Examining the Type of Legal Representation and Its Influence on Disaggregated Dispositions in Juvenile Court

• Date: 01 October 2021
• Published date: 01 October 2021
• Author: Jennifer H. Peck,Caitlin M. Brady
• DOI: 10.1177/15412040211027649
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Examining the Type of Legal

Representation and Its

Influence on Disaggregated

Dispositions in Juvenile Court

Caitlin M. Brady

1

and Jennifer H. Peck

2

Abstract

While prior studies of juvenile court outcomes have examined the impact of legal representation on

out-of-home placement versus community sanctions, previous research has not fully explored the

variation within sanctions that youth receive. The current study examines the influence of type of

legal representation (public defender or private attorney) when predicting juvenile adjudications and

dispositions. Using a sample of delinquent referrals from a Northeast state between 2009 and 2014,

results showed that youth do receive different outcomes (e.g., probation, drug and alcohol treat-

ment, accountability-oriented dispositions, etc.) based on the type of legal representation. The

findings have important implications for juvenile court processing related to how courtroom actors

impact case outcomes.

Keywords

juvenile justice, courts, rehabilitation, punishment, legal representation

Within the juvenile justice system, the juvenile court is tasked with determining a youth’s degree of

responsibility for a delinquent act and the assigned sanction if adjudicated delinquent. Specifically,

the courtroom workgroup (i.e., probation officers, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges) is guided

by the goals of the juvenile justice system to provide accountability and rehabilitation to youth.

Outcome decisions, received most formally from disposition hearings in the court process, impart

sanctions that are both treatment-oriented (e.g., rehabilitative) and punishment-oriented (e.g., hold

youth accountable). Improving the lives of juveniles while also holding them responsible for delin-

quent behavior set the foundation for the creation of a separate judicial system from adults (Martin,

1992). Most notably, the juvenile court operates under the parens patriae doctrine, which directs

courts actors to consider the best interests of the child. Over time, the juvenile justice system has

shifted its focus to punishment and back to rehabilitation throughout a continuous cycle (Bernard &

1

Department of Criminal Justice & Criminology, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA, USA

2

Department of Criminal Justice, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA

Corresponding Author:

Jennifer H. Peck, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Central Florida, 12805 Pegasus Drive, Building 80, Suite 311,

Orlando, FL 32816, USA.

Email: jennifer.peck@ucf.edu

Youth Violence and JuvenileJustice

2021, Vol. 19(4) 359-383

ªThe Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/15412040211027649

journals.sagepub.com/home/yvj

Kurlychek, 2010), which subsequently influences the courtroom actors and the decisions regarding

the best interests of youth.

Given that accountability is one of the objectives of the juvenile justice system and youth may

receive punishment-oriented outcomes, youth are afforded certain due process rights. Youth within

the juvenile court have a right to legal representation (i.e., defense lawyer). Specifically, the defense

lawyer assists in explaining the court process to the youth at the adjudication and disposition stages,

while also serving as an advocate. However, the type of legal representation (i.e., public defender or

private attorney) has been shown to impact court outcomes (Burru ss & Kempf-Leonard, 2002;

Burruss et al., 2020; Clarke & Koch, 1980; Gue vara et al., 2004, 2008; Peck & Beaudry-C yr,

2016). When examining the impact of type of counsel on court processing, most prior scholarship

has measured dispositional outcomes as a binary indicator of community sanctions (i.e., probation)

compared to out-of-home (i.e., residential) placement (Armstrong & Kim, 2011; Feld & Schaefer,

2010; Mears et al., 2011; Peck & Beaudry-Cyr, 2016). Moreover, fewer studies have examined the

impact of legal representation, particularly the type of representation on accountability and

rehabilitation-oriented outcomes at the disposition stage (Cochran & Mears, 2015; Mears et al.,

2011). A more complete understanding of the variety of dispositional outcomes above and beyond

community versus residential sanctions will show how the juvenile court holds youth accountable,

while also providing rehabilitation.

Based on these limitations, the objectives of the current study are to: 1) investigate the effect that

type of legal counsel has on the likelihood of youth being adjudicated delinquent, 2) examine the

effect that type of legal counsel has on a nine-category dispositional outcome variable for adjudi-

cated youth, and 3) determine if type of counsel results in more treatment-oriented or accountability-

oriented placement types for adjudicated youth. Highlighting the effect that representation by a

public defender or private attorney has on dispositional outcomes, (which have not been formally

operationalized based on rehabilitation-oriented or punishment-oriented intentions), the process of

sanctioning and the type of legal counsel can be explored.

1

Literature Review

The Juvenile Court and Role of Legal Representation

The juvenile justice system was established based on the overall notion that youth should be held

accountable for delinquent acts, yet also receive rehabilitative services to decrease the likelihood of

future offending (Feld, 1988b, 1989; Mears et al., 2011). Therefore, the juvenile court and each

decision-maker have a responsibility to uphold the foundational ideas of the juvenile justice system.

Punishment-oriented sanctions are given to deter youth from recidivating, while treatment-oriented

sanctions (i.e., rehabilitative efforts) are made to provide pro-social changes in a juvenile’s life and

reduce recidivism (Feld, 1988b). Employing the parens patriae doctrine, juvenile courts have a

more rehabilitative approach and are identified as being different from the adult criminal justice

system by focusing on treating youth as co mpared to a punishment and deterrence philosophy

(Burruss & Kempf-Leonard, 2002; Nagin, 1998). In the late 1960s, several foundational Supreme

Court cases re-directed the philosophy of the juvenile court.

With the Supreme Court decision of In re Gault (1967), it was established that juvenile courts up

until that time were not giving procedural safeguards to juveniles throughout the court process. The

In re Gault (1967) decision included such safeguards as: the right to counsel, the opportunity for

cross-examining witnesses, the right to a hearing, and the right against self-incrimination. Generally,

it was recognized that if the juvenile court was going to punish juvenile offenders, youth had to have

some basic rights to protect them against the power of the state such as legal representation that

could act in the “best interests” of the youth (Bernard & Kurlychek, 2010). Prior to In re Gault

360 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 19(4)