Comparative Juvenile Justice Policy: Lessons from Other Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comparative Juvenile Justice Policy: Lessons from Other Countries Audry Passetti Alida V. Merlo Peter J. BenekosAs reviewed in Chapter 1, juvenile justice policy in the United States is somewhat paradoxical. Although there is evidence of excessively harsh sanctions, there are also indications of a softer approach to dealing with youth. It is useful to examine other countries’ juvenile justice systems to contrast similarities or differences in their policies. This chapter presents a brief summary and comparison of juvenile justice in five countries: Canada, Sweden, Russia, Japan, and China. There are limitations to comparing countries: the definitions of offenses, the categories of offenses, the age or mental status when youth are considered juveniles, and the record keeping vary from country to country (Reichel, 2002; Finckenauer, 2001:196; Zalkind & Simon, 2004). In addition, the differences in history, governments, culture, economics, and politics affect how youth are perceived and the philosophy of juvenile justice. These constraints preclude comparing every aspect of juvenile justice policy. Nonetheless, there is an opportunity to discuss observations about juvenile justice in other countries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.030 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".