Children Behind Bars: A Path to Reducing Pre-Adjudicative Detention in the Juvenile Justice System
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
(Excerpt) In 2019, nearly 16,000 young people referred to the juvenile justice system were detained in juvenile facilities. Nearly 10,000 of them had not yet been found to have committed a crime. When it comes to youthful offenders, one might assume that courts would be inclined to exhibit leniency and favor pretrial release. In reality, judges detain youth pretrial in over a quarter of delinquency cases. Pretrial detention does not affect all youth at an equal rate: juvenile court judges consistently detain older youths more often than younger youths, more boys than girls, and far more children of color. In fact, “youth pretrial detention is marred by racial disparity.” For example, “less than 21% of white youth with delinquency cases are detained, compared to 32% of Hispanic youth, 30% of Black youth, 26% of American Indian youth, and 25% of Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander youth.” Like in the adult criminal justice system, pre-adjudicative detention is an inevitable reality of the juvenile system. Federal guidance provides that “the purpose of juvenile detention is to confine only those youth who are serious, violent, or chronic offenders pending legal action.” But in practice, this form of detention is decidedly not reserved for the most serious cases where, for example, a juvenile’s alleged offense is such that he poses imminent and grave danger to the community. In fact, a 2019 report found that “over 3,200 youth [were] detained [nationally] for technical violations of probation or parole, or for status offenses, which are behaviors that are not law violations for adults.” Two distinct problems are present when it comes to the pretrial detention of juveniles: detention is not limited to the most serious cases, and racial disparities abound. But while the statistics might paint a grim picture, there is hope for this vulnerable population. In the wake of robust bail reform for adults and juvenile justice reform across the country, the time is ripe for change in pre-adjudicative decision-making in the juvenile justice system. This Note will explore one specific option for such reform: integrating algorithmic risk assessment tools into judicial determinations of whether a juvenile needs to be detained before his trial. This particular reform has been successful in the adult system, and it could serve to remove racist and unjust subjectivity behind today’s preadjudicative detention of juveniles. Part I of this Note will explain the workings of the juvenile justice system and the harms that juveniles suffer when they are detained before trial. Part II will discuss the current state of reform in both the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems and will argue that the juvenile system should be further reformed by borrowing from adult system reform involving algorithmic risk assessment tools.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,017 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,010 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,014 | 0,012 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,040 | 0,005 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».