DECISION MAKING AND SOCIAL INQUIRY REPORTS IN ONE JUVENILE COURT

• NCJ Number: 49199
• Journal: BRITISH JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORKS Volume: 7 Issue: 4 Dated: (WINTER 1977) Pages: 421-432
• Author(s): J MOTT
• Date Published: 1977
• Length: 12 pages
• Corporate Author: British Assoc of Social Workers
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United Kingdom

Annotation

A STUDY OF THE RECORDS OF 113 BOYS HANDLED BY A JUVENILE COURT IN GREAT BRITIAN FOUND THAT ALTHOUGH THE JUDGES FOLLOWED PROBATION OFFICERS' PRESENTENCE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE MAJORITY OF CASES, RECIDIVISM IS NOT REDUCED.

Abstract

THIS STUDY TRACES THE JUVENILE COURT'S DECISIONMAKING PROCESS AND EXAMINES RECIDIVISM AND FACTORS CONSIDERED BY BOTH PAROLE OFFICERS AND JUDGES IN DETERMINING A JUVENILE SENTENCE. THE COURT HEARING IS DIVIDED INTO THREE STAGES. FIRST THE JUDGE RECORDS THE NAME, AGE, SEX, AND VISIBLE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENDER AND MAKES A PROVISIONAL DISPOSAL DECISION. THEN, THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT PREPARES A DETAILED REPORT ON THE OFFENDER AND RECOMMENDS POSSIBLE VALUE OF PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT. A SECOND MAGISTRATE USES THIS REPORT, PLUS A CHECKLIST, TO MAKE A SECOND PROVISIONAL DISPOSAL DECISION. A FINAL DECISION IS MADE AFTER DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE TWO MAGISTRATES. ALTHOUGH THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT DOES NOT RECOMMEND DISPOSITIONS, ITS REPORT STRONGLY RECOMMENDS COURSES OF ACTION. THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATIONS WERE FOLLOWED IN 74 PERCENT OF THE CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE CASES, 94 PERCENT OF THE CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE OR FINE CASES, 86 PERCENT OF PROBATION ORDERS, AND 85 PERCENT OF CASES OVERALL. A 5-YEAR FOLLOWUP FOUND THAT FOR A SAMPLE OF 113 BOYS THE RECIDIVISM RATE WAS 30 PERCENT FOR THOSE RECEIVING CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE, 38 PERCENT FOR THOSE RECEIVING A FINE, 51 PERCENT FOR THOSE PLACED ON PROBATION, AND 38 PERCENT FOR THE MISCELLANEOUS DISPOSALS. THIS SAMPLE WAS COMPARED TO A GROUP OF BOYS SENTENCED WITHOUT ANY PROBATION PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION IN LONDON 10 YEARS EARLIER. THE 5-YEAR OUTCOMES WERE ABOUT THE SAME. THE VALUE OF THE PRESENTENCE REPORT IS QUESTIONED: THE INFORMATION MOST OFTEN USED BY THE COURT IS FAMILY BACKGROUND AND SERIOUSNESS OF THE CRIME, INFORMATION WHICH CAN EASILY BE OBTAINED WITHOUT AN ELABORATE PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION. (GLR)