Narrated Outcome of Alternate Sentencing Programs from the Perspective of Juvenile Court Personnel
Emmanuel Akinyele
2024-07-28
Introduction
Scholars have extensively documented the inequities within the US criminal justice system, particularly concerning the disproportionate incarceration rates of impoverished youth of color. Tragically, many of these youths are tried as adults and, upon conviction, face sentences that condemn them to adult prisons. This study endeavors to delve into alternative sentencing programs within the criminal justice system, seeking to explore avenues beyond traditional incarceration.
In the criminal justice literature, these alternative sentencing programs are often referred to as “structured sentencing alternatives” (Engen et al., 2003), “intermediate sanctions,” or “alternative punishments” (Johnson & DiPietro, 2012). These terms encapsulate the practice of sentencing offenders, particularly adolescents, to alternative programs rather than subjecting them to confinement in adult prisons.
In the realm of legal literature, attorneys have often provided firsthand accounts of their interactions with adolescents and offered critical insights into the workings of the criminal justice system. James Forman, a seasoned public defender, has shared compelling narratives of cases involving impoverished African American youth navigating the punitive landscape of the criminal justice system (Forman, 2017). His book, Locking up Our Own: Crime and Punishment in Black America, serves as a poignant exploration of the incarceration of Black youths. Forman offers a unique perspective, drawing from his experiences as a public defender in Washington D.C., to shed light on the historical trajectory of the criminal justice system. Through vivid storytelling, Forman illuminates the plight of individuals like an African American woman who, during a pretext traffic stop, was arrested for possessing a mere twenty dollars’ worth of marijuana, consequently losing her job (Forman, 2017). Forman elucidates that such pretext traffic stops, ostensibly conducted to enforce traffic laws, often serve as pretexts for law enforcement officers to conduct unwarranted searches for drugs. This account serves as a poignant illustration of how law enforcement can play an active role in perpetuating the incarceration of African Americans. As pivotal actors in the criminal justice system, police officers wield significant influence in referring individuals to the criminal justice system, thereby contributing to the cycle of incarceration.
In discussions surrounding mass incarceration, another notable perspective is offered by civil rights lawyer, advocate, and legal scholar Michelle Alexander in her book “The New Jim Crow”. Alexander delves into the phenomenon of mass incarceration, particularly focusing on its impact on impoverished African Americans. Throughout her narrative, she traces the historical legacy of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and the development of ghetto neighborhoods (Alexander, 2012). Central to her argument is the assertion that racism operates both consciously and unconsciously within societal structures. Despite strides made by African Americans in challenging systemic racism through legal battles and social movements, Alexander highlights the resurgence of discriminatory practices in the post-civil rights era. She elucidates how the launch of the war on drugs under President Ronald Reagan’s administration in 1982 empowered law enforcement agencies to target drug users, particularly those associated with crack cocaine, resulting in the disproportionate arrest and incarceration of African American males. This exposition underscores yet another avenue through which African Americans become ensnared in the criminal justice system. Yale Law School Professor James Forman echoes these sentiments, stating, “Blacks are much more likely than Whites to be arrested, convicted, and incarcerated for drug offenses, even though blacks are no more likely than whites to use drugs” (Forman, 2017, p. 17). The pervasive injustice depicted in these narratives is deeply troubling, prompting a call to explore avenues for mitigating this alarming trend.
Forman and Alexander provide narratives centered around the experiences of adult males and their encounters with incarceration. However, my focus lies on understanding the pathways through which adolescents become involved in the criminal justice system. Specifically, I aim to explore these pathways from the viewpoints of attorneys, probation officers, social workers, and judges, collectively referred to as court actors.
Juvenile Justice, School-to-Prison pipleine, and Sentencing guidelines
The population under scrutiny comprises Black juveniles who are involved with the criminal justice system through various channels. According to the Office of Juvenile and Delinquency Prevention (OJDP), a juvenile is defined as a youth at or below the age of original jurisdiction set by the state. This age threshold varies by state, with the upper age of jurisdiction representing the oldest age at which a juvenile court can exercise original jurisdiction over an individual for law-violating behavior. As reported by the OJDP, in 2019, law enforcement agencies in the US made an estimated 696,620 arrests of individuals under the age of 18, marking a 58 percent decrease compared to 2010 (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2023). Additionally, minority youth accounted for over half of all juvenile arrests for serious offenses such as murder, robbery, and motor vehicle theft, as well as a significant proportion of arrests for burglary and larceny-theft (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2023). I contend that Black juveniles should have equitable opportunities to access education, contribute positively to society, and pursue successful futures. However, the current societal landscape fails to afford such pathways for Black juveniles, especially those hailing from urban, inner-city communities where people of color constitute the majority demographic.
Skiba et al. (2014) succinctly define the school-to-prison pipeline as a “construct used to describe policies and practices…in the public schools and juvenile justice system that decreases the probability of school success for children and youth and increases the probability of negative life outcomes, particularly through involvement in the juvenile justice system” (Skiba et al., 2014). Juveniles of color predominantly interact with law enforcement in communities where they constitute the majority, thus entering the criminal justice system (Wald & Losen, 2003). The concept of the school-to-prison pipeline suggests that disciplinary measures and policies within schools, which often lead to students’ removal from educational settings, heighten the likelihood of their involvement with the juvenile justice system (Wald & Losen, 2003). Consequently, rather than nurturing academic growth within the educational system, it appears that black juvenile boys are disproportionately set on a trajectory towards incarceration. Extensive literature on the school-to-prison pipeline underscores a stark reality for juveniles of color, particularly those attending urban public schools, where they transition from educational institutions to incarceration facilities. As a researcher, I am deeply committed to proposing alternative pathways that redirect these individuals back to the realm of education.
In Kathleen Nolan’s book, Police in the Hallway, she provides a poignant account of the presence of police and security officers tasked with disciplinary duties within an urban school setting. The narrative opens with the harrowing ordeal of a six-year-old black girl who experiences a tantrum in her kindergarten class. Despite her distress and attempts to evade restraint, school officials opt to involve law enforcement. Shockingly, upon the arrival of the police, the young girl is subjected to the indignity of being forcibly removed from under a table, handcuffed on her biceps, and escorted to central booking at the county jail, where she is fingerprinted as if she were a criminal. Subsequently, she faces charges of battery on a school official, disrupting a school function, and resisting arrest, and is compelled to appear before a judge to resolve her case (Nolan, 2011). Nolan’s narrative unfolds within a poorly performing high school, catering to low-income Latino/a and Black students, where stringent zero-tolerance policies and the presence of law enforcement patrolling the hallways are enforced by the city government.
In contrast, Class Warfare details the extent to which and [how] parents, school counselors, teachers, and students at three iconic, privileged, secondary schools in the United States work to “lock in” the next generation of privileged class status via post-secondary applications and admissions process (Weis et al., 2015). Jenkins, Weis, and Cipollone (2014) contend that a specific segment of predominantly white and affluent parents and students in relatively privileged secondary schools strategically mobilize their cultural, social, and economic capital to establish what they term as a “new” upper-middle class status through enrollment in particular post-secondary destinations (Weis et al., 2015). Class Warfare conducted its study in three upper-middle secondary schools catering to a predominantly professional and managerial parental demographic, where the student body is predominantly white. Contrasting the experiences of this upper-middle, predominantly white group with Kathleen Nolan’s portrayal of a poorly performing high school predominantly comprising Latino/a and Black students underscores the disparate school experiences and treatment endured by these two groups.
Nolan’s research endeavors focused on unraveling how students navigated and made sense of their experiences within an urban public high school, particularly in relation to school-based policing. Additionally, she aimed to elucidate the intricate interplay between students’ lived experiences, educational trajectories, and the prevailing economic and social contexts. The omnipresence of law enforcement personnel within the school environment heightened the likelihood of students becoming entangled in the criminal justice system. Nolan astutely observes that only schools sharing similar characteristics - such as high levels of racial segregation and poverty, urban locales, low academic performance, and a penchant for order maintenance policing - are prone to adopting the attributes of penal institutions with comparable intensity (Nolan, 2011). She acknowledges that the transformation of school environments into prison-like settings primarily occurs within schools situated in low-income neighborhoods. Nolan’s narrative adeptly captures the essence of this “system of control,” as she aptly terms it, from the perspective of a white female, former teacher, and social science researcher. Her comprehensive approach involved engaging with various stakeholders, including students, principals, assistant principals, deans of student conduct, school resource officers (police officers), and select teachers within urban public high schools, effectively illuminating the multifaceted dynamics at play (Nolan, 2011).
Regarding court sanctioning, Johnson and Dipietro (2012) conducted a quantitative research study delving into “Investigating judicial decisions to divert offenders to intermediate sanctions in the State of Pennsylvania,”(Johnson & DiPietro, 2012, p. 812) which was among the pioneering states to integrate intermediate punishments into its presumptive sentencing grid. The research explores the intricate processes by which judges and other court actors determine sentencing for offenders, examining factors such as intermediate sanctions, prognostications of future behavior, and other pertinent sentencing considerations, including the race and gender of the offender (Johnson & DiPietro, 2012). While the study primarily focuses on analyzing data pertaining to adult offenders and testing hypotheses related to intermediate sanctions for adults, my research interest lies within the juvenile offender population.
My research contributes to the discourse on the criminal justice system by examining the extent to which judges, attorneys, social workers, and probation officers - collectively referred to as court actors - in a medium-sized metropolitan city articulate and contemplate the potential and ramifications of alternative sentencing programs and restorative justice for Black boys aged 16 through 18 years old. I aim to investigate the efficacy of alternative sentencing programs for this demographic group and explore the ways in which they benefit the juveniles under consideration. Additionally, I seek to understand how court actors conceptualize and define positive outcomes within the context of alternative sentencing programs.
The study aims to explore the perspectives of professionals involved in the juvenile justice system and alternative sentencing programs. Specifically, the study will investigate the viewpoints of judges, attorneys representing children (defense attorneys), probation officers, and social workers.
A judge is a legal professional who has been elected or appointed to preside over court proceedings, typically after starting their career as a lawyer.
An attorney representing the child (or defense attorney) is a lawyer who has graduated from law school, passed the State bar exam, and gained several years of experience practicing law.
A probation officer serves as both a law enforcement officer and an agent of the court. These professionals may enter the field through various paths, with the most common being by taking a State civil service exam and applying for the position.
A social worker is a helping professional within the social services field, typically holding a master’s degree in social work. Their role involves providing support and assistance to individuals and families facing various challenges.
Theoretical Framework
Within the US judicial system, contemporary theories of sentencing disparities are framed within a theoretical context. Engen et al. (2003) described the sentencing disparity between “discretionary departure provisions” and “structural sentencing alternatives.” They define discretionary departure provisions as guidelines where judges sentence offenders within a range based on legally defined criteria. These criteria include alternatives that allow judges to impose sentences outside the specified range, provided they can justify the departure with “aggravating or mitigating circumstances” (Engen et al., 2003). On the other hand, structural sentencing guidelines offer mechanisms for sentencing outside the standard range, which may result in unwarranted sentencing disparities (Engen et al., 2003).
Engen et al. (2003) stated that contemporary theories view offense and offender characteristics as affecting sentencing decisions because they influence judges’ subjective assessment of “blameworthiness and risk of future offending.” Therefore, judges tend to punish more severe offenses, repeat offenders, minorities, and males more harshly than others (Engen et al., 2003). The authors extended this argument in three ways: First, they propose that structured sentencing alternatives offer mechanisms for departing from the standard sentencing range, providing opportunities for bias to enter the process. Second, they suggest that structured sentencing alternatives create disparities because they provide “windows of discretion” that lead to sentence disparities. Third, they argue that both legal factors (i.e., those defined in the law) and extralegal factors (i.e., those not described in the law) may affect the use of discretionary and structured alternatives differently.
Theory of Punishment
The outcome of a hearing is sentencing and rendering punishment to the offender. The theories of punishments seems relevant to the topic as well. Theorist developed four theories of punishment - retributive theory, deterrent theory, preventative theory, and reformative theory (Karim, 2020; Krishna Kumari, 2007; Mishra, 2016; Rai, 2010). Retributive theory is about getting retribution against the offender (Krishna Kumari, 2007). This theory of punishment, “the offender should receive as much pain and sufferings as inflicted by him on his victims” says Mishra (Mishra, 2016, p. 1). According to Karim (2020), there were criticism to the retributive theory including that it promotes revenge, possibility of crossing the line when punishing the offender, forfeiting the rights of the offender, and disregarding other moral considerations such as deterrence and reformation (Karim, 2020).
Deterance theory is about prevent the offender and others from committing an offense; in other words, deter the offender and others from engaging in the offense (Karim, 2020; Krishna Kumari, 2007). The preventative measure of this theory aims that, as a result of the pain and dissatisfaction of the punishment, the offender and others will choose against commiting the same offense (Karim, 2020). Karim (2020) writes about a few criticism to deterrence theory of punishment. For example, critics believe whether the offender is guilty will be ignored but prevention of the offense is the focus of the theory (karim202critical?). Other critics believe the punishment may exceed the level of the crime (Karim, 2020). According to Krishna (2007), preventative theory “was meant to restrain an offender personally from repeating a criminal act by incapacitating him, by such punishments such as imprisonment, death or exile” (Krishna Kumari, 2007, p. 25)
Preventive theorist says that the objective of punishment is to prevent offenses. They claim that offenses can be prevented when the offender is checked, and the check is accomplished by disablement (Mishra, 2016). For example, keeping the offender in prison by seeking to eliminate offenders from society thus preventing them from repeating crime. Mishra (2016) argues that preventive theory is similar to deterrent theory because the aim is to prevent the criminal from commiting the crime.
Reformative theory aim is to deter others and reform the criminal (Krishna Kumari, 2007). “According to this theory the object of punishment should be the reformation of the offender. This is not virtually a punishment, but a mere rehabilitative process (Krishna Kumari, 2007). Karim (2020) critics think that hard core criminals cannot be reformed, that punishment and education are not the same thing (Karim, 2020). Karim (2020) suggested that offender should be actually guilty of the crime, the offender should be punished considering the external and internal situations, the punishment should not exceed or fall behind the level of the crime, and the punishment should be demonstrated and explained to the criminal and others as much as necessary and possible (Karim, 2020).
Sentencing and punishment is synonymous and would analyze the outcome of this study from that lens. Would the alternative sentencing be retributive, deterrent, preventive or reformative?
Restorative Justice
Scholars researching restorative justice emphasize the importance of addressing the needs of victims. Bazemore (2000) conducted a project aimed at enhancing responsiveness to crime victims’ needs by applying restorative justice principles. Restorative justice recognizes three primary participants in the justice process: the victim, the offender, and the community (Bazemore, 2000). Zehr (2015) is regarded as one of the pioneering figures in restorative justice, having defined its principles as encompassing the needs arising from crime and the roles implicit in criminal acts. Zehr emphasized expanding the circle of stakeholders to include victims and community members, arguing that victims often feel marginalized or mistreated within the justice system, which typically frames crime as offenses against the state. Additionally, communities are also affected by crime and should be viewed as secondary victims. Restorative justice researchers underscore the principle that crime is fundamentally a breach of interpersonal relationships, creating an obligation to address and repair the harm caused. As outlined by Zehr (2015), the three pillars of restorative justice are centered on addressing harm and needs, recognizing obligations, and fostering engagement. The first pillar acknoledges that crime inflicts harm on individuals and communities. The second pillar emphasizes the need for offenders to comprehend the harm they’ve caused and take responsibility. The third pillar underscores the importance of involving victims, offenders, and communities in the justice process (Zehr, 2015).
Intersectionality - Critical Race theory
The concept of intersectionality developed by Critical Race scholar Kimberle Crenshaw is also applicable on this topic. She developed this concept from Black feminist theory within the confines of law dealing with antidiscrimination and antisexist laws (Crenshaw, 2013). Carbado, et. al (2013) states that “intersectionality is a method, and a disposition, a heuristic and analytic tool” (Carbado et al., 2013, p. 303). They went on to identify four themes that flow from mapping the movement of intersectionality. First was that the movement of intersectionality is an analysis-in-progress. Second, that there is no predetermined or inherently established position within its academic discipline where it originated. Third, the movement of intersectionality has been used in international setting. Fourth, the mark of the social movement dimensions of intersectionality (Carbado et al., 2013). The argument Carbado, et. al (2013) was making is that intersectionality is an analytic tool available to help analyse research study from its viewpoint. Using that argument, the intersection of race and age applies here because this study seeks to investigate the interaction of Black adolescents with the criminal justice system
Positionality
As a researcher, I identify as a voluntary immigrant minority, a term defined by Ogbu and Simmons (2022) as an immigrant who has willingly relocated to the United States in pursuit of better opportunities than those available in their countries of origin (Ogbu & Simons, 2022). Additionally, I identify as a Black man, and I am particularly interested in exploring the experiences and outcomes of black boys in this country. While my early upbringing and socialization occurred predominantly in Nigeria, West Africa, I pursued my post-secondary education in the US thereby acculturating myself to the cultural system in operation in this country. Moreover, I am a father to a teenage son who is navigating the US education system within a predominantly white local school district.
Approaching my research topic, I recognize myself as an outsider within the criminal justice space due to my lack of familiarity with its workings. Research on the school-to-prison pipeline often highlights black boys as a predominant group involved in the system early on, which is an example of the intersection of race and age. Consequently, as both an outsider and a Black researcher, I find myself contemplating how my study participants perceive me and whether my identity influences their responses to my inquiries.
While I did not explicitly ask participants to self-identify, visual observations suggest that the majority of them are white females, with two black females, one Latina female, and one white male included in the study.
Method
Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was secured for this study, enabling me to conduct semi-structured interviews with study participants, either in-person or virtually via the Zoom platform.
At the outset of the recruitment process, I leveraged my social network, enlisting the assistance of a friend who works as a social worker and was also a participant in my study. This friend facilitated soft introductions to the Family Court Judge and other potential study participants. However, owing to the statewide contact restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, semi-structured interviews were primarily conducted virtually using the Zoom platform. Nonetheless, some participants consented to in-person interviews.
The interviews, which ranged from 30 to 45 minutes in duration, provided valuable insights into the participants’ perspectives and experiences. In-person interviews offered the advantage of detecting non-verbal cues and other nuances that reveal the interviewees genuine opinions. Conversely, virtual interviews were somewhat limited in their ability to capture such non-verbal cues but offered an efficient, convenient, and less time-consuming process for both interviewer and interviewee.
The table below shows the study participants interviewed for this study:
| Name | Role | Gender | Race |
|---|---|---|---|
| Daisy Davis | Social Worker | Female | Black |
| Lynn Helens | Social Worker | Female | Black |
| Lisa Lockwood | Juvenile Justice Counselor (Social Worker) | Female | White |
| Sharon Smith | Judge | Female | White |
| Adrianna Arnold | Attorney for the Child | Female | White |
| James Gertrude | Attorney for the Child | Male | White |
| Robin Foster | Attorney for the Child | Female | White |
| Stephanie Sireen | Probation Officer | Female | White |
| Tabitha David | Probation Officer | Female | Latina |
The names of the study participants have been replaced with pseudonyms to safeguard the confidentiality of their identities, as stipulated by Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocols.
I conducted virtual interviews with two social workers, Daisy and Lynn, utilizing the Zoom platform. The interviews were recorded and subsequently transcribed for later analysis. Daisy, a personal contact who worked within the court system, facilitated introductions to other participants. Lynn was recruited through the social media platform LinkedIn, where I connected with her and extended an invitation to participate in the study. Lynn’s interview was also conducted via Zoom.
Furthermore, interviews with the Attorneys to the Child, Adrianna, James and Robin, were conducted using the Zoom platform. Additionally, I conducted in-person interviews with two probation officers, Stephanie and Tabita, and one social worker, Lisa. Judge Sharon graciously invited me to observe proceedings in her court chamber, during which she provided insightful commentary on my research topic. Although I did not have the opportunity to conduct as in-person interview with Judge Sharon, I meticulously documented my observations of the cases she presided over and her interactions with attorneys, defendants, parents, probation officers, and other court personnel.
Data Analysis
The interviews were meticulously recorded and subsequently transcribed using Otter A.I., a transcription software. The qualitative data analysis was conducted using Atlas.ti, a comprehensive software tool for coding interview transcripts. A variety of codes were developed to capture key themes and topics discussed during the interviews, including the age of the offender, the role of attorneys, background and characteristics of clients, court actors, effects of services, and engagement in services, among others. This process resulted in the creation of a detailed codebook containing a total of 179 unique codes.
Subsequently, the codes were organized and separated according to the roles of the participants groups. For instance, all interview codes pertaining to Attorneys for the Child were analyzed together, followed by codes related to Social Workers and Probabtion Officers. This systematic approach faciliated a focused examination of each participant group’s perspectives and experiences.
Upon reviewing and analyzing the coded data, four key findings emerged, which are elaborated upon in the subsequent section of the study. These findings encompassed insights into the functioning of the court system, characteristics of the youth involved in the proceedings, the provision of services, and the roles of parents and the surrounding neighborhood in the context of juvenile justice.
The following table show the frequency of each code per participant group:
| Code | Attorney_for_the_Child | Judge | Probation_Officer | Social_Worker |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristics of clients | 4 | 0 | 2 | 5 |
| Court proceedings | 16 | 10 | 6 | 16 |
| Parents | 12 | 2 | 5 | 10 |
| Probation | 8 | 13 | 13 | 16 |
| Providing Services | 6 | 2 | 11 | 4 |
| Restorative Justice | 5 | 1 | 7 | 4 |
This matrix illustrates the relationship between each code group and the participant group, shedding light on the frequency of specific code themes within each participant category. For instance, the code theme “Parents” emerged 12 times within the Attorney for Child group and 10 times within the Social Worker group. This indicates that both the Attorney for Child and Social Worker groups fequently discussed parent involvement in their responses. Similarly, the code for “Court proceedings” was mentioned by the Judge, Attorney for the Child, and Social Worker groups 16, 10, and 16 times respectively. Notably, the Social Worker group extensively discussed court proceedings (16 times), parental involvement (10 times), and the probation received by their clients (16 times). In comparison, the Judge discussed court proceedings 10 times and the probation received by clients 15 times.
Results
The study delved into the perspectives of various court actors, including judges, attorneys for the child, social workers and probation officers, regarding alternative sentencing and restorative justice programs for Black boys. The findings of the study encompassed descriptions of the adolescents under consideration, insights into the functioning of the court system, strategies for engaging adolescents in services, and the pivotal role of parents and the impact of communities. The subsequent section will provide a detailed elaboration of these findings, offering a nuanced understanding of the complexities involved. Additionally, the section will conclude with a discussion of the implications of the findings and acknowledge any limitations inherent in the study design or data collection process.
Who are the Youth under consideration?
According to data from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the demographic characteristics of cases handled by juvenile courts from 1985 to 2021, compared to the white, shows an steady increase in the percent of black participants Figure 1 in the juvenile courts (Puzzanchera et al., 2023).
In 2021, there were 194,300 (44.43%) white, 154,200 (35.26%) blacks, 4,900 (1.12%) Asian/NHPI, and 9,100 (2.08%) American Indian participants involved in the juvenile courts (Table 1) (Puzzanchera et al., 2023).
As compared to five years before, in 2017, when there were 345,100 (44.09%) white, 272,900 (34.87%) black, 8,500 (1.09%) Asian/NHPI, and 13,400 (1.71%) participants involved in the juvenile courts. (Puzzanchera et al., 2023). This number remained relatively the same as the number trends downwards.
With regards to gender, the percent of male increase over the years compared to a steady decrease of female participants from 1985 to 2021 (Fig 2). (Puzzanchera et al., 2023). In 2021, the number of male participants involved in the juvenile courts were 320,800 and the number of female participants were 116,500.
With regards to age, there were 32,300 of age 12 and under, 197,500 13 to 15 years old, 108,200 16 years old, and 99,400 17 years old interacted with the courts (Puzzanchera et al., 2023). In 2021, ages 13 to 15 years old made up 45.16% followed by 16 years old making up 24.74% which is the highest age groups and has been consistent from 2017 to 2021 (Figure 3) (Puzzanchera et al., 2023).
When asked the participants to describe the kinds of youth that they see come through the courts, here is some of what they told me. Attorney Adrianna Arnold narrated:
So it’s hard to say just one specific profile because everyone, there’s [a vast] variety of kids I work with, for all races and economic backgrounds. There, I find all kids seem to [see] how to get into trouble, no matter where they are from, or [their ages], to know how to get into trouble, especially in those teeneage years. But I would say, probably a [more significant] majority is kids who are products of the system, the family court system, seem to find their way into the juvenile delinquency system pretty [quickly], so that his kids who grow up either in foster care or their paretns are not their primary caregivers or are missing in action. Adriana Arold, Female, Attorney of the Child
I would say probably the majority are coming from poverty. That could be the function of just, you know, that’s the kids who are getting into trouble. Or it could [also] be kids who have more financial resources, their parents will [frequently] hire an attorney, so they are not using an attorney from the Attorney for Child program. I have been retained as well; you don’t necessarily have to be on the list [for] these kinds of cases. For attorneys for children to represent kids in juvenile matters, parents could pay you to do it. I would say, though, it’s probably [primarily] kids coming from urban areas who are in poverty who are struggling. I would say for sure most of my clients are coming from the city. Adrianna Arnold, Female, Attorney for the Child
Attorney Adrianna described some of her client’s parents as having “more financial resources” to hire an attorney, which could be describing parents of White clients, as opposed to “kids coming from urban areas who are in poverty” describing parents as Black clients.
In observation, it is interesting that my participants were silent about the specific demographics of their clients, when majority of adolescents involved in the courts were highest between the ages of 13 to 16 years old.
Social worker Daisy Davis describes the kinds of youth she encountered by age. She said “We know what age, right? The ages youngest, as young as eight or nine, I think it is, and it can be as old as…believe it or not, if they come from [Juvenile court] it could be as old as 21”. She described next the racial composition of those that she has seen come through the system:
So we know about the age now race is disproportionate. Like it, you have so many peopel of color, and this is from my visual experience for the past 10 years. I think I would say for the past 10 years, I probably saw two handfuls of people, White people. Let’s say I saw, an average, maybe [out of] 500 I might have a solid 50 people and that’s a very high number. That’s a very low number to say, I feel like it’s a high number for me to say it’s only 50 people out of 500 [on] every case I’ve walked into, sat on, worked on, it has significant the ratio I would say nine [Black male] to one [White male]. Daisy Davis - Female, Social Worker
The Social Worker Daisy says that race is disproportionate to Black males, and the statistics from the Bureau of Juvenile Justice support her observation. Although the participants did not specifically reference the racial group predominatly seen within the court system, there seems to be an acknowlegment that the majority racial population encountered are Black males between the agees of 18 and 24 years old. These clients might have been referred via schools or by law enforcement officers. The social worker Lisa Lockwood described the typical kid this way:
From my experience, there are so many different kids, that you can’t just characterize one common characteristic amongst all these kids. Though there are so many undiagnosed behavioral problems like a lot of ADHD (Attention-Deficit Hyperactive Disorder) kids. And it is unfortunate because we have parents who don’t know how to handle these. And by the time kids come in here, they are 14, 15, 16. They don’t want to go see a counselor. So it’s hard to control them at that point. I see kids from all over the county. - Lisa Lock - Female, Social Worker
She continued by telling me a story of a client she counseled: “I would have to say my most memorable case is a young man who I got probably a few months after I started this position. He came in the silliest offense; he came in because he gave someone a counterfeit twenty-dollar bill and got change for it. And that was the offense. It was an appearance ticket and all he had to do was pay back this twenty dollars and not get arrested again. He is one of those kids that just spiraled. He ended up getting arrested again, not too long after a few months for stealing his mom’s puppy and selling it.”
Again, out of the social workers Daisy Davis, who is a Black female, mentioned about the ratio of Black male that she observed, but Lisa Lockwood, who is a White female, only mentioned about the range of ages but silent about their racial background.
The probabion officer Stephanie Sireen describes the youth she has experienced in her work. “They are mostly city kids but I would say the high percentage of my case load consist of all over the county, every community, so there are kids who are arrested everywhere and it is not just the city kids…So it’s not just one demographic, but probably the most wold be the city.” When she describes the youth as “city kids”, one can interpret that people of color predominantly reside in the city. Michelle Alexander refers to speaking in a code when she says, “There are certain code words that allow you never to say ‘race’ but everybody knows that’s what you mean, and ‘crime’ is one of those…So when we talk about locking up more and more people, we are [talking] about locking up more and more black men” (Alexander, 2012). The participants in the study gave many narratives of their clients, but were silent about their racial demographics.
“I focus on juvenile delinquency cases, custody visitation, and neglect…those groups of children that are accused of a crime but because of their age, they are prosecuted in family court” says Attorney James Getrude. He also said, “Okay, so I have got a huge amount of cases with gun possessions and what the law is right now, if it is merely gun possession, it immediately goes to family court as a Juvenile Delinquent (JD)”. Attorney James Gertrude shared with me a story of one of his clients who came from a low-income family and he described the ciient as violent. “I had one of my clients that got transferred from youth court with gun possession. He was murdered in the city. Then, several days later, another former client of mine that got transferred from Youth Court to family court, ans was resolved last November, got shot in the chest. It’s disturbing because these are kids that are 16 and 17 years old”
These stories narrated above describes adolescents based on their offenses that referred them to the criminal justice system. Majority of my participants used descriptives such as “city kids” or “client”, and their age, but only the Black Social Worker Daisy spoke a lot about the racial identity of the adolescents in question.
Noting the silence from my research participants about the racial background of participants involved was interesting, and makes me wonder if you are a person of color then it is more noticeable of the racial background of individuals that interact with the criminal justice system. My participants were mostly White and for the most part were silent in describing their clients race and age.
How the court works
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) was established basd on the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, Public law 93-145. The purpose of the law was to support local and state efforts in preventing delinquency and improving the juvenile justice system. In addition, the office sponsors research, program, and training initiatives, develop priorities and goals, and they also guide federal juvenile justice. With relations to this topic, it is important to understand how the courts and the criminal justice system works. The following section would expand on that.
According to the OJJDP, from data from the National Juvenile Court Data Archive, when prosecutors refer cases to the juvenile court, they are screened by an intake department. The intake department may decide to dismiss the case and resolve the matter formally (called petitioned) or informally (called non-petitioned). According to OJJDP, court officials handled 54% of all delinquency cases are petitioned (formal) while 46% were handled informally (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2023). “Among non-petitioned cases, 41% were dismissed at intake, often for legal insufficency. In the remaining cases, youth voluntarily agree to informal (non-petitioned) sanctions, including referral to a social service agency, informal probation, or the payment of fines or some form of voluntary restitution” (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2023).
Suppose the intake department decides that a case should be handled formally within the juvenile court, a prosecutor files a petition and the clerk places the case on the court calendar (or docket) for an adjudicatory hearing. On the other hand, the intake department may decide that a case should be removed from the juvenile court and handled instead in a criminal (adult) court. A petition is usually filed in juvenile court requesting a waiver/transfer hearing in these cases, and the prosecutor asks the juvenile court judge to waive jurisdiction over the claim (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2023).
Afterward, the juvenile court judge generally review a predisposition report prepared by the probation department and then determines the most appropriate sanction at the disposition hearing. A range of options are available to the court - for example, placement in a residential facilit outside the home, probation, day treatment, or a mental health program (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2023). The OJJDP reports that in 27% of cases, youth were placed in a residential facility, while the remaining 65% were on informal probation (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2023).
The procedure described by the OJJDP was also observed in this study. For example, in observing Judge Sharon’s court proceeding, in addressing a black juvenile client, the following is a narrative from observation notes: The Judge addressed the defendant to reiterate what his attorney was telling the court. The Judge now went into a long speech about outcome options and informed the defendant that he does not have to admit to the charges, but laid out his options - One, go to trial, stay silent, and the Judge would make her decision based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, otherwise, she will dismiss the charges. Two, for the client to plead guilty he will forfeit his right to a trial and appeal of any decision made by the Judge. The Judge then outlined her three options for sentencing to dispose of the case. The first option was an adjudication in contemplation of dismissal (ACD) where rules are set for the defendant to follow for six months and if followed the case would be dismissed. If the rules are not followed the case will be returned to the courts for a different outcome. The second option, the defendant could be placed on formal probation where a probation officer will monitor the defendant, set rules for the defendant to follow, and the probation officer can file a violation petition if the defendant does not comply with the rules. The third option was for the defendant to be sentenced to an in-residence program (away from home) where the defendant would live, go to school, and get treatment. This is a more restrictive option for the defendant. After the long speech, the Judge allowed the defendant to narrate the incident that led to his arrest and charges.
From the above description, the Judge repeats the same long speech to each of her cases that day. She has developed sentencing guidelines that she follows for each case. These guideline could be specific to this court or the standard sentencing for juvenile justice cases. Judge Sharon’s sentencing guidelines lines up with reformative theory of punishment. Her goal is to reform by providing three options for the client be reformed by complying with the rules set by probation officer or residential program.
Social worker Daisy Davis also described:
The county attorney is basically like the DA [District Attorney], they are prosecuting the case, the county attorney, the kid who has their attorney, the Attorney for the Child. And then you have the mother because the mother or the parent or guardian, who is also part of the [proceedings] and the Judge [are all who are present] trying to come up with a resolution. - Daisy Davis, Female, Social Worker
Here Social worker Daisy described the different individuals present for a typical appearance hearing.
The proceedings of the court show the structure and procedure that is followed in resolving cases. Next, I will introduce justice practices as it relates to the study.
Restorative Justice
With regards to the possibility of restorative justice practices within sentencing, the only mention from my participants was from Judge Sharon describing her advocacy for restorative justice practices. During my observation of Judge Sharon, she provided commentary in between her cases and she shared with me how she chairs a committee involving lawyers (prosecutor and defendant attorneys), the probation department, social services (who serves as a funding source), and the office of mental health. This group meets monthly and sometimes invites other representatives to speak on different topics. According to Judge Sharon, this group addresses system problems, and communication problems, and embarks on major projects. One such project, seven years ago, was to bring restorative justice practices to juvenile justice work. She described herself as a strong advocate for restorative justice and has witnessed many families resolve their conflicts between parents and their children using restorative justice practices. She believe that restorative justice concepts are good for resolving conflicts. She states that a lot of the kids do not have empathy, and they have never looked at the world from anybody else’s perspective. This group spent 18 months working through a protocol for the restorative justice program, they gained funding to implement the protocol and executed the program on a pilot basis in the local school district. She did not go into detail about the restorative justice program but recommended that I speak to the administrator in charge of the pilot program.
The Judge describes her involvment with a group that developed a restorative justice pilot program, and how it relates to the juvenile justice system. It seems that implementation of restorative justice practices would be initiated from the Judge’s role because restorative justice practices involving victim, offender, and community can be facilitated within the court system. In this study, Judge Sharon described it as she was involved in restorative justice practices outside the courtroom. In other words, she described how restorative justice practices were piloted in a local school district, perhaps to address the disciplinary behaviors within the local school system. The court proceeding observed within the courtoom did not involve the particiation of the victim nor the community members.
Social worker Daisy described social justice this way: “Restorative justice is a theory of justice that emphasizees repairing the harm caused by criminal behavior. Crime causes harm and justice should focus on repairing the harm people most affected by the crime should be able to participate in its resolution. I love them. I have a better and more beautiful definition of it…I wrote a paper on it”. She continues, “I like it because it involves everyone. It involves the victim. It involves the person, it holds the victim and the perpetrator accountable, but also validates and emphasizes the victim spilling what they felt, what they experiences, what that means to them, and how they would like for it to be resolved. I love restorative justice practice because it is also trauma-informed. I’m not sure if you are familiar with the term, trauma-informed care, but I thought restorative justice practice is trauma-informed”. From this vignette, Daisy talked about restorative justice theoretically and referred to it as trauma-informed care, but she did not give any specific examples of observing the practices within the criminal justice system.
Social worker Lisa Lockwood talked about restorative justice his way: “Restorative justice is a program. I believe probation works more than we do and I read a little bit about it when I first started. It was one of the programs that showed to be honest so I can’t say too much but I know it. I believe the practice of it is to try and rehabilitate kids from continuing to enter the justice system. Just the goal for everyone here. We don’t want to see these kids keep coming back”. Lisa’s understanding of restorative justice is equated to a “program” but she seems not to understand the concept of restorative justice practices as practitioners write about it.
The next section will discuss the findings of offering services as part of the outcome of cases.
Offering services
Another finding was that court personnel described the outcome of cases of alternative sentencing programs as adolescents receiving “other services” instead of prison sentences. For example, Stephanie Sireen, the Probation officer said:
[A] typical case, they would come here, speak to a different officer, or [develop] an adjustment agreement. [An adjustment agreement] is something that they come up with, together with a juevenile jsutice counselor, a social worker, a probation officer, a parent or guardian, and then the youth. They come up with a list of things, one of which is to cooperate with services. We have other things [lke] writing letters of apology. They go to a restorative justice program. They go to…we have a journal [and] we do journaling programs, we do journaling one-on-one, they might have to do home community service because there are places where they do not take juveniles anymore to do community service. - Stephanie Sireen, Female Probation Officer
Stephanie gives examples of various activities for adolescents to participate in as components of the adjustment agreement. She did make mention of involvment in restorative justice programs as an alternative service to the adolescents. If the adolescents thrive in completing these activities, their charges are adjusted. Other examples like letter writing, journaling, and home community service could be examples of services the adolescents engage in as an outcome of the charge against the adolescent. Another example given by Attorney of the Child Adriana Arnold is an example of one of her clients whom she represented and the outcome of her representation:
I had a kid recently who came through the [Juvenile Court], and he was, I think 16 and he was caught with a 19-year old in a car with a gun. They tossed the gun out the window and they got arrested with a C-felony, criminal possession of a weapon. I was able to get this case transferred to family court for posession. Let me back up. So when they come into the Juvenile Court, these kids are talking to probation immediately at the first appearance. Under the State Adjustment law, probation must meet with the child and parent, if avaiable, and the Attorney. The child has the option of whether or not to engage in services voluntarily. Those services could be a tutor to a GED program, drug and alcohol counseling, or mentoring, there was a lot of different things they could do. So I usually tell all of my clients to engage in services because it is good for the Judge, and it creates a record f showing that they are willing to do things to change their situation. - Adrianna Arnold, Female Attorney for the Child
In this narration, her response again described the court procedures and during the intake, the adolescent is allowed to engage in services. She also actively advises all of her clients to engage in services, which she belieeves helps the Juveniles’ defense and shows the Judge that the adolescent is willing to change and get an outcome other than prison.
Juvenile Justice Counselor Lisa Lockwood, also shared the following narrative in response to a follow-up question about how services help adolescent youth based on how they enter the system.
Um, I would say that a lot of it depends on the service first, and it also depends on the kids. The mentoring service I mentioned, Project Jumpstart, is amazing. They will work with these students and raise their grades, meeting with the kids once or twice a week. We have vocational services and [Urban League] that work with young men. I met my client a few years ago while working in a detention center, and I ended up getting him here on my case load. And after I linked him up, he did not get into any more trouble, after they helped him learn vocational skills and get him a job. And that turned his life around. That was one of my happiest moments. I had a soft spot for him in detention. So I was thrilled to see him thrive. - Lisa Lockwood, Female Juvenile Justice Counselor (Social worker)
The story she shared was a success story of when her client engaged in services. It made a difference in her client’s life, and her client had to accept the services offered and actively engage to avoid being sent to prison for his offense.
The Attorney for the Child Adrianna Arnold narrated a story where her client did not have the chance to engage in services and the outcome of the case:
And it’s unfortunate. I will tell you one more story that will be helpful for your study. So I had a client who I will call James. So James got in trouble in Juvenile Court back in 2019, he got caught with a loaded weapon, and that was his first offense at Juvenile Court. So I got him signed up with the services, he was going to get on track and I felt good about it. And then literally two weeks later, I got a call that he got arrested with another loaded firearm like two weeks after the first one. And it was so hard to argue to the court why he should be released again because he had just gotten in trouble twice within two weeks. But I argued to the Judge tat if we send him right back into the neighborhood where he got in trouble and that he was associated with a gang. We did not have enough time to put services in place, my client was willing to work with the services, and that two weeks is not enough time to change anything for theis kid. He maybe had a first appointment with an agency that was about it. And the Judge agreed with me and said “I am going to give him another opportunity”. And it worked out okay, and he was doing well, and eventually got his case sent to the juvenile system. The possible outcome for two loaded gun cases could easily be 15-year sentences for each charge, but he was given more opportunity for services. - Adrianna Arnold, Female Attorney for the Child
The adolescent in this story agreed to participate in services, had his first appointment, went back into his neighborhood and got arrested again in two weeks. The argument was that he did not have sufficient time to engage in services was received favorably by the Judge who granted the client a second chance to engage in services. Otherwise, the client could have been sent to 30-years in prison. This finding demonstrates that the preferred resolution for an adolescent in the juvenile system is to engage in services. The study participants believe in the services that the clients are offered. As long as the clients engage in these services, the Judges receive progress reports from the agency involved, probation officer, or juvenile justice counselor, and provided the reports are favorable the case against the adolescent is discharged. If the reports are unfavorable, the case will be adjudicated for a different outcome.
For the most part, the services the narrated storiees receive include counseling services. For example, Juvenile Justice Counselor Stephanie Sireen narrated a story about clients she meets with for counseling:
Like a lot of the kids I counsel, a lot of our kids we do recommend counseling because most of our kids have some sort of trauma in their life, many traumatic events over their short period of life. So we do recommend counseling. I have seen a lot of kids who do go to counseling and continue to go to counseling, and it has helped them to be able to talk through things, especially if they have a good rapport with their counselor. But there are other services too. We only have my kids for 90 days so that is a very short time, as opposed to general probation which is for a year or so. - Stephanie Sireen, Female Juvenile Justice Counselor (Social worker)
As Counselor Stephanie siad “All of them have some sort of trauma in their life”, the traumatic experiences these adolescents experience might contribute to their behavior, and entering into the juvenile Justice system.
From the perspective of the probatin officer, Tabita David, she shared the process an offender goes through at their department and what the possible outcome could be:
I explained that there were differences before they were placed on probation, which we do. We try to do the appearance ticket level, which is an intake, so then if they do comply with that, it will be 60 days of the following specific rules eventually adjusting the ticket if they do certain things. If they do well, then that’s the end. If they don’t do well then we report to the court at which point the Judge will see them for their first appearance. The Judge will place them in a predisposition, which is supervision. So during that time, the youth is being supervised by a probation officer. wwe give them another opportunity to do well during the predisposition phase. Typically, it is usually 60 to 90 days to allow them to work with receiving services. And then, at that point, they do have a social worker during the appearance ticket level and the intake and the predisposition phase. The social worker will work with them and the family to determine what their greatest risks are, what areas they might need services, would include anything to target the community and peers, and their drug, or family issues. Depending on the needs, the social worker will get referred to it if that does not work. Then there is a conviction or a disposition phase (we used different terms so will say disposition instead of conviction) at the point of disposition, if the adolescent does not comply, then they are placed on probation for six months to a year, depending on what the Judge decides. - Tabita David, Female Probation Officer
The probation department also believes that the adolescent is given opportunities to do well during the predisposition phase (60 to 90 days), as the social worker works with the adolescent and the family. Probation officer Tabita was sure to emphasize the importance of terminology of using “disposition” as opposed to “sentencing” to signify direction away from the prison terminology.
Apart from the adolescents involved in court cases, the role parents and community play is equally important and will be discussed next.
Parents and Community
Adolescent parents are present within the court system and I found their involvement to be vital. The role of parents and the effect the neighborhood has on this inquiry is another important finding. The courts actively involve parents in teh procedure of the adolescents, and the present subsequently play various roles in the process. For example, Attorney Adrianna tells of a parent who themselves were involved in the criminal justice system and they seemed to blame the law enforcement officer, instead of acknowledging their child’s offenses. She said:
So I have some parents who were involved in the criminal justice system in their adolescent period, they were in detention. And so they want to blame the system much more, “The police are biased”, “The police are lying”, and “My kids didn’t do that”. So I encounter a lot of parents who are like that school of thought, simply because they may have had a bad experience in their case.
She also shares another story about parent involvement:
So sometimes I have involvment from parents like that. And that is difficult because I am trying to explain to the youth why their conduct was wrong and why what they did was illegal, perhaps. But I also have to deal with the parent and explain why carrying a loaded firearm down the street is incorrect. It is hard to explain that because a lot of times, the parents know that their child’s conduct is wrong, but they want to focus on “he’s black” or “they only stopped him because he got in trouble last week”, “the cops know him and do not like him”. So it is hard to combat that because they want to focus on the procedure.
These parents blame the law enforcement officer who arrested their child and the criminal justice system, instead of trying to find ways to help their children. By engaging in the blame-game shifts, these parents avoid focusing on the behavior of their adolescent child and try to shine the spotlight on the tension between people of color and law enforcement.
Other parents do not know how to help their children. Another example that Attorney Adrianna narrates is a parent who feels helpless in assisting their child and will not do anything. The child refused to even go to school, turn in assignments, or go for evaluations for substance abuse or mental health assessement. Attorney Adrianna believes that because her client’s father was a correctional officer and works in a correctional facility, the parents would know what to do. She shared that the parent did not know what to do to help the child. This story reveals that some parents do want to help their child, but might not know what to do. Therefore, these parents are willing to work with the courts, attorneys, and social workers to enforce the services offered to their children. I also observed parents in Judge Sharon’s court room and the level of involvement the Judge required as part of the process.
When asked if the outcome affects the adolescents behavior, Juvenile Justice Counselor Lisa Lockwood responded:
It depends on the youth and whether they are ready to change. I think the kids who are prepared to change the outcomes are enourmous. And I also think it depends on the willingness of the parents. I had a young man who was living with his mom. None of the services we were giving worked with him. We gave him mentoring, we gave him tutoring, but he just would not commit to any services. He would run away from his mom’s house. Finally, about a month ago, he found out his dad (who he thought was dead fro the past 16 years, was alive) and he dediced to move in with his dad. He’s an entirely brand-new kid. He’s attending school daily, and he is on course to graduate now on time. It depends on when the kids are ready to change and if the parents are going to help them change instead of bring their kids down because, unfortunately, I see so many parents be the downfall of their kids. I hate to say that, but they do not have the tools to help their kids out of frustration. They bring their kids down sometimes. - Lisa Lockwood, Female Juvenile Justice Counselor (Social Worker)
Juvenile Justice Counselor Lisa Lockwood touched on the willingness of the youth and parents to change. In other words, she believes the adolescents and the paretns can change. Sharing the example of a child who did not respond favorably to the services when living with his mother, but when connected to his father the adolescent made different choices that made the difference in his life.
The family unit plays a vital role because the adolescent environment seems to be a factor that either prevents entry into the Juvenile Justice system or education. For example, the story by Attorney Adrianna about one of her clients who got arrested for a loaded weapon twice before engaging in services. She said “But when we send him back into the same environment, those same streets, where he was from, with the same kids who were getting in trouble, he just could not stay on track. So he ended up in placement, and he was doing pretty well.” This story demonstrates that the neighborhood an adolescent grows up in influences their behavior.
So it seems parents can either work towards getting their children to help through the process, might seek help in how to help their children, or blame the system based on their own experiences with the criminal justice system.
Discussion
In answering the questions of how judges, attorneys for the child, social workers, and probation officers (court actors) in a medium-sized metropolitan city narrate and reflect on the potential impact of alternative sentencing programs and restorative justice for black kboys from ages 16 through 18 years old, the narrated experiences first described the characteristics of the adolescents, described how the court works, the impact of services rendered in the end, and the role of parents and community within the sentencing programs.
Court actors described their clients in race-neutral language keeping silent and not identifying the racial background of their clients. The literature and prior research regarding the population involved within the criminal justice system describe show that the population most represented are black adolescent boys. For example, the Attorney for the Child and Juvenile Justice Counselor used language such as “city kids” or “low inocme individuals”, which are synonymous to people of color. In addition, the judges, attorneys, probation officers, and social workers describe the alternative sentencing as “offering services” verus sentencing to prison.
In their responses to outcomes, the study participants described how the court works, which provided a foundation of what adolescent experience within the system. It also helped provide an understanding of the different sentencing options available in resolving cases. How does this relate to the impact of alternative sentencing and restorative justice programs for black boys? For someone who might be appearing before the court for the first time, it describes the experience of adolescent juvenile offenders within the juvenile justice system and outlines the options available in resolving the case.
The option for resolving charges against juvenile adolescents was described as the engagement in services like counseling, tutoring, and mentoring over some time as an alternative sentencing outcome - alternative to going to prison. There was a strong emphasis on engaging adolescents in services as an opportunity for the adolescents to change their behaviors. Although I sought to inquire about the impact of restorative justice programs, which involve offenders, victims, and the community there was very little reference to restorative justice practices from my study participants within the sentencing process.
The role of parents and community members within the juvenile justice system was described either as support for their children or parents needing help in knowing how to assist their child(ren). It was also described as parents trying to focus attention and blame on law enforcement rather than acknowledging the behavior or poor choices of their child(ren). Parents are engaged in accompanying their adolescents child(ren) through the criminal justice system and are also recipients of the services provided as an outcome of sentencing. The Attorney’s, Juvenile Justice Counselors (Social workers), and Probation officers gave examples of the different ways that parents are involved in the criminal justice system. It could be described that they either support their adolescents or direct blame on the system.
Limitations of Study
The research topic was a preliminary pilot study to investigate the perception of court actors with regards to black adolescents interacting with the criminal justice system, and the outcome of such interactions. The qualitative method of answering the research question of interviewing requires open-ended questions that elicit rich narrative data that the researchers analyze to discover thrends and themes, but as a novice researcher I acknowledge that I need further practice in this skill. I identify that as a limitation to the study. For example, better note taking of nonverbal, pushing further during the interview asking for more detailed notes during the interview process are examples of areas I would do better to enrich the data collected.
Another limitation of this study was the representation of the study participants. Although there were at least two professions for attorney, social worker, and probation officers, there was only one judge. My interaction with the judge was being an observant at a court proceedings and did not have the opportunity to ask direct questions to the Judge. It is my contention that I would have gotten a richer response from a one on one interview with the Judge.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the perspectives of Judges, Attorneys, social workers, and probation officers concering alternative sentencing and restorative justice programs for black adolescents are programmatic, in the sense that the programs that these adolescent boys are directed to engage in were regarded as the alternative to being sentenced to prison. These court actors believe that when these adolescens engages in programs or services it would alter their behaviors and serve as resolution to the charges brought against them. What benefit does these programs and services provide for those engaged? The answer to this question remained unanswered in this study but would be answered in a follow-up study in extending my inquiry to investigate the significance of these programs and services. Instead, the attorneys, social workers, and probation officers describe encouraging their clients to engage in services and they report back to the courts of their clients compliance.
The court actors aslo described the role of parents and the community within the adjudication process, and how parents can either work towards getting their child(ren) to help through the process, might seek assistance in helping their child(ren), or blame the system based on the parents’ own experiences with the system.
Concering restorative justice practices, the criminal justice system does not employ these practices within its proceedings. The judge was familiar with the practice but described it in the contect of implementing it as a pilot program within the school system as a resolution tool to address disciplinary problems within the schools. Does restorative justice practices have a place within the juvenile justice system? Could it serve as an alternative to sentencing within the system? These questions deserve attention in future pilot studies.
Appendix
Table 1: Percent of Racial participants in Juvenile courts from 1985 to 2021
Table 2: Percent table of Male and Female participants in Juvenile courts from 1985 to 2021
Table 3: Percent table of 12 & under, 13 to 15, 16, and 17 + year old participants in Juvenile courts from 1985 to 2021