scoring high on responsibility as well as those juveniles with an alcohol dependence diagnosis were more likely to be retained in juvenile court.Keywords
Funding Information
- National Institute of Justice
- John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
- William T. Grant Foundation
- Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
- William Penn Foundation
- Pennsylvania Council on Crime and Delinquency
- Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission
This publication has 52 references indexed in Scilit:
- Lifetime Prevalence and Age-of-Onset Distributions of DSM-IV Disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey ReplicationArchives of General Psychiatry, 2005
- Structure of the Weinberger Adjustment Inventory Self-Restraint Scale and its relation to problem behaviors in adolescence.Psychological Assessment, 2000
- Maturity of judgment in adolescence: Psychosocial factors in adolescent decision making.Law and Human Behavior, 1996
- Investigation of variables associated with probation and custody dispositions in a sample of juvenilesJournal of Clinical Child Psychology, 1995
- Evaluating adolescent decision making in legal contexts.Law and Human Behavior, 1995
- The Effect of Prior Case Outcomes on Juvenile Justice Decision-MakingSocial Forces, 1986
- Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies.Health Psychology, 1985
- Juvenile Justice Decision-Making as a Longitudinal ProcessSocial Forces, 1984
- An Empirical Typology of American Metropolitan Juvenile CourtsAmerican Journal of Sociology, 1982
- Formal rationality, substantive justice, and discrimination: A study of a juvenile court.Law and Human Behavior, 1980