DOI: 10.3886/icpsr03976
title: Prosecuting Adolescents in Juvenile and Criminal Jurisdictions in Selected Counties in New Jersey and New York, 1992-1993
title: Archival Version

description: A different model of justice is assumed to be reflected in
 the prosecution of adolescents in juvenile jurisdictions compared to
 criminal jurisdictions, with a juvenile justice model in the juvenile
 jurisdiction and a criminal justice model in the criminal jurisdiction. 
 These two models of justice are believed to be very different from one
 another across three dimensions: formality of case processing,
 evaluation of defendants, and punishment. This research project compared
 the prosecution and punishment of adolescent felony offenders in the New
 Jersey juvenile jurisdiction and the New York criminal jurisdiction to
 determine whether these two models of justice varied across the two
 jurisdiction types. Data from this collection were used by the
 researcher only to examine the dimension of punishment severity across
 jurisdiction types and across courts within each jurisdiction type. Data
 were collected on comparable cases of adolescent felony offenders from
 counties in New Jersey and New York. Due to the very different
 boundaries between juvenile and criminal jurisdictions in these adjacent
 states, the data include cases (matched by offense and offender age) in
 New Jersey's juvenile jurisdiction and New York's criminal jurisdiction.
 Cases of 15- and 16-year-old defendants who had been charged with
 aggravated assault, robbery, or burglary in three counties of New Jersey
 and three counties of New York City in 1992 and 1993 were sampled.
 Variables include offender characteristics, such as age at offense, sex,
 race, and ethnicity, offense characteristics, court action and
sentencing information, state, and county.
description: An important shift in the prosecution and
 punishment of adolescents is the increasingly frequent transfer of youth
 from the juvenile jurisdiction to the criminal jurisdiction previously
 reserved primarily for adults. A different model of justice is assumed
 to be reflected in the prosecution of adolescents in each of these two
 legal forums, with a juvenile justice model in the juvenile jurisdiction
 and a criminal justice model in the criminal jurisdiction. These two
 models of justice are believed to be very different from one another
 across three dimensions: formality of case processing, evaluation of
 defendants, and punishment. This research project compared the
 prosecution and punishment of adolescent felony offenders in the New
 Jersey juvenile jurisdiction and the New York criminal jurisdiction to
 determine whether these two models of justice varied across the two
 jurisdiction types. The researcher examined whether both jurisdiction
 types actually practiced juvenile justice, both practiced criminal
 justice, or one practiced juvenile justice and the other criminal
 justice. Additionally, the researcher examined whether the two models of
 justice varied along only one or two of the dimensions, while
 maintaining similarity along other dimensions. The project also
 investigated court-level variation within jurisdiction. Data from this
 collection were used by the researcher only to examine the dimension of
 punishment severity across jurisdiction types and across courts within
 each jurisdiction type for three punishment outcomes -- pretrial
 detention, final case disposition, and length of custodial sentence. The
 central questions in regard to these data were: (1) Does jurisdiction
 type affect punishment severity when controlling for other relevant
 factors? and (2) Does court context affect punishment severity when
controlling for jurisdiction type?
description: In order to compare case processing across juvenile
 and criminal jurisdictions, data were collected on comparable cases of
 adolescent felony offenders from counties in New Jersey and New York.
 Due to the very different boundaries between juvenile and criminal
 jurisdictions in these adjacent states, the data include cases (matched
 by offense and offender age) in New Jersey's juvenile jurisdiction and
 New York's criminal jurisdiction. Cases of 15- and 16-year-old
 defendants were sampled who had been charged with aggravated assault,
 robbery, or burglary in three counties of New Jersey and three counties
 of New York City in 1992 and 1993. These three offense types were chosen
 because they are all serious felony charges and are among the most
 common offenses from the list of juvenile offender (JO) eligible
 offenses and thus provided a large sample. The age range includes both
 adolescents excluded from the juvenile jurisdiction by the JO Law in New
 York (15-year-olds) and individuals who are above New York's general age
 of criminal majority (16-year-olds). Thus the New York data are able to
 show how adolescents fare in the criminal jurisdiction regardless of the
 legal method by which they arrived there (both exclusion from the
juvenile jurisdiction and surpassing the general age of majority).
description: Variables include offender characteristics such as
 age at offense, sex, race, and ethnicity. Offense characteristics
 include offense type at case filing (robbery, aggravated assault,
 burglary), whether offense was committed with a weapon, imposition of
 pretrial detention, number of prior arrests, number of arrests during
 case processing, whether the defendant had been previously
 incarcerated, and whether an arrest warrant for the defendant was
 ordered during case processing. Court action and sentencing variables
 include total number of charges at arraignment, number of days from
 arrest to final disposition, whether incarcerated, type of
 adjudication, final disposition/sentence, and number of months served
 (in New Jersey) or sentenced (in New York) in prison. Variables also
include state and county.
description: Response Rates: Not applicable.
description: Presence of Common Scales: None
description: In order to reduce the likelihood of disparate environmental
 and organizational influences, the sample included two states within a
 single social and criminal justice milieu. Within Northeastern New
 Jersey, juvenile jurisdictions in three counties that border the Hudson
 River were studied. These counties (Essex, Hudson, and Passaic) are
 among the most populous in the state and each includes large urban
 areas. Within New York criminal jurisdictions were examined in three
 boroughs (Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx), each of which is an independent
 county of New York City. These six counties border one another,
 separated only by the Hudson River. They were matched along a variety of
 dimensions. They have similar rates of unemployment, poverty,
 female-headed households, and residential mobility. And, they are each
 leaders in their respective states regarding homicides and rates of
 imprisonment. Cases of 15- and 16-year-old defendants who were charged
 with aggravated assault (1st and 2nd), robbery (1st and 2nd), or
 burglary (1st) in the above six counties of New Jersey and New York in
 1992 or 1993 were sampled. Precautions were taken to help ensure that
 the cases in both states involved offenses of equal severity: (1)
 Sampling was done after an initial screening process in each system. In
 New Jersey cases were sampled at court filing and after having passed an
 initial screening by a prosecutor. In New York cases were sampled at
 arraignment and after screening by prosecutors for legal sufficiency and
 appropriate charging. (2) The sample includes only the most serious
 sub-charges within each offense type. This sampling method includes the
 most serious 15- and 16-year-old offenders in each state other than
adolescents arrested for homicide or sexual assault.
description: Datasets: 
DS1: Prosecuting Adolescents in Juvenile and Criminal Jurisdictions in Selected Counties in New Jersey and New York, 1992-1993
description: Adolescent felony offenders in three counties in New Jersey
and three counties in New York in 1992 and 1993. Smallest Geographic Unit: county
description: (1) The qualitative data collected as part of this grant
 and extensively described in the project's final report and the
 quantitative data described in Appendix A of the final report are not
 available from ICPSR. (2) The user guide and codebook are provided by
 ICPSR as Portable Document Format (PDF) files. The PDF file format was
 developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be accessed using PDF
 reader software, such as the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how to
obtain a copy of the Acrobat Reader is provided on the ICPSR Web site.