An analysis of juvenile justice decision-making and its effect on disproportionate minority contact.

摘要

The disproportionate contact of minorities with the juvenile justice system has been consistently documented in studies throughout the United States, and it is widely acknowledged by scholars and juvenile justice practitioners. Explanations for minority overrepresentation are generally categorized into those that focus on racial differences in offending behavior, and those that emphasize bias and discrimination in the criminal and juvenile justice systems. The empirical literature contains evidence to support both sets of explanations. This study focused on the decisions made by various juvenile justice system actors to assess the extent to which race affected a juvenile's likelihood of being detained, having a delinquency petition filed, being adjudicated delinquent, and being placed in custody. Using a sample of 17,473 males in Oklahoma's juvenile justice system, this study found no evidence of bias and discrimination in decisions to file delinquency petitions and to place juveniles in custody. The logistic regression analysis of detention decisions found direct race effects, however. Compared to white juveniles, black, Hispanic, and American Indian juveniles were more likely to be detained, after controlling for legal, extralegal, and contextual variables. At the adjudication decision point, Hispanics were less likely to be adjudicated than whites, while American Indians were more likely to be adjudicated. These race effects were partially due to differences in jurisdiction. Juveniles in rural areas, where American Indians were concentrated, had greater odds of being adjudicated than did juveniles in metropolitan areas, where Hispanics were concentrated. The study concludes that race effects do exist in juvenile justice decisions, but these effects vary by decision point and by minority group. Finally, the study found significant direct effects of being detained on decisions to file, adjudicate, and place into custody. The implications of these findings are discussed in the context of discretion in the juvenile justice system.