![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
As juvenile courts have moved away from the parens patriae philosophy of individualized justice, judges have found their discretion limited by statutory guidelines restricting authority over disposition and placement. This paper examines the response of judges in one state to implementation of detention intake reforms that require use of objective criteria and risk assessment to determine eligibility for detention placement. Based on data from a statewide survey of Florida circuit court judges assigned to the juvenile bench, this study attempts to account for variation in support for objective restrictions on a decision-making process in which judges traditionally have been granted wide latitude. Findings show that agreement with the statutory purposes of detention and confidence in alternatives exert the strongest influence when a variety of demographic, occupational, and role orientation variables are taken into account in multivariate analysis. Implications for effective implementation of reforms limiting discretion and for future research are considered.
The author would like to thank Ted Rubin, Bill Barton, and Charles Frazier for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
The author would like to thank Ted Rubin, Bill Barton, and Charles Frazier for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
Notes
The author would like to thank Ted Rubin, Bill Barton, and Charles Frazier for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.