Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article #1: Cochran, J. C., & Mears, D. P. (2015). Race, ethnic, and gender divides in juvenile court sanctioning and rehabilitative intervention. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52, 181–212.

Abstract: Drawing on focal concerns theory, as well as scholarship on the juvenile court’s mandate to consider youth culpability and amenability to treatment, we develop hypotheses that seek to examine whether the court will (1) punish Whites less severely and (2) be more likely to intervene with Whites through rehabilitative intervention and, simultaneously, be more punitive and less rehabilitative with minorities, and, in particular, Black males.

Journal Article #2: Spivak, A. L., Wagner, B. M., Whitmer, J. M., & Charish, C. L. (2014). Gender and status offending: Judicial paternalism in juvenile justice processing. Feminist Criminology, 9, 224–248.

Abstract: This study examines the relationship between gender and juvenile justice processing outcomes for status offenders. The feminist criminological concept of judicial paternalism suggests that official justice systems, as gendered institutions with traditional patriarchal norms, will treat delinquent girls differently than delinquent boys. This paternalistic effect should be especially prevalent for status offenses, which are used to enforce institutional (parental, school, civic, parochial) authority. Using 1999-2001 juvenile processing data for 3,329 status offense referrals to the Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs (N = 3,329) and controlling for age, race, prior history, type of status offense, and measures of social class and urban environment, our results indicate that (a) girls outnumber boys among status offenders, (b) girls are more likely than boys to have their petitions filed for review, (c) girls are less likely than boys to be adjudicated guilty, and (d) girls are just as likely as boys to receive an incarcerated custody sentence as opposed to probation. We argue that these results illustrate the manifestation of the juvenile justice system as a gendered institution in which the adjudication of status offenders reflects judicial paternalism.