JUVENILE COURT - THE CLIENT'S PERSPECTIVE

• NCJ Number: 49898
• Journal: CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW (APRIL 1977) Pages: 198-205
• Author(s): A MORRIS; H GILLER
• Date Published: 1977
• Length: 8 pages
• Corporate Author: Sweet and Maxwell
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

THIS BRITISH STUDY INTERVIEWED SETS OF PARENTS AND YOUNG PEOPLE BEFORE AND AFTER A JUVENILE COURT HEARING AND OBSERVED THE HEARING ITSELF TO INVESTIGATE THE CLIENT'S PERCEPTION OF THE PROCESS. RECOMMENDATIONS ARE PROVIDED.

Abstract

TO INVESTIGATE CHANGES IN PERCEPTION WHICH MAY HAVE OCCURED SINCE PASSAGE OF THE CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS ACT OF 1969 -- ENACTED IN RESPONSE TO THE CONFUSION AND ALIENATION FOUND AMONG BOTH PARENTS AND CHILDREN APPEARING BEFORE BRITISH JUVENILE COURTS -- 64 SETS OF PARENTS AND CHILDREN WERE APPROACHED OVER A 3-MONTH PERIOD IN 1975. A SERIES OF 4 INTERVIEWS WERE HELD WITH 27 CHILDREN AND 29 PARENTS. SEPARATE PRECOURT INTERVIEWS WERE HELD WITH THE CHILD AND PARENT, AND A POSTCOURT INTERVIEW WAS HELD WITH BOTH THE CHILD AND PARENT. IN ADDITION, THE HEARING ITSELF WAS OBSERVED. ONLY SIX OF THE CHILDREN WERE LEGALLY REPRESENTED. AN ATTORNEY WAS RETAINED WHEN THE PARENTS FEARED REMOVAL OF THE CHILD FROM THE HOME OR WHEN THE FACTS WERE CONTESTED. IN RETROSPECT, EIGHT PARENTS AND FIVE CHILDREN WISHED THEY HAD HIRED A LAWYER BECAUSE THEY FELT THE PROSECUTION HAD EXAGGERATED THE FACTS. COURT OBSERVATION CONFIRMED THAT BOTH PARENTS AND CHILDREN WERE RELUCTANT TO SPEAK UP DURING THE HEARING. LATER, PARENTS EXPRESSED FEAR OF CONTRADICTING THE COURT PERSONNEL. BOTH PARENTS AND CHILDREN WERE CONFUSED BY THE LEGAL PROCEDURES. THE PARENTS SUGGESTED FEWER PEOPLE SHOULD BE PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM DURING THE HEARING. THEY ALSO SUGGESTED THAT COURT APPEARANCES BE BY APPOINTMENT AND THAT A WAITINGROOM SEPARATE FROM THE GENERAL COURT WAITINGROOM BE PROVIDED. GREATEST CRITICISM WAS USE OF THE SOCIAL WORKER'S REPORT. BOTH PARENTS AND CHILDREN FELT THE DISPOSITION SHOULD DEPEND UPON THE NATURE OF THE CRIME AND THE OFFENDER'S PRIOR RECORD. THIS PARALLELS ATTITUDES FOUND AMONG MAGISTRATES. THE MAIN FINDING, HOWEVER, WAS THAT BOTH PARENTS AND CHILDREN SAW THE ROLE OF THE COURT AS PUNISHMENT. A FEW SAW IT AS BOTH PUNISHMENT AND HELPING WHILE FEW SAW IT AS HELPING. THIS, COMBINED WITH THE EXTREMELY NEGATIVE COMMENTS ATTACHED TO THE SOCIAL WORK REPORT, HAS IMPLICATIONS FOR THOSE WHO FEEL A SOCIAL WELFARE POLICY SHOULD BE PURSUED. NEITHER PARENTS NOR CHILDREN SEEM TO WANT THE JUVENILE COURT TO MOVE FROM A JUSTICE APPROACH. REFERENCES ARE FOOTNOTED. (GLR)