|
Abstract
|
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The purpose of this study by Landau and Nathan was to examine the effects of legal discriminatory and substantive variables on police and juvenile bureaux decision-making about juveniles in the London Metropolitan area. The study was based in the concept of labeling theory.
METHODOLOGY:
The authors employed a quasi-experimental cross-sectional design with a non-probability sample of all 1,373 police decisions regarding juveniles from October to December 1978, in the juvenile offices of five Divisions of the London Metropolitan Police District. Data were collected from standard official registration forms, with legal and non-legal variables being differentiated by the researchers. Non-legal variables included: area of offense, age (10-14 or 15-16), sex, ethnic group (white or black), type of accommodation of family - as a measure of social class (owned or rented) and latch-key child - whether the child was left alone, without parental control, on a regular basis (yes or no). The two legal variables were: offense (crimes of violence, burglary, auto crime, theft, public disorder, traffic) and previous criminal record (no previous referrals, one or more referrals but no convictions, or one or more previous convictions). The dependent variable was the decision made by the police. This decision-making process had two stages. In the first stage, at the police station, a previous study had found that 19.6% of juveniles were charged immediately. The remaining 80.4% in that study moved on to the second stage, involving the juvenile bureau. Here the decision was made for a subsequent charge (37.9%), for no further action to be taken (6.2%) of for a caution to be given (36.3%). Whilst legal criteria are provided for decision in the first stage, none are suggested in the second, so that the police have three options: to take no further action, to caution or to charge. Cautioning is seen as a diversionary tactic to keep juveniles out of the criminal justice system, and the only substantive criteria are that the offender admit the offense, the parents agree to the caution and the victim be willing to leave the decision to the police. This study examined the role of both legal and non-legal variables in the decision-making process of the second stage, so that the outcome variables were to take no further action, to caution or to charge. However, for the 7.6% of their study's cases where no further action was taken, the authors eliminated these from the analysis, leaving a caution and a charge as the outcome variables. Also eliminated were those cases for whom information was missing, leaving the total number of decisions analyzed as 1,146. Analysis included examination of frequencies and multiple regressions.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
The authors found that the probability of receiving a caution was considerably higher when the juvenile concerned was female, had no previous referral, was involved in a traffic offense which occurred in the Lambeth/Wandsworth area, if the family owned its accommodation and if the child was not a latch-key child, was white and was under the age of 15. Probability of being cautioned was lower if the juvenile was a black, latch-key male over the age of 15 who was involved in a violent crime in the Camden/Hackney area, whose family rented its accommodation and who had a previous referral or conviction. Previous record was most strongly related to police decision. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine the relative contribution of each variable to the overall equation, as well as any two-way interactions that might have been present. All variables but sex and tenure of accommodation were included in the final model, which the authors thought had an adequate fit (p=0.366). Two-way interactions included in the model were offense by area, offense by ethnic group and previous record by ethnic group. Previous criminal record contributed most and entered first into the model, such that the juvenile was most likely to be cautioned if he or she had no previous record. Juveniles committing traffic offenses were also more likely to be cautioned than those committing burglary or theft, who were more likely to be cautioned than those involved in violent crimes, auto crime or crimes of public disorder. Older, black, latch-key children were less likely to be cautioned. Black juveniles were more likely to be cautioned only for traffic offenses, and a white with a previous record was four times as likely to be cautioned than a black with a criminal record. The authors concluded that it was not only the legal variables that influenced police decision- making, but non-legal variables as well. The authors suggested a number of reasons for their findings. They believed that the lower probability of latch-key children receiving a caution was due to the overall criminogenic influence that might be represented by lack of parental control, such as family disruption and contact with local authority services and education welfare services. Crimes might have been treated more leniently in particular areas due to a lower perceived crime problem or to a lower general prevalence of crimes in that area. The greater chances of a white juvenile being cautioned might be due to a racial bias on the part of the police, or to other background variables not included in the initial analyses. In further analysis, the authors found that the black children more often came from disrupted and large homes which did not include both natural parents, and were more often latch-key children. The harsher treatment might be due to these poor family conditions, such that the juvenile bureau would see black juveniles as poor contenders for successful cautioning, or that the family might not co-operate with the police, which is one of the conditions of the caution. The black juvenile might also more often deny the offense, perhaps due to greater antagonism of blacks towards the police, which also is another condition of being cautioned. Another condition is the agreement of the victim to leave the decision to the police - an event which might occur less often with black offenders. Thus the prevalence of family problems and the formal conditions that are necessary for a caution to be given might be leading to a lower incidence of cautions among black offenders than among whites.
AUTHORS' RECOMMENDATIONS:
The authors suggested that a more formal approach be applied to cautioning decisions, concentrating upon previous record and severity and circumstances of the offense, in order to more appropriately balance the cautioning between black and white juvenile offenders. They believed that future research should more directly examine the role of various factors, and should include the use of participant observation and direct interviewing of law enforcement officials. Also needing examination, according to the authors, is the effectiveness of the decisions made by the juvenile bureau in its role as gate-keeper to the criminal justice system, to examine the difference between cautioning and the more stigmatizing alternative of prosecution in the development of further delinquency.
EVALUATION:
The authors provide a valuable insight into the role of non-legal and legal factors in the decision-making process of the juvenile justice system. Despite the lack of optimal measures of, for example, social class, the large sample size and the good data analysis techniques provide allow for generalization to other similar situations. The authors provide an excellent discussion of their findings, including many alternative explanations of the results. Suggestions for future research are well-addressed, although a more detailed discussion of the implications of the findings for policy planning would have been helpful. Generally, this study provides a very good examination of the issues, as well as an excellent basis for further study in the field of treatment of the juvenile offender. (CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
KW - Foreign Countries
KW - England
KW - Correctional Decision Making
KW - Juvenile Justice System
KW - Discrimination
KW - Juvenile Offender
KW - Juvenile Violence
KW - Juvenile Crime
KW - Juvenile Delinquency
KW - Labeling Theory
KW - Police Intervention
KW - Law Enforcement Intervention
KW - Delinquency Intervention
KW - Violence Intervention
KW - Crime Intervention |