Abstract
This article reviews a variety of perspectives that have been applied to the study of the juvenile justice system in more recent years. While not meant as an exhaustive summary of the literature on juvenile justice, this article outlines a number of different frames of reference that have been used in the analysis of policies aimed at chronic, serious and/or violent juveniles offenders, with a particular emphasis on framing the nature of the current controversy and debate. Starting with the social science of 1970s, which supported the “nothing works” doctrine of juvenile offender treatment, this work review and summarizes existing analyses of juvenile justice practices affecting offenders labeled as most problematic to the system. More specifically, this article discusses three general models that traditionally have been applied to the analysis of juvenile justice policy. This models can be classified and described as frameworks and each is built upon one of three primary subjects of analysis: system outputs (and outcomes), moral, ethical, and legal decision-making, and broader societal perspectives and political impacts.
This article regarding definitional difficulties with the terms “chronic,” “serious,” and “violent,” this review includes research on policies aimer at these specific offenders, as defined and identified by each analyst. For further clarification, the term “serious violent offense” generally refers to crimes defined as “violent index crimes” by the Federal Bureau of Investigation: murder and nonnegligent homicide, aggravated assault, robbery, and rape.
This article is organized into four parts, corresponding to the model structure outlined above. Part II begins with a description of the social science research of the 1970s, which lies at the root of many current ideological disagreements regarding juvenile justice policies. This part includes discussion of recent studies that use an outputs-focused framework and have led to debates regarding the appropriate methods for measuring success and efficacy; it also details criticisms of this early research. It then concludes with an examination of the steps taken by the social science community in response to criticisms of earlier research, including the use of a wider range of outcome variables and the inclusion of systems impact analysis in juvenile justice policy research. Part III reviews studies whose reference frames include issues of fairness and equity. Part IV examines alternative methods of policy analysis and includes a more in-depth discussion of the social construction of the chronic, serious, and/or violent juvenile offender and the relationships between politics, public opinion, and public policy. Part V summarizes the current state of juvenile justice policy analysis and makes suggestions for future research.
Recommended Citation
Tonya Aultman-Bettridge,
Analyzing Juvenile Justice Policy: A Critical Review,
10 U. Fla. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y
(1999).
Available at: https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/jlpp/vol10/iss2/5