|
Abstract
|
PURPOSE
The United States Supreme Court decision In re Gault highlighted the importance of legal representation throughout juvenile justice proceedings. However, prior studies indicate that juveniles with legal representation have been both advantaged and disadvantaged across juvenile court outcomes. Some research suggests a "lawyer penalty" where youth represented by legal counsel are punished more severely than their non-represented counterparts.
Methods
Given the implications of these findings on both the court and life outcomes of juvenile offenders, the current study performs a meta-analysis comparing the dispositional sanctions of adjudicated juvenile offenders with counsel to those without representation.
Results
Juveniles represented by legal counsel were over two times more likely to receive an out-of-home placement compared to those without attorneys. The lawyer penalty was robust over time, across bivariate and multivariate studies, and whether individual-level or state-level data were analyzed, as having an attorney present increased the odds of a juvenile being removed from their home by over 200%.
Conclusions
Evidence of a lawyer penalty has persisted since the In re Gault decision despite an increase in sophistication of statistical analyses. The implications for juvenile court practice, the role of legal representation in juvenile court proceedings, and future research are discussed.
Keywords: Juvenile justice
Language: en |