Juvenile and Family Court Journal最新文献

The media allow crime to infiltrate the public’s consciousness in every conceivable way, thereby playing a major role in shaping the public’s opinion and attitude toward crime and crime issues (Barak, 1995; Fields & Jerin, 1996; Kappeler & Potter, 2005). Reporters constantly talk about crime, and crime related stories dominate the headlines of local and national newspaper outlets (Dowler, 2003; Pizarro et al, 2007). Some of the most highly rated television programs are based on crime plots and people across social, political, and racial demographics are constantly engaged in crime dialogue generated from local or national news stories. When the focus of these mediums is on youth they become even more profound and contentious. The images portrayed conjure up stereotypes that lead to fear and inflammatory remarks that become entrenched into the national lexicon. The current study uses data from the National Opinion Survey of Crime and Justice to test the relationship between crime-related media viewership and fear of victimization within a nationally representative adult sample. Approximately 42.67% of respondents reported regularly watching crime shows and about the same proportion (42.83%) believed their local media paid too much attention to violent crime. In addition to regular crime-show viewership, confidence in the police, gender, and recent contact with the police were associated with fear of victimization. This article adds to an existing body of research through a largely unexplored area in the administration of justice. It does so within the context of the U.S. juvenile justice system.

The Juvenile & Family Court Journal focuses on issues of interest to the field of juvenile and family justice, including child abuse and neglect, juvenile delinquency, domestic violence, substance abuse, child custody and visitation, judicial leadership, and related topics. Since the pandemic began wreaking havoc on communities all across the country, the COVID-19 virus has been an important topic to everyone interested in juvenile and family justice. The Journal is inviting COVID-related articles (law, research, commentary, essay, etc.) for publication in Journal issues in 2021 and beyond. It is important to document the impact the pandemic has on juvenile and family justice. We want to know how courts and related agencies have been dealing with shut-downs and the disruption the virus has caused? How have caseloads changed? How are justice-involved children, youth, and families coping during the pandemic? How are things different in places that have not experienced much disruption? How are you preparing for a post-COVID world? What changes will you try to hang onto?

Submissions can be sent to [email protected]. See the Journal’s page on the Wiley website for submission guidelines.

Also in this issue:

The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) recently passed a number of statements and resolutions on how to improve the lives of youth and families involved with juvenile or family courts. You will find these items later in this issue.

As part of a research team on the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Initiative to Develop and Test Guidelines for Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts, WestEd conducted a policy and practice scan (also called an "environmental scan") to provide data on a small sample of local Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts (JDTCs) in the United States. This article is a synthesis of the information collected from 25 JDTCs on their current operations. The article first reviews key literature on JDTCs, followed by a description of the methodology used in this policy and practice scan. Then, the article presents findings about history, funding sources, partnerships, structures and operations, treatment options, challenges, and successes. We found little systematic performance evaluation or long-term sustainability planning among the participating JDTCs. Finally, the article discusses the limitations of this study, implications for the new version of the JDTC guidelines, and practical recommendations for stakeholders in this field.

Juvenile and family court judges are a professional group that have a significant amount of decision-making power in cases of sex trafficking of minors. The purpose of this project is to examine the association of juvenile and family court judges’ gender, race, and U.S. region with their attitudes and knowledge about sex trafficking of minors. Drawing from a survey of 55 juvenile and family court judges in the U.S., this study used standardized scales to measure attitudes and knowledge about child sex trafficking. Results indicate some differences by gender and geography in a sample of experienced judges across the U.S. The consistency of these findings are discussed in the context of other research and implications for targeted training.

The article describes and discusses sexual violations online using the recent Danish case law and legislation as an example and drawing upon the United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is argued that the legislation does not provide a sufficient solution to the problems connected to digital violations of the physical integrity of the victim.

Through the lens of the high-profile spree killing perpetrated by Dwight Lamon Jones in 2018 in Phoenix, Arizona, this article examines the way the criminal and civil courts grappled with assessing the significance, extent, and outcome of the IPV and abuse directed at Dr. Connie Jones, Dwight Jones’s former wife. The case is unusual, not least because Dr. Jones had an upper middle-class income and numerous resources IPV victims do not normally enjoy. Nevertheless, she felt the courts let her family down. Journalists, victim advocates, and others also criticized the Arizona courts. The article outlines the spree killing and the criticisms of the courts, narrates Jones over a period of nine years including the IPV and mental illness, and, through the work of the Study Committee convened by Arizona Chief Justice Bales, explores the potential use of IPV risk assessments in the courts, particularly the family court, and related matters. It concludes with recommendations regarding possible preventive interventions in IPV cases, including those addressing mental illness.