Logo image
Back
Identifying determinants of juvenile decertification decisions
Dissertation

Identifying determinants of juvenile decertification decisions

Karin D. Towers
Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), Medical College of Pennsylvania and Hahnemann University; Villanova University, School of Law
Dec 1999
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17918/00009436
pdf
Towers_Karin_19993.81 MB
PDF Access upon request, Email title, URL, or DOI to archives@drexel.edu

Abstract

Juvenile justice, Administration of--Pennsylvania
In recent years, public concern about the prevalence and violence of juvenile crime has increased. With increased concern over violent juvenile crime has come increased pressure to send more juvenile offenders into the adult system for processing and punishment. Currently, all state and federal jurisdictions possess some form of statutory provision allowing juveniles thought to be beyond the reach of rehabilitation and deserving of harsher treatment to be prosecuted as adults in the criminal courts. The present study examines how Pennsylvania juveniles charged initially in adult court under the provisions of a relatively new statute, Act 33, are either retained there or decertified to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Eighty-nine adolescents from the Philadelphia area comprised the main group of interest. Participants had been referred by the Defender Association of Philadelphia to the Forensic Psychology Clinic at MCP Hahnemann University for a mental health evaluation relevant to a defense motion for decertification. Information was collected for each participant in the following areas: demographic and historical information, level of academic functioning, mental and emotional functioning, amenability to treatment recommendation, and psychopathy rating. Results of logistic analyses revealed that Psychopathy Checklist - Youth Version score contributed more significantly to predictive capacity regarding decertification decision than any other variable examined in this study, accounting for 29% of the variance. Other significant predictor variables included history of prior person-related offense charge, and history of prior property-related offense charge. Practical and policy implications are discussed, and directions for future study are suggested.

Metrics

14 Record Views

Details

Logo image