by National Research and Information Center, National Council on Crime and Delinquency in [New York] .
Written in English
|Contributions||National Research and Information Center on Crime and Delinquency (U.S.)|
|LC Classifications||KF9710 .G64|
|The Physical Object|
|Pagination||x, 133 p. ;|
|Number of Pages||133|
|LC Control Number||64003798|
This section quantifies the flow of cases through the juvenile court system. It documents the nature of, and trends in, cases received and the court's response, and examines gender and race differences. The chapter also discusses the measurement of racial disproportionality in the juvenile justice system-i.e., disproportionate minority contact, or DMC-and notes declines in certain DMC. Although the majority of the research notes that adolescent offenders tried in adult court have higher rates of recidivism than juvenile offenders tried within the juvenile court system (Tonry. “The Differential Selection of Juvenile Offenders for Court Appearance in New York: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.” Google Scholar Hagan, J. Cited by: Nathan Goldman,The Differential Selection of Juvenile Offenders for Court Appearance (New York: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, ). Google Scholar 7.
Pretrial detention may be used to protect the juvenile or to protect the community, as in cases of preventive detention. The present study examined the different purposes of detention and how these distinct objectives affect other decisions in the juvenile justice process. Processing juvenile offenders in the traditional justice system can lead to a range of negative consequences. As an alternative to formal criminal processing, many jurisdictions have begun to implement diversion programs for first-time or low-level offenders. This systematic review sought to summarize evidence of the effectiveness of one commonly used diversion model, Teen Courts, on . Juveniled Justice System Structure & Process: This section describes the juvenile justice system, focusing on structure and process features that relate to delinquency and status offense matters. Topics covered in this section include a history of the juvenile court, significant Supreme Court decisions that have shaped the modern juvenile justice system, and comparisons between juvenile and. Goldman, N. (). 77 differential selection of juvenile offenders for court appearance. National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 44 East 23rd Street, New York, New York , p. Goldstein, H. ().
Juvenile Court, THE CHILD, THE CLINIC, AND THE COURT (Addams ed. ); CLARKE, SOCIL LEGISLATION (). 2 For easy reference to the first juvenile court act, see 2 ABBOTT, THE CHILD AND THE STATE (). the time when all offenders, both juvenile and adult, will be treated individually through scien-. formal intervention within the juvenile court process, it is extremely important that juvenile courts establish an explicit operational definition of the juvenile sexual offender and insure that all staff are familiar with the basic characteristics of juvenile sexual offenders. A juvenile sexual offender is a person below the age. Graham v. Florida () In , the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Graham v. Florida that sentencing a juvenile to life without the possibility of parole for a non-homicidal crime is in violation of the Eighth Amendment. DIFFERENTIAL SELECTION OFJUVENILE OFFENDERS FOR COURT APPEARANCE (); DonaldJ. Black & AlbertJ. Reiss,Jr., Police Control ofJuveniles, 35 AM. Soc. REv. 63 (); DarleneJ. Conley, Adding Color to a Black and White Picture: Using Qualitative Data to Explain Racial Disproportionality in theJuvenileJustice System, 31 J. RES. CRIME & DELINQ.