A Cross-Sectional Empirical Study of the Policy Perspective of American State Juvenile Justice Law Codes James Mcgaha Iowa State University
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 1993 A cross-sectional empirical study of the policy perspective of American state juvenile justice law codes James McGaha Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd Part of the Criminology Commons, Law Commons, Political Science Commons, and the Social Control, Law, Crime, and Deviance Commons Recommended Citation McGaha, James, "A cross-sectional empirical study of the policy perspective of American state juvenile justice law codes " (1993). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 10843. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/10843 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. U-M-I MICROFILMED 1994 INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI University Microfilms international A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 Nortfi Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 Order Number 0414004 A cross-sectional empirical study of the policy perspective of American state juvenile justice law codes McGaha, James, Ph.D. Iowa State University, 1993 Copyright ©1998 by McGaha, James. All rights reserved. UMI 300 N. ZeebRd. Ann Aibor, MI 48106 A cross sectional empirical study of the policy perspective of American state juvenile justice law codes by James McGaha A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department: Sociology Major: Sociology Approved: Signature was redacted for privacy. Ma jorf Work Signature was redacted for privacy. Fdt the Major Department Signature was redacted for privacy. For thie Graduate College Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 1993 Copyright © James McGaha, 1993. All rights reserved. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 1 The Prevention-Remediation Dichotomy Perspective 1 Purpose of Study 3 Significance of the Study 4 CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW 6 Paradigms of Law Codes 7 Paradigms of Juvenile Law Codes 9 The Prevention Paradigm 14 CHAPTER III. THEORETICAL FRAME 17 Conflict Theory; Introduction 17 Marxist Conflict Theory 18 Social Conflict Theory 22 Criticism of Marxism and Conflict Theory 26 Relating Marxist Conflict Theory and Social Conflict Theory Summary to Juvenile Justice Policy Perspective 30 Summary 33 CHAPTER IV. OPERATIONAL!ZATION THEORY AND DATA SELECTION 35 Hypotheses 36 Operational Definitions 37 iii Page Application of Content Analysis to Research Hypotheses 40 Abbreviations and Symbols Employed in this Study 47 The Data 48 Selecting the Data for Conducting MCCA Contextual Content Analysis for this Study 48 Rationale for Selection of State Juvenile Law Codes to be Analyzed 49 Rationale for Selection of Three State Codes for Intensive Study 50 Data Collection 52 CHAPTER V. METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES 55 Methodology of this Study 55 Context Analysis Methodology 56 Meanings in Text 59 Measuring Context 60 Overview of Minnesota Contextual Content Analysis (MCCA) 63 CHAPTER VI. THE PROCESS 72 Computer Analysis of Data 72 The MCCA Process 7 2 CHAPTER VII. FINDINGS: GENERAL/MACRO LEVEL SPECIFIC/MICRO LEVEL PERSPECTIVES OF 50 STATE JUVENILE LAW CODES 76 Context Findings 76 iv CHAPTER VIII. FINDINGS: SPECIFIC/MICRO LEVEL PERSPECTIVES OF THREE STATE JUVENILE CODES Context Findings Comparison of General/Macro and Specific/Macro Level Context or C-scores Across Three State Codes Conceptual Findings Context Differences Across State Codes Isomorphicity between Three State Codes and Archival Indicators Rationale for Selection of Prohibit, Creative Operating Authority, and Creative Process Idea Categories Comparison of Prohibit Idea Category E-scores Across Three State Codes Comparison of Operating Authority Idea Category E-scores Across Three State Codes Comparison of Creative Process Idea Category E-scores Across Three State Codes Comparison of Three Idea Category E-scores Across Three States' Archival Data Indicators 1984 - 1992 Comparison of Operating Authority Idea Category E-scores Across Three States' Archival Data Indicators 1984 - 1992 Comparison of Creative Process Idea Category E-scores Across Three States' Archival Data Indicators 1984 - 1992 CHAPTER IX. CONCLUSIONS The Nature of the Juvenile Justice Policy Perspective V Page Why the Apparent/Manifest Prevention Orientation of Juvenile Justice? 122 E-scores: Why Are Sanctions So High? 133 What of the Mandate of Juvenile Policy to Focus on Prevention? 135 Comparison of General/Macro and Specific/Micro Level Context or C-scores Across Three Intensively Studied State Codes 138 How Explain the Four Diverging State Codes Depicted on the C-score Distance Plot? (Figure 1) 139 Isomorphicity (Match) between State Codes and Archival Corresponding Archival Indicators 141 Implications of This Study 143 Limitations of the Study 144 Recommendations for Future Research 145 Longitudinal Studies 146 BIBLIOGRAPHY 149 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 155 APPENDIX A. MINNESOTA CONTEXT CONTENT ANALYSIS (MCCA) CONCEPTUAL IDEA CATEGORIES DICTIONARY 159 APPENDIX B. GROUP A DATA 163 APPENDIX C. GROUP B DATA 197 APPENDIX D. ILLUSTRATIVE C-SCORE AND E-SCORE EXAMPLES 266 APPENDIX E. DIMENSION/CONCEPT LEXICONS - ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES 270 1 CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The Prevention-Remediation Dichotomy Perspective The philosophical and ideological base of American juvenile law and justice system is split, consisting of Prevention and Remediation perspectives. From inception in Cook County, Illinois, in 1899, the juvenile court and juvenile justice were manifestly Prevention (Non-punitive) in character (Empey, 1978; Faust & Brantingham, 1975; Fisher v. Commonwealth, 1905, in Re Gault, 387 U.S. 1875 CA 1428 [1967]; Levine, Musheno, & Palumbo, 1980; Senna & Siegel, 1990). It was designed to prevent juvenile crime and delinquency and rehabilitate children and youthful offenders (Senna & Siegel, 1990), as well as help the status offenders, the neglected, the dependent, and the incorrigible youth (Kerper, 1979; Senna & Siegel, 1990). Novel in emphasis, broad in jurisdiction and power, the court and the juvenile codes, institutions, and system which emerged were neither civil, legal, nor criminal in character, but formed what are termed socialized and informal tribunals and entities (Senna & Siegel, 1990) to 2 "save" children (employing the medical model orientation) rather than punish them (Faust & Brantingham, 1975; Schramm, 1949). More than 60 years elapsed before the Remediation (= Punitive = R) perspective achieved recognition (Allen, 1964; Empey, 1979; Fox, 1970; Piatt, 1969b; Siegel & Senna, 1981; Wooden, 1976). Recently, retroactively. Remediation came to be viewed by some scholars as characteristic of the juvenile justice system in practice from the outset, the apparent Prevention policy perspective notwithstanding (Blumberg, 1979; Levin & Sarri, 1974; Levine et al., 1980; Piatt, 1969b; Siegel & Senna, 1981). American juvenile justice is janus faced, displaying a seemingly fundamental contradiction between its formal policy perspective image, and the dominant policy perspective, and between its formal policy and operating system. Codes manifest a prevention, i.e., non-punitive (= Sociological Prevention = SP) perspective emphasis. Contrastingly at the latent level this apparent prevention perspective (= Traditional Prevention = TP) appears to equate with the dominant punitive perspective (TP = Remediational = R = punitive). Policy as articulated is manifestly Sociologically Prevention (SP), i.e., helping and non-punitive in emphasis. Contrastingly, policy as applied (implemented) is 3 Remediational (R), viz., punitive. (Abbreviation/symbols used in this study can be found in Chapter IV) Thus, whichever face juvenile justice presents, whether asserting prevention or punishment, it translates as punishment. We speak of prevention in juvenile justice, and we speak of punishment in juvenile