do legal variables predict police decisions regarding the prosecution of juvenile offenders?

Do Legal Variables Predict Police Decisions regarding the Prosecution of Juvenile Offenders?Author(s): Simha F. LandauSource: Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 2, No. 2 (1978), pp. 95-105Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1393696 .

Accessed: 10/06/2014 19:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Law and Human Behavior.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.96.149 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 19:03:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1393696?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1978 Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1978 Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1978

Do Legal Variables Predict Police Decisions Regarding the Prosecution of Juvenile Offenders?*

Simha F. Landaut

This study investigated whether legal variables predict police dispositions as regards the prosecution of juveniles. For this purpose first apprehensions of a sample of 479 Israeli adolescents (aged 13.5-15.5) in a one-year period were analyzed. The association between the legal variables and police dispositions was analyzed separately within four hierarchical stages of involvement with the juvenile justice system. Pre- vious referral to court and previous court appearance were found to be excellent predictors of police decision to prosecute. However, in the earlier stages of involvement with the juvenile justice system, (i.e., when juveniles had no previous court referrals or appearances), the predicting power of the few available legal variables (type and seriousness of offense and number of previous police apprehensions) was found to be

negligible. In the discussion of the findings, the contradicting labeling and deterrence theories are applied to the functioning of the juvenile units within the police: The present study has empirically identified the specific point where police decision-making reflects a switch-over from the labeling to the deterrence approach. Some suggestions for future research are put forward in order to improve the predictability of police dispositions at the early stages of the juvenile's involvement with the criminal justice system.

INTRODUCTION

One major result of the popularity gained by the labeling theory in recent years has been the increasing interest of students of criminal behavior in the functioning of social control agencies and in the factors affecting decisions made within these organizations. Among the most widely investigated questions in this respect is whether decisions made by juvenile justice agencies such as the police, probation service, and juvenile courts are affected by extralegal factors such as the juvenile's ethnic

*An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Eighth International Congress of Criminology, Lisbon, September 1978. This study was supported by the Ford Foundation. The author is indebted to Dr. Jackson Toby of Rutgers College for making the study possible. Thanks are also due to the Research Fund of the Faculty of Law of the Hebrew University for its support. Ilana Ben-Ezra and Ziona Alon provided invaluable research assistance. Norman Wagenberg and Celia Eagelstein assisted in the computer analysis. The valuable remarks of Menachem Amir, Sorel Kahan, Sheldon Krantz and Leslie Sebba are much appreciated.

tInstitute of Criminology, Faculty of Law, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

95

0147-7307/78/0600-0095$05.00/0 ? 1979 Plenum Publishing Corporation


Simha F. Landaut



INTRODUCTION




95



Simha F. Landaut



INTRODUCTION




95




LANDAU LANDAU LANDAU

origin, socioeconomic status, or sex. Discrimination along extralegal variables is claimed to exist in many texts and theoretical writings using the labeling approach (Hartjen, 1974; Quinney, 1970; Schur, 1971; and many others). However, when assumptions based on the societal reaction approach were put to empirical test, this approach received very limited support. Some early studies report that extralegal factors do affect police decisions (Cicourel, 1968; Goldman, 1963; Piliavin and Briar, 1964), but the lack of control for relevant offense-related variables in these studies casts serious doubts on the validity of their conclusions (Welford, 1975). A number of more rigorous studies report that extralegal variables have no effect on decisions made by police and other social control agencies in relation to juveniles when the legal variables are taken into account (Black & Reiss, 1970; McEachern & Bauzer, 1967; Terry, 1967; Weiner & Willie, 1971). The only (and frequently quoted) rigorous study contradicting the above-mentioned conclusion is that of Thornberry (1973), who found that the juvenile's race and socioeconomic status are related to the severity of disposition received throughout the juvenile justice system even when the legal variables (seriousness of offense and the number of previous offenses) were held constant. However, these findings have been questioned on methodological grounds. Summariz- ing his critical analysis of Thornberry's findings Welford (1975, p. 339) states " ... due to problems of variables that were not included in the study and the measurement of the key control variable of seriousness, and the type of analysis, Thornberry reached conclusions not justified. In fact, the data reflect the minimal contribution of race and SES to criminal justice decision-making - the consistent finding of em-

pirical research on this issue." A similar methodological criticism was raised by Hirschi (1975, p. 194) as to the second legal variable controlled for by Thornberry - number of previous offenses.

Due to the fact that most of the studies in this field were conducted in the United States, it is of special interest to study this issue in other countries of different social

composition. Comparative studies on this topic are also important due to differences in the functioning and practices of juvenile justice agencies in different countries. Guided by the above considerations, the present author (Landau, 1978) investigated the problem of discrimination by the police in the Tel Aviv area (in Israel) along four

background variables of juveniles (ethnic origin, sex, age, and residential area) while

rigorously controlling for the effect of legal variables. The findings of that study showed that these extralegal variables had no effect on police dispositions. Basically, our previous findings provided support for the substantial body of research which dis- confirmed the assumption of labeling theory as to the discrimination of juveniles by police on the basis of extralegal variables.

Knowing that the police decision as to the prosecution of juveniles is not affected

by extralegal factors is of course valuable information, but still does not answer the

question: What does affect the police decision to prosecute? The most logical answer to this question is that police decision is mostly affected by legal variables. Previous research does indeed support this assumption. Assessing the empirical evidence on this

topic Hirschi (1975, p. 191) concludes: "Research on the processing of juveniles by official agencies shows that, on the whole, the major determinant of the severity of the social reaction is the seriousness and frequency of the child's delinquent behavior."

Accepting Hirschi's conclusion as our starting point, the purpose of the present paper is to find out whether legal variables do indeed predict police dispositions as regards the prosecution of juveniles.























96 96 96



VARIABLES AND DECISION TO PROSECUTE VARIABLES AND DECISION TO PROSECUTE VARIABLES AND DECISION TO PROSECUTE

THE STUDY

Subjects This study investigated first police apprehensions for felony-type acts1 of a

sample of 479 Jewish adolescents, aged 13.5-15.5 in the Tel Aviv area in a one-year period. Subjects were randomly selected from the total population of juveniles apprehended by the police during 1972. Owing to the underrepresentation of juveniles of Western (European-American) origin in police apprehensions, all of the subjects of this category apprehended in 1972 were included in the study. Thus, 385 (80.4%) subjects were of Oriental origin (Middle Eastern and North African Moslem countries) and 94 (19.6%) were of Western origin. In order to allow for proper quantitative analysis of the data as regards sex, female subjects were selected from both 1972 and 1971. Con- sequently, 388 (81%) males and 91 (49%) females were included in the study.

Police Disposition This dependent variable was recorded from the central police computerized

registration and the local police files in the Tel Aviv district. Upon apprehending a juvenile, police can give one of the following three dispositions: (1) file closure for lack of evidence; (2) file closure for lack of public interest; (3) decision to prosecute. "Lack of public interest," commonly used in the Israeli criminal justice system, refers to cases in which the police and/or the prosecution use their discretionary powers to refrain from pressing charges.2

Of the 479 apprehensions analyzed in this study, in 107 events (22.3%) the file was closed for lack of evidence, in 155 (32.4%) the file was closed for lack of public interest, while in the remaining 217 (45.3%) the police disposition was to prosecute the juvenile. Lack of evidence should be seen as an objective and external reason for file closure. Therefore, if our major purpose is to investigate the effect of legal variables on police discretion, the analysis of data should concentrate on those files closed for "lack of public interest" (in spite of there being sufficient evidence for prosecution) as compared to those files for which the police decided to prosecute the juvenile. Accord- ingly, files closed for lack of evidence were excluded from the present analysis and only the 372 apprehensions for which evidence was available (above-mentioned dispositions 2 and 3) were analyzed.

METHOD

The legal variables included in this study are of two types: A. Offense-Related Variables: Type and seriousness of the offense B. Offender-Related Variables: Extent of the juvenile's previous involvement

with the juvenile justice system: 1. Number of previous police apprehensions 2. Number of previous referrals to court 3. Number of previous court appearances

'Minor offenses (such as truancy, disturbing the peace, etc.) were not included. 2This discretion is expressly conferred by statute (Criminal Procedure Law, 1965).

THE STUDY






METHOD




THE STUDY






METHOD




97 97 97




Al. As to type of offense, the offenses of the present study fall into one of the following five categories:

1. Offenses against the person (12.7%) 2. Housebreaking (14.4%) 3. Malicious damage to property or public mischief (7.1%) 4. Theft (56.4%) 5. Auto theft (9.4%)

A2. For seriousness of offense a seriousness scale adopted (and slightly modi- fied) from the study of Rossi et al. (1974) was utilized.3 Each offense was ranked on the following scale in declining order:

1. Drug selling 2. Rape; grievous bodily harm; indecent act with force; assaulting police-

man in aggravating circumstances 3. Common assault; indecent act; assaulting policeman on duty 4. Offenses against property in which the value of goods or damage

caused was 50 Israeli pounds or more 5. Possession and/or use of drug 6. Victimless offenses: prostitution 7. Offenses against property in which the value of goods or damage

caused was less than 50 Israeli pounds. Not all of the above seriousness-ranked offenses are represented in the types of offense investigated in this study owing to their small frequencies in our sample. The great majority of offenses fall into ranks 2, 3, 4, and 7 of the seriousness scale.

B. In spite of the quantitative nature of the three offender-related legal variables, it was felt that there are logical and possibly empirical reasons for a qualitative distinction, on each of them, between zero and any other value. The resultant dichotomies distinguish between:

1. Juveniles with no previous police apprehensions vs. those with at least one previous apprehension.

2. Juveniles with no previous referrals to court vs. those with at least one previous referral to court.

3. Juveniles with no previous court appearance vs. those with at least one previous court appearance.

The above three dichotomous legal variables are by no means orthogonal. Out of the eight theoretically possible profiles created by the cartesian product of the three dichotomies, only four are empirically possible. The empirical impossibility of the other four combinations or profiles is due to the hierarchical nature of the legal process: (1) A person cannot possibly be referred to court without first being apprehended. (2) There can be no court appearance in the absence of a referral to court.

The existence of a higher ranked stage (e.g., referral to court vs. police apprehension; court appearance vs. referral to court) is conditional upon a positive decision at the lower ranked stage. Consequently, the resultant four possible profiles or groups are:

A. Juveniles with no previous police apprehensions

3Since some offenses of the original scale (such as murder, white-collar crime, etc.) were nonexistent in our study, they were excluded from the present scale.































98 98 98




B. Juveniles with previous police apprehensions but without previous referrals to court (and, therefore, also without previous court appearances)

C. Juveniles with previous referrals to court, but no proceedings yet taken D. Juveniles with previous court appearances The above four groups can be rank ordered in respect of the extent of involve-

ment with the juvenile justice system: D > C > B > A, thus defining a new variable which exhausts all the qualitative information (i.e., the dichotomous distinctions) included in the three original legal variables related to the extent of previous involvement with the juvenile justice system.

Moreover, each of the first three groups is homogenous as regards at least one of the three original legal variables. (The cases included in group A are homogenous with regard to all three variables, those included in group B are homogenous with regards to two variables, etc.). This fact precludes the possibility of finding a relationship between police dispositions and each of the quantitative (continuous) legal variables in these groups which are homogenous as regards the given variable. For the sake of clarity, a list of the variables analyzed in each of the four groups is presented in Table 1.

The information presented in Table 1 indicates that the four groups differ markedly as to the number and type of the legal variables on which police dispositions could possibly be based. Consequently, it seems appropriate to analyze the contribution of the legal variables to police disposition separately in each of the four groups.

RESULTS

Table 2 presents the distribution of police apprehensions and prosecution dispositions in the various groups. The figures of this table reveal very clearly that if, when apprehended, the juvenile has previous referrals to court (group C), or court appearances (group D), the police decision, almost without exception, is to prosecute. In the other two groups of subjects the proportion of prosecutions is much smaller: When the juvenile has no previous apprehension (group A) the decision to prosecute is taken in only 41.0% of the cases and when there are previous apprehensions but no referrals to court (group B) the rate of prosecution rises to no more than 48.8%. In

Table 1. Offender-Related Legal Variables by Group

Variables

Number of Number of Number of previous previous re- previous court

Group apprehensions ferrals to court appearances

A 0 0 0 B 1 (+) 0 0 C 1 (+) 1 (+) 0 D I (+) 1 (+) 1 (+)






RESULTS



Variables



A 0 0 0 B 1 (+) 0 0 C 1 (+) 1 (+) 0 D I (+) 1 (+) 1 (+)






RESULTS



Variables



A 0 0 0 B 1 (+) 0 0 C 1 (+) 1 (+) 0 D I (+) 1 (+) 1 (+)

99 99 99




Table 2. Distribution of Apprehensions and Prosecution Dispositions by Group

Percentage of Percentage of cases prosecuted Percentage of

Group N total cases in the group total prosecutions

A 210 56.5 41.0 39.6 B 41 11.0 48.8 9.2 C 29 7.8 93.1 12.4 D 92 24.7 91.3 38.7

Total 372 100.0 58.3 100.0




A 210 56.5 41.0 39.6 B 41 11.0 48.8 9.2 C 29 7.8 93.1 12.4 D 92 24.7 91.3 38.7

Total 372 100.0 58.3 100.0




A 210 56.5 41.0 39.6 B 41 11.0 48.8 9.2 C 29 7.8 93.1 12.4 D 92 24.7 91.3 38.7

Total 372 100.0 58.3 100.0

groups C and D there is actually nothing to predict: We have empirically identified two groups within which police disposition to prosecute is a constant at a confidence level of minimum 91%.

On the basis of the figures presented in Table 2, it was decided to further analyze the question posed by the present study in the first two groups only. Due to the

similarity in the proportion of cases prosecuted in groups A and B, and due to the small number of subjects in group B, for the purpose of the statistical analyses these two groups were combined into one group which will henceforth be referred to as

group AB. Tables 3 and 4 present the distribution of prosecution dispositions by type and seriousness of offense. Table 3, relating to type of offense, shows that in three of the five legal categories, the rate of prosecution was above 50%: offenses against property (57.1%), housebreaking (55%), and autotheft (52.2%). In the remaining two

legal categories (malicious damage to property or public mischief and theft), the rate of prosecution is considerably lower (35.7% and 34.5%, respectively). When seriousness of offense is considered, it is seen (from Table 4) that all cases of severe offenses against the person (rank 2) are prosecuted. Less severe offenses against the

person (rank 3) are prosecuted in a much smaller proportion (53.3%), while offenses

against property (ranks 4 and 7) are prosecuted in less than half of the cases (44.3% and 32.3%, respectively). It should be emphasized, however, that these offenses















Table 3. Distribution of Prosecution Dispositions by Type of Offense in Group AB

Percentage of Type of offense N cases prosecuted

1. Offenses against the person 35 57.1 2; Housebreaking 20 55.0 3. Malicious damage to property;

public mischief 14 35.7 4. Theft 145 34.5 5. Auto theft 23 52.2

Total 237a 41.4

aIn 14 cases there were missing values in one (or more) of the legal variables.





Total 237a 41.4






Total 237a 41.4


100 100 100




Table 4. Distribution of Prosecution Dispositions by Seriousness of Offense in Group AB

Percentage of Seriousness ranka N cases prosecuted

2 4 100.0 3 30 53.3 4 106 44.3 5 1 7 96 32.3

Total 237b 41.4

aRanks 1 and 6 (drug selling and victimless offenses, respectively) were nonexistent in groups A and B. For exact definition of each rank see Method.

bIn 14 cases there were missing values in one (or more) of the legal variables.

(against property) comprise the vast majority (85.2%) of the total cases investigated. Table 5 presents the cumulative multiple correlations between the legal variables

and police disposition. From this table it is seen that the predictability of police disposition by the legal variables in group AB is negligible (R2 = 5%), thus leading to the conclusion that in this group the legal variables explain only a very small proportion of the variance of police dispositions. This means that it is impossible to validly predict police dispositions according to the available legal variables in group AB (type and seriousness of offense and number of previous police apprehensions.)

Table 6 presents the raw regression coefficients of the legal variables included in the prediction equation in group AB. As shown in this table, none of the coefficients differ significantly from zero.

DISCUSSION

The findings of the present study reveal that police disposition is a function of the extent of the juvenile's previous involvement with the juvenile justice system: If the juvenile was previously referred to court, this dichotomous legal variable serves as an excellent predictor of police disposition (to prosecute the case). However, if the juvenile had no previous court referrals, the predicting power of the available legal variables (type and seriousness of offense and number of previous police apprehensions) is negligible.

Table 5. Cumulative Multiple Correlation (R) for Predicting Police Disposition Using

Available Legal Variables in Group AB

Type of offense .198 Seriousness of offense .217 Number of previous apprehensions .223



2 4 100.0 3 30 53.3 4 106 44.3 5 1 7 96 32.3

Total 237b 41.4






DISCUSSION







2 4 100.0 3 30 53.3 4 106 44.3 5 1 7 96 32.3

Total 237b 41.4






DISCUSSION





101 101 101




Table 6. Raw Regression Coefficients (b's) in Multiple Regression Equation for Predicting Police Disposition in Group ABa

Seriousness of offense .11 Type of offense:

Housebreaking .19 Malicious damage to property and

public mischief .01 Auto theft .11 Crimes against the person .15

Number of previous apprehensions .07

Constant 2.12 Mean criterion .41

aNone of the coefficients differ significantly from zero.

An adequate interpretation and understanding of the above findings require a more detailed consideration of some theoretical issues on the one hand, and of the functioning of a juvenile department within the police on the other.

In the introduction section of the present article attention was focused on the labeling approach to deviant and criminal behavior. However, this is by no means the only current theoretical framework emphasizing society's reaction in explaining delinquent behavior. In recent years an alternative theoretical perspective to delinquent behavior has gained increasing popularity - the control or deterrence approach (Gibbs, 1975; Tittle, 1975; Tittle & Rowe, 1974; Zimring & Hawkins, 1973). Both these approaches have in common the strong emphasis on the policy of social control agencies as an important factor influencing the extent of future delinquency. How- ever, beyond this common starting point the two theories are in sharp contrast as to the specific recommended policy for social control agencies. The labeling approach, based on Lemert's (1967) distinction between primary and secondary deviance, would predict that the more severe the reaction of social control agencies to the juvenile's delinquent behavior, the greater the probability of him (her) committing delinquent acts in the future due to the stigmatization process and the acquisition of a delinquent identity by the juvenile as a result of the official labeling. In contrast to this approach, the deterrence theory would predict just the opposite: The more severe the reaction of social control agencies to the juvenile's delinquent behavior, the greater the chances that this reaction will deter him (her) from committing delinquent acts in the future. Although most studies on this topic investigated general deterrence, and the few focus- ing on specific deterrence provide only weak support to the above prediction (Gibbs, 1975, p. 185), this prediction expresses the basic thesis underlying the deterrence approach.

Applied to police dispositions analyzed in the present study, according to the labeling approach, even when faced with evidence proving the juvenile's guilt, the police should close the file for lack of public interest in order to prevent his (her) future delinquency, while according to the deterrence approach, in order to achieve the same goal, this juvenile should be prosecuted.





















102 102 102




These two theoretical approaches bear strong relevance to the goals and functioning of the juvenile units within the police. On the organizational level there seems to exist a built-in role conflict between the traditional goals and duties of police in society as opposed to those of the juvenile units within the police. This distinction between the goal of the regular police and that of the juvenile units is reflected very clearly in the Israel Police Annual Report, 1975 (1976, p. 20):

The duty of the Israel Police is to apprehend offenders, investigate them and bring them to trial. However, when it is the moral standards and personal fate of the citizens of tomorrow which is at stake, the police do not confine themselves to carrying out the duties imposed upon them by the law. The units for juvenile offenders ... endeavour to prevent the deteriora- tion of young people who are on the verge of crime, encourage other bodies engaged in the education of youth and in social work, and extend aid directly to youth in need, especially youth in distress .. . The Israel Police (tries) not to miss even the slightest opportunity of rehabilitating the young dejinquent.

Relating more specifically to the official policy as regards the prosecution of juveniles, the Israel Police Annual Report 1976 (1977, p. 19) states: " ... the tendency (is) not to open a criminal file automatically for every juvenile suspect. The police takes this line in cases of lesser offenses (particularly when they are first offenses) in order not to frustrate any prospect of rehabilitating a minor by labeling him as a criminal."

The above statements emphasize that, unlike the regular police who are guided in their functioning by the control or deterrence approach (apprehension - investi- gation - prosecution), the juvenile units openly adopt the labeling approach as their official policy. It should be kept in mind, however, that by functioning within a juvenile unit, police officers do not extinguish or totally eliminate the deterrence approach (characterizing the police as a whole) but rather add to it the labeling approach due to the special type of clients with whom they are dealing. As a result, they are ex- pected to use their discretionary powers as to when they should act according to either one of these two alternative perspectives.

Accepting this approach to the functioning of police juvenile units, the inevitable question arises as to whether it is possible to identify empirically the specific point where police decision-making reflects a switch-over from the labeling to the deterrence approach.

The findings of the present study provide, in our opinion, the information as to this switch-over point: The existence of a previous referral of the juvenile to court. As long as the juvenile has no previous referrals to court, the police is largely guided by the labeling hypothesis. This conclusion is supported by the following findings: (1) In group AB a great proportion of files is closed for lack of public interest (in spite of ex- isting evidence proving the juvenile's guilt). (2) In this group, the few available legal variables do not predict police disposition. Moreover, in this group extralegal variables (ethnic origin, sex, age, and residential area) are equally bad predictors of police dispositions (Landau, 1978), suggesting that the decision is made on the basis of the circumstances of the individual case. In our opinion these findings reveal that at the early stages of the juvenile's involvement with the juvenile justice system, the police tend to exercise a treatment-oriented (rather than punitive-oriented) policy, i.e., they are guided by the labeling approach. However, if the juvenile has already been offi- cially labeled as a delinquent (e.g., was previously referred to court or appeared there













103 103 103




already - groups C and D), there is a sharp switch-over to the alternative deterrence approach: prosecution of almost every single case.

This mode of action, however, is not necessarily the most logical one, as its success is not assured according to the deterrence approach and its failure is certain according to the labeling perspective. The fact that the juvenile committed another offense in spite of being previously referred to court (or already having appeared there) shows that the court referral or appearance did not have the desired effect (e.g., deterring future delinquency). From the labeling point of view, the commission of further offenses is a predicted result of the previous referral to or appearance in court. Therefore the recommended action from this perspective would be to destigmatize the juvenile rather than restigmatize him. Our findings show, however, that police action is in the line of the deterrence approach and is based apparently on the assumption that the results of the next court appearance will be harsher and therefore also more deterrent than those of the previous one(s). Thus, a single previous referral to court "befrees" the police from any "soft" or labeling-oriented considerations, resulting in a punitive disposition (prosecution) in almost every single case. However, the above interpretation of the findings needs further and more direct empirical support. It would be necessary to directly investigate the attitudes of juvenile officers as to this policy and also content analyze (if possible) the grounds stated by the police for their dispositions.

The fact that legal variables are bad predictors of police disposition at the early stages of the juvenile's involvement with the system (group AB) does not necessarily mean that in this group police dispositions are totally unpredictable. It should be kept in mind that in this group the only available legal variables are type and seriousness of offense and number of previous apprehensions. The assumption put forward here is that in this group police look for nonlegal (offender- or offense-related) variables as additional guidelines on which to base their decision to prosecution. A possible variable of this kind may be the extent of the juvenile's cooperation with the police (Piliavin & Briar, 1964). Thus, the inclusion of this and other relevant variables may improve the predictability of police dispositions in this group. Research in this line on group AB would be of special importance, as our interpretation of police decisions in this group (i.e., their being guided to a great extent by the labeling approach) applies only to the group level and not to the individual level. In this group we still do not know why some juveniles were prosecuted while others were not.

Basically, investigating the topic of the present study separately at the various progressive stages of the juvenile's involvement with the criminal justice system proved to be effective in that it enabled us to find out the differential predictive power of the legal variables as regards police disposition in the various groups. Moreover, it enabled us to detect the specific stage of criminalization where police disposition is almost totally predictable by a legal variable. However, our findings still leave un- answered the question as to the possible predictive variables at the early stages of the youngsters' involvement with the juvenile justice system. More research in the direc- tions mentioned above may provide an answer to this question, thus increasing our understanding of police dispositions when dealing with juveniles.









104 104 104




REFERENCES

Black, D.J., & Reiss, A.J. Police Control of Juveniles. A merican Sociological Review, 1970, 35, 63-77. Cicourel, A.V. The Social Organization of Juvenile Justice. New York: John Wiley, 1968. Goldman, N. The Differential Selection of Juvenile Offenders for Court Appearance. National Council on

Crime and Delinquency, 1963. Gibbs, J.P. Crime, Punishment and Deterrence. New York: Elsevier, 1975.

Hartjen, C.A. Crime and Criminalization. New York: Praeger, 1974. Hirschi, T. Labelling theory and juvenile delinquency: An assessment of the evidence. In Gove, Walter

(Ed.) The Labelling of Deviance: Evaluating a Perspective. New York: Wiley, 1975, pp. 181-203. Israel Police Annual Report, 1975. Jerusalem: The Publication Section, Public Relation and Information

Division, Israel Police H.Q., 1976. Israel Police Annual Report, 1976. Jerusalem: The Publication Section, Public Relation and Information

Division, Israel Police H.Q., 1977. Landau, S.F. Discrimination in the handling of juvenile offenders by the police: Some Israeli findings. Pre-

sented at the Ninth International Congress of Sociology, Upsala, August, 1978. Lemert, E.M. Human Deviance, Social Problems, and Social Control. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-

Hall, 1967. McEachern, A.W., & Bauzer, R. Factors related to disposition in juvenile police contacts. In Klein,

Malcolm W., and Myerhoff, Barbara G. (Eds.) Juvenile Gangs in Context. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1967, pp. 148-160.

Piliavin, I., & Briar, S. Police encounters with juveniles. American Journal of Sociology, 1964, 70, 206-214.

Quinney, R. The Social Reality of Crime. Boston: Little Brown, 1970. Rossi, P.H., Waite, E., Bose, C.E., & Berk, R.E. The seriousness of crimes: Normative structure and

individual differences. American Sociological Review, 1974, 39, 224-237. Schur, E.M. Labelling Deviant Behavior: Its Sociological Implications. New York: Harper and Row, 1971. Terry, R.M. Discrimination in the handling of juvenile offenders by social control agencies. Journal of

Research in Crime and Delinquency, 1967, 4, 218-230. Thornberry, T. Race, Socioeconomic status and sentencing in the juvenile justice system. Journal of

Criminal Law & Criminology, 1973, 64, 90-98. Tittle, C.R. Deterrents or labelling? Social Forces, 1975, 53, 399-410. Tittle, C.R., & Rowe, A.R. Certainty of arrest and crime rates: A further test of the deterrence hypothesis.

Social Forces, 1974, 52, 455462. Weiner, N.L., & Willie, C.V. Decisions by juvenile officers. American Journal of Sociology, 1971, 77,

199-210. Welford, C. Labelling Theory and Criminology: An assessment. Social Problems, 1975, 22, 332-345. Zimring, F.E., & Hawkins, G.J. Deterrence: The Legal Threat in Crime Control. Chicago, Illinois: The

University of Chicago Press, 1973.

REFERENCES


















REFERENCES


















105 105 105



do legal variables predict police decisions regarding the prosecution of juvenile offenders?

Documents