Juvenile probation officers and discretionary decision-making: the effects of legal, physical, and social factors

被引:0
|
作者
Jenkins Keenan, Sheri [1 ,3 ]
Daquin, Jane C. [2 ]
机构
[1] Alabama A&M Univ, Coll Business & Publ Affairs, Dept Social Sci, Huntsville, AL USA
[2] Univ Alabama, Dept Criminol & Criminal Justice, Tuscaloosa, AL USA
[3] Alabama A&M Univ, Coll Business & Publ Affairs, Dept Social Sci, Huntsville, AL 35762 USA
关键词
decision-making; juvenile probation officer; pre-sentencing investigation; RACIAL DISPARITIES; JUSTICE SYSTEM; RACE; COURT; GENDER; PUNISHMENT; OFFENDERS; IMPACT; YOUTH; ORIENTATIONS;
D O I
10.1080/10509674.2023.2261931
中图分类号
C916 [社会工作、社会管理、社会规划];
学科分类号
1204 ;
摘要
Although sentencing recommendations should be based on legal factors, research shows that some juvenile probation officers (JPOs) also consider extra-legal factors. Indeed, research shows that stereotypes about certain demographics (e.g., young Black males) increase the perception of dangerousness and, in turn, result in harsher sentencing recommendations. The purpose of the current study was to identify the legal (seriousness of offense, prior offenses, and record), physical (race, gender, and age), and social factors (socioeconomic status, completeness of the juvenile's family/family arrangement, presence of co-offenders) that the JPO considered the most important when making their sentencing recommendations. Data for the study came from a sample of juvenile probation officers in nine states. Participants were asked questions about sanctioning, disposition, and sentencing. The findings show that while the majority of JPOs rated legal factors (e.g., seriousness of offense) as the most important when making sentencing recommendations, a substantial proportion of the sample rated physical factors (e.g., race) as the most important factor considered when making sentencing recommendations. Implications and future directions for research are discussed.
引用
收藏
页码:501 / 517
页数:17
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Factors influencing big data decision-making quality
    Janssen, Marijn
    van der Voort, Haiko
    Wahyudi, Agung
    JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH, 2017, 70 : 338 - 345
  • [32] Untested assumptions: psychological research and credibility assessment in legal decision-making
    Herlihy, Jane
    Turner, Stuart
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOTRAUMATOLOGY, 2015, 6
  • [33] Organ donation: psychosocial factors of the decision-making process
    Carola, Valeria
    Morale, Chiara
    Vincenzo, Cristina
    Cecchi, Valentina
    Errico, Livia
    Nicolais, Giampaolo
    FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY, 2023, 14
  • [34] Measurement effects in decision-making
    Burns, Devin M. M.
    Hohnemann, Charlotte
    JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL DECISION MAKING, 2023, 36 (03)
  • [35] Decision-Making Processes in Social Contexts
    Bruch, Elizabeth
    Feinberg, Fred
    ANNUAL REVIEW OF SOCIOLOGY, VOL 43, 2017, 43 : 207 - 227
  • [36] The neuroscience of morality and social decision-making
    Yoder, Keith J.
    Decety, Jean
    PSYCHOLOGY CRIME & LAW, 2018, 24 (03) : 279 - 295
  • [37] Social worker decision-making in court
    Abbotts, Dale
    Norman, Alyson
    CHILD & FAMILY SOCIAL WORK, 2023, 28 (02) : 469 - 480
  • [38] Factors influencing diagnostic decision-making
    Callaghan, Kathleen S. N.
    JOURNAL OF PRIMARY HEALTH CARE, 2012, 4 (03) : 223 - 230
  • [39] Naturalistic generative narratives reveal effects of social characteristics on decision-making
    Wong, Ethan
    Williams, Ofir
    Williams, Ziv M.
    Baez-Mendoza, Raymundo
    FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY, 2024, 15
  • [40] The Impact of a Risk Assessment Instrument on Juvenile Detention Decision-making: A Check on "Perceptual Shorthand" and "Going Rates"?
    Maloney, Carrie
    Miller, Joel
    JUSTICE QUARTERLY, 2015, 32 (05) : 900 - 927