Potential Impact of Research on Adolescent Development on Juvenile Judge Decision‐making

• Date: 01 September 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jfcj.12114
• Published date: 01 September 2018
• Author: Colleen M. Berryessa

Potential Impact of Research on Adolescent

Development on Juvenile Judge

Decision-making

By Colleen M. Berryessa

ABSTRACT

This paper discusses how biological and psychological literature on the develop-

mental differences between juveniles and adults may affect juvenile judges in their “dual

role” as retributive and rehabilitative decision-makers in juvenile cases, specifically

focusing on sentencing. Particularly, it discusses potential influences of this research on

adolescent development regarding four factors known to be integral in juvenile judge

decision-making: legal factors, characteristics of juvenile offenders, and individual struc-

tural and social contextsin which judges’ decisions are made. To conclude, implications

and recommendations stemming from this discussion are considered.

Key words: judge, adolescent development, sentencing, juvenile court.

INTRODUCTION

The original goal in the creation of the juvenile justice system was to emphasize

the care and rehabilitative needs of juvenile offenders in stark contrast to adult criminal

courts’ focus on retributive punishments (Krisberg, 2005; Siegel, Welsh, & Senna,

2006). This separation of adult and juvenile courts was largely because adolescents were

perceived to be developmentally different from adult offenders and more amenable to

treatment (Lewis, 1999). In recent years, all but two states have developed purpose

clauses that articulate the goals of the juvenile justice system, and although clauses vary

widely from state to state, they most often still overlap with the original goals of the

juvenile justice system (Juvenile Justice, Geography, Policy, Practice & Statistics

Colleen M. Berryessa is an Assistant Professor at the Rutgers University, School of Criminal Justice

(beginning in September 2018). She recently received her Ph.D. in Criminology from the University of

Pennsylvania. Her research examines discretion in the criminal justice system, focusing on social contexts

and societal attitudes toward mental disorders and biological research on behavior, and how they may affect

the legal process and justice system. She received her B.A. from Harvard University and was also a research

fellow at the Center for Biomedical Ethics at Stanford University.

Juvenile and Family Court Journal 69, No. 3

©2018 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

19

(JJGPS), 2009). Twenty-nine states have purpose clauses that incorporate language from

a movement called the Balanced Approach to Restorative Justice, which seeks to balance the

community protection and accountability of offenders with providing the rehabilitative

tools to equip juveniles with the skills needed to live responsibility and law-abidingly

(JJGPS, 2009). The purpose clauses of eight states are called due process era “parens

patriae” clauses, which describes the juvenile judge as a “parent” who gives the “child”

care and guidance that is in the best interest of both himself and the state (JJGPS, 2009).

Further, five states have developmental aspects of their purpose clauses, which mention

the use of research on adolescent development in informing juvenile justice practices.

Finally, other states have more complex purpose clauses, but include things such as offer-

ing diversion programs, attempting to remove stigmatizing legal labels from youth

offenders’ criminal records, providing the best resources possible to promote the welfare

of juveniles, and providing for procedural safeguards to ensure just enforcement of

youths’ constitutional rights (see Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,

2016 for a thorough reference of states’ purpose clauses). Thus, although states define

their purposes, the large majority of states still seek to provide a juvenile system that

includes a care and rehabilitative focus.

Yet, even with the development of these purpose clauses, several factors have

appeared to shift the juvenile court system as a whole to a more punitive focus in the last

several decades. First, several U.S. Supreme Court decisions, such as In re Gault (1967)

and In re Winship (1970), have shifted court practices and given juvenile offenders consti-

tutional rights that are more consistent to those seen and given in criminal courts. Many

have argued these Court decisions show a shift toward the juvenile court functioning

more like an adult criminal court (Hemmens, Steiner, & Mueller, 2004). Second, percep-

tions of growing youth violence, especially in the 1980s and 1990s, led to increased

media focus and moral panic surrounding fear of future juvenile violence and the need

for more punitive practices to hinder the delinquency of juvenile “super predators”

(Hurst, 1999). Along with this moral panic of the 1980s and 1990s, juvenile courts have

been historically criticized for being too lenient on juvenile offenders; this has led to leg-

islative changes and court decisions at the state level that have reduced the powers of

juvenile courts and increased “get tough” retributive practices, such as implementing

mandatory juvenile waivers for certain offenses (Lewis, 1999) and the enactment of

“blended” sentencing law that allow juvenile and adult sanctions to be imposed in the

same case (Black, 2016; Schaefer & Uggen, 2016). Although many states have started to

repeal or amend “get tough” measures enacted in the 1990s, and there has been increased

support for rehabilitative services (Bloom, Owen, Deschenes, & Rosenbaum, 2002), the

majority of these laws still remain in place and a focus on punishment and accountability

still remain prominent in the juvenile court system (Lane, 2015).

One of the main effects of the juvenile court’s increased focus on punishment and

criminal accountability in the last several decades has been to the role, practice, and,

decision-making of juvenile judges. Juvenile judges are asked not only to be fact-finders

in cases, but also to ensure the welfare of juvenile offenders by considering treatment

options, access to social services, and other alternatives that may best help the needs of

those adolescents who come in front of them in their court rooms (Lowe, Matz, & Messer,

20 | JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JOURNAL