1.
THE IMPACT OF WAIVER TO ADULT
COURT ON YOUTHS’ PERCEPTIONS OF
PROCEDURAL JUSTICE
Suzanne Kaasa, Joseph Tatar & Elizabeth Cauffman
University of California, Irvine

2.
Different Paths for Juvenile Offenders

3.
Transfers Across the Country
 Most states have increased ease of transfers to
adult court
 Almost half of states do not specify a minimum age
for transfer
 Estimates of over 200,000 youths transferred to
adult court in U.S. every year
Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2004; OJJDP, 2004

4.
Juvenile Court
 Cook County, Illinois (1899)
 parens patriae
 Introduction of some procedural safeguards
 In re Gault (1967)
 Right to counsel
 Privilege against self-incrimination
 Right to confront and cross-examine accusers
 Re-affirmation of differences
 E.g., McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971)

5.
Adult Court
 Potential Costs (to youth)
Higher probability of being convicted
More likely to be incarcerated and receive
longer sentences
 Potential Benefits
Same procedural safeguards as adults
E.g., right to jury trial
Fagan, 1996; Kupchik, et al., 2003; Kurlychek & Johnson, 2004; Rudman, Hartstone, Fagan, &
Moore, 1986

6.
Importance of Procedure
 Procedural Justice: fairness of legal procedure
 Effects emotions, attitudes towards authority, and
behavior
 Predicts differences in adjustment to incarceration
 Greater institutional offending
 Higher anger
 More depressive symptoms
 Fear of staff
Kaasa, Malloy & Cauffman, 2008; Kaasa, Tatar, & Cauffman, 2009; Mikula et al.,
1998; Paternoster et al.,1997; Tyler, 2000; Tyler et al., 2007

7.
What Makes a Procedure Just?
1) Voice
2) Neutrality
3) Respectfulness
4) Trustworthiness
Leventhal, 1980; Fagan & Tyler, 2005; Tyler & Lind, 1992

8.
Juvenile Court Professionals
 Non-adversarial (or less adversarial)
 Prosecutors
 Judges
 Enforcement of procedure
 Adjudication
 Defense Attorneys
 Welfare of client vs. client advocacy
 Many youth in juvenile court are dissatisfied with counsel
 No differences between minors (in juvenile court) and young
adults (in adult court) on level of trust for attorney
Catton, 1978; Connor, 1972; Feld,1988; Pierce & Brodsky, 2002; Walker, 1971

9.
Research Question
 Do youths in juvenile court perceive their court
experience to be more or less procedurally just than
those in adult court?
 Hypothesis #1: Juvenile court is perceived as more just
 Greater attention to welfare of youths
 Hypothesis #2: Adult court is perceived as more just
 Greater procedural safeguards

10.
Method
 N = 373, high security juvenile facility
 Juvenile Court: 71.7%
 Adult Court: 28.3%
 Age: 14-17 years, M = 16.42, SD = .79
6%
29%
53%
12% Caucasian
African
American
Latino
Other/Missing

11.
Demographic Characteristics of Adult
Transfers
0
20
40
60
80
Juvenile Court Adult Court
PercentofParticipants
Race
Caucasian
African
American
Latino
10
12
14
16
18
20
Juvenile Court Adult Court
Years
Age

12.
Offending History of Adult Transfers
20
40
60
80
100
Juvenile Court Adult Court
PercentofParticipants
Arrested Previously
20
40
60
80
100
Juvenile Court Adult Court
Person Offense

13.
Perceptions of Procedural Justice
 Last time in court (for the crime that got you here)
 Adapted from Piquero et al., 2006
 15 Items, alpha = .86, higher scores = greater injustice
 Subscales
 Prosecutor: 2 items, alpha = .75
 Judge: 7 items, alpha = .78
 Defense Attorney: 4 items, alpha = .94
 Sample items:
 “My lawyer really wanted to help me.”
 “The judge treated me with respect and dignity.”

14.
Analyses
 Comparing perceptions of procedural justice
between Juvenile vs. Adult court youth
 Controlling for: prior arrest history, person
offense, race
 Total procedural justice, prosecutor, judge and
defense attorney subscales

15.
Perceptions of Last Court Appearance
2.5
2.75
3
3.25
3.5
Juvenile Court Adult Court
ProceduralInjustice
F(1, 303) = 4.19, p < .05

16.
Prosecutor
2.5
2.75
3
3.25
3.5
Juvenile Court Adult Court
ProceduralInjustice

17.
Judge
2.5
2.75
3
3.25
3.5
Juvenile Court Adult Court
ProceduralInjustice

18.
Defense Attorney
2.5
2.75
3
3.25
3.5
Juvenile Court Adult Court
ProceduralInjustice
F(1, 305) = 4.31, p < .05

19.
Answer
 Hypothesis #2: youth in adult court perceive their
experiences to be more just than those in juvenile court.
 Differences mostly in treatment by defense attorney

20.
Discussion
 Current research suggests juvenile court defense
attorneys may have difficulties juggling conflicting
roles
What client wants vs. what client needs
Pressure to cooperate with other legal personnel
Future research: Systematic investigation of differences
in treatment of youths by defense attorneys in juvenile
vs. adult court, and how attorney behavior may be
modified to increase perceived just treatment
Puritz et al., 1995; Sanborn, 1994; Stapleton & Teitelbaum, 1972

21.
Discussion
 Differences in perceptions even though youths may
not be aware of disparities between juvenile and
adult court
 Adolescents have greater difficulty with competency than
adults, less understanding of court functioning
 Problems with competency make effective representation
even more crucial to just process
 Future research: what are youths’ expectations and how
are they different than their perceived treatment?
Grisso, et al., 2003

22.
Perceptions of Procedural Differences
 Focus of current study on perceptions of legal authorities,
not actual procedural differences
 Perhaps differences in perceptions of defense attorney driven
by differences in actual procedures
 Future research:
 Do youths notice (and miss) the lack of certain procedural
safeguards in juvenile court, such as right to a jury trial?
 Are differences in perceptions of defense attorneys explained
by these procedural constraints?

23.
Acknowledgements
 Division of Juvenile Justice
 Bernard Warner
 Rudy Haapanen
 James Fairgrieve
 Carla Viazcan
 Funding Source
 National Institute of Mental Health
 Graduate Students & Postdocs
 Amanda Cohen
 Julia Dmitrieva
 Sue Farruggia
 Asha Goldweber
 Erin Kelly
 Eva Kimonis
 Kristen Meyer
 Elizabeth Shulman
 Research Assistants
Madihha Ahussain, Katie Barnes,
Jordan Bechtold, Carolina Castanada,
Jocelyn Cook, Kaycie Craib,
Marine DeArmas, Diana Diaz,
Priyanka Doshi, Helena Ertel,
Kourtney Fuller, Nancy Girguis,
Maribel Gonzalez, Angelica Gutierrez,
Tyler Han, Melissa Hendricks,
Allina Hightower, Natasha Jain,
Sara Holderfield, Janet Kim,
Ashley Kruger, Jenna Kirschenman,
Claire Latouche, Danielle Lewien,
Veronica Lopez, John Phan,
Yuri Reyes, Chris Ridgeway,
David Ritter, James Robinson,
Kashif Ross, Danish Shahbaz,
Corinne Sheehan, Ania Siedlecka,
Jeanna Syn, Jeannete Villagran,
Anamaria Wallner, Megan Watt

24.
Extra Slides

25.
Defense Attorney Subscale
 alpha = .94
 My lawyer did a good job in defending me.
 My lawyer paid enough attention to my case.
 My lawyer really wanted to help me.
 My lawyer understood my viewpoint/side of the
story.

26.
Judge Subscale
 alpha = .78
 The judge considered the evidence/viewpoints in this
incident fairly.
 The judge made up his/her mind prior to receiving any
information about the case. (R)
 The judge treated me with respect and dignity.
 The judge did not let me tell all of the side of my story. (R)
 The judge treated me in the way that I thought I should be
treated.
 The judge showed concern for my rights.
 The judge treated me fairly.

27.
Prosecutor Subscale
 alpha = .75
 The prosecutor was honest in the way they handled
their case.
 The prosecutor used evidence that was fair and
neutral.

28.
General Questions
 I think I received a fair trial.
 My punishment was fair.

29.
Suggestions for Decreasing Disparity
 Defense attorneys should have:
 Appropriate resources
 Expert knowledge of juvenile court law and procedure
 Training in adolescent development, mental and
physical health, and education issues.
 Cultural and gender competency
Puritz & Majd, 2007

30.
Factors Common to Both Systems
 High caseloads
 Legal jargon
 Restraints on direct participation
 Brief hearings
 Counsel
 Scheduling difficulties
California Administrative Office of the Courts, 2008; Geraghty, 1997

31.
Differences in Youth Outcomes
Youths in juvenile court with counsel are more
likely to be incarcerated than youths without
counsel
Youths in juvenile court without counsel are
more likely to have their cases dismissed
Burrus & Kempf-Leonard, 2002; Guevara, Spohn, & Herz, 2004