NCJ Number
71046
Journal
Crime and Delinquency Volume: 26 Issue: 3 Dated: (July 1980) Pages: 299-318
Date Published
1980
Length
20 pages
Annotation
In response to public concerns about juvenile crime, State legislatures are rapidly placing prosecutors in decisional roles at juvenile intake and are replacing historic juvenile court informality with a legal model.
Abstract
The evolution of the intake process has been unique to the juvenile court movement. The early police/citizen complainant determination of who should come to court yielded in time to probation/judge control of this decision, initially by informal means and later via legislative authority. Over the past two decades there has been a sharp expansion and professionalization of the juvenile intake role, and, more recently, the detention screening function has been added to juvenile intake units. Several models of the juvenile prosecutor role are now evident. The most far-reaching approach, first-level prosecutor screening (Colorado, Washington), tends to eliminate any significant probation intake role concerning delinquent youths except for detention screening. One second-level screening approach (Florida, Institute of Judicial Administration-American Bar Association) requires that the intake office obtain approval for petition recommendations and petition rejections from the prosecutor. Another second-level approach (District of Columbia, Maryland, California) grants the rejecting authority to the intake office subject only to appeal by the complainant to the prosecutor. It seems likely that this more limited approach will yield to stronger prosecution control over intake (i.e., Florida) or to a first-level prosecution screening typology. First-level screening provides greater assurance that diversion and informal probation will not be used with legally insufficient cases, but it preempts more prosecutor staff time than second-level models. The prosecutor's authority in the juvenile intake process is likely to develop into a controlling one, stimulated by the prosecutor's public protection image, the increased interest in handling juveniles according to offense and prior record, and diminished confidence in the ideal of rehabilitation. Footnotes and tabular data are given. (Author abstract modified)