Antecedents and Consequences of Juvenile Case Processing

Published date01 April 2008
Date01 April 2008
DOI10.1177/1541204007305529
Subject MatterArticles
Antecedents and Consequences
of Juvenile Case Processing
Where Are We Now, and Where Do
We Go From Here?
Rebecca J. Boyd
Sheila M. Huss
David L. Myers
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Philosophical and practical changes in the juvenile justice system are influenced by, and have
implications for, timely and quality juvenile case processing. Drawing on juvenile case-
processing literature published from the late 1970s until present, the antecedents and conse-
quences of juvenile case processing are discussed in an effort to draw attention to possible
causal relationships. The authors argue that juvenile case-processing efficiency is, perhaps,
one of the more pivotal issues facing juvenile justice today, and further empirical studies
and scholarly dialogue on this issue are needed. The current state of knowledge concerning
systemic, intra-agency, and interagency barriers to timely and quality juvenile case processing
serves as a springboard for suggestive approaches to examining juvenile case processing from
a more rigorous, comprehensive, and holistic perspective.
Keywords: case-processing delay; inefficient case processing; juvenile case processing;
juvenile justice
Since its conception in the late 1800s, the U.S. juvenile justice system has experienced
significant changes in its orientation, procedures, organization, and overall mission.
Within the past 40 years, the philosophy underlying juvenile justice has experienced a major
shift from that of parens patriae, individualized justice, treatment, and rehabilitation to an
increased emphasis on punishment, accountability, public safety, and victim and community
reparation.
According to some, this contemporary juvenile justice system falters in its ability to
provide juvenile offenders individualized service, attention, and justice, the very philosophical
ideals that distinguish the juvenile system from the adult criminal justice system, and upon
which the first juvenile courts in the United States were founded (Butts & Harrell, 1998).
From this perspective, the juvenile court process is more formalized and standardized
than ever before, and the system’s hallmark of individualized justice has been threatened
Youth Violence and
Juvenile Justice
Volume 6 Number 2
April 2008 195-220
© 2008 Sage Publications
10.1177/1541204007305529
http://yvj.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
195
Authors’ Note: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Rebecca J. Boyd, Department
of Criminology, G-1 McElhaney Hall, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA 15705; e-mail: R.J.Boyd
@iup.edu.
to extinction (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges [NCJFCJ], 2005).
Moreover, the advent of particular due-process rights afforded juveniles since the 1960s,
coupled with legislation in the 1990s allowing for expanded juvenile transfer to adult court,
seemingly have paved the way for the juvenile justice system’s procedural convergence
with the adult system. The injection of juvenile due-process rights into court policies and
procedures, significant increases in the number of formally handled cases, and pressures
that congested systems and high caseloads place on juvenile justice officials have all aided
in shaping a juvenile justice system quite foreign to that of earlier eras.
In response to these system strains and nationwide concern about youth crime and violence
during the past 15 years, significant attention has been given to juvenile case-processing
timeliness and quality. The purpose of this article is to advance scholarly and practitioner
knowledge of the antecedents (empirically substantiated causes) and consequences of
inefficient juvenile case processing. A synopsis of the current state of empirical research on
juvenile case processing is provided, gaps in the literature are identified, and suggestive lines
of future empirical inquiry are offered.
The contemporary juvenile justice goals of accountability and balanced and restorative
justice (BARJ), due process, and deterrence and rehabilitation are discussed first within the
historical context of the juvenile court’s evolution. A connection is made between these goals
and the increased attention paid to juvenile case processing in recent years. Made explicit are
the concepts of efficient and inefficient case processing and the underlying dimensions of
timeliness and quality. A discussion of the potential consequences of inefficient juvenile case
processing highlights the importance of examining its antecedents and serves as a backdrop
for the synopsis of empirical research in this area. Specific attention is paid to systemic,
intra-agency, and interagency barriers to timely and quality juvenile case processing.1 In the
end, the current state of empirical knowledge serves as a springboard for suggestive lines of
future empirical inquiry.
Historical Context of the Contemporary Juvenile Court
The practices of the contemporary juvenile court are largely a product of the court’s
evolution. Indeed, the philosophical and practical distinctions between the juvenile and adult
court systems have diminished over the past several decades (Butts, 2000; Butts & Halemba,
1996; Butts & Harrell, 1998). As early as the 1920s, the juvenile court was criticized for
coddling youthful offenders, and it responded to this criticism by becoming increasingly
punitive (Myers, 2005). By the 1950s and 1960s, critics argued that the juvenile justice system
had become a de facto adult system, but without appropriate procedural safeguards.
Initially, the distinction between the juvenile and adult systems was maintained legally, as
seen in the case of In re Holmes (1955). However, by the mid-1960s, there was widespread
recognition that juvenile offenders were being abused and negatively stigmatized, with the
added implication of deprivation of liberty. Thus, in a series of cases, the U.S. Supreme
Court granted juveniles a number of procedural due-process rights.
First, in Kent v. United States (1966), the U.S. Supreme Court held that transferring
juveniles to adult court is a critical stage for which a right to a hearing, with counsel, is
required. The following year, in In re Gault (1967), the Supreme Court granted juveniles a
196 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT