Joseph Sanborn - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Papers by Joseph Sanborn

Crime & Delinquency, Oct 1, 1993

Page 1. Crime & Delinquency http://cad.sagepub.com/ Philosophical, Legal, and Systemic As... more Page 1. Crime & Delinquency http://cad.sagepub.com/ Philosophical, Legal, and Systemic Aspects of Juvenile Court Plea Bargaining Joseph B. Sanborn, Jr. Crime & Delinquency 1993 39: 509 DOI: 10.1177/0011128793039004006 ...

The Encyclopedia of Juvenile Delinquency and Justice, Nov 20, 2017

The decision to prosecute juvenile offenders in criminal court is arguably the most important dec... more The decision to prosecute juvenile offenders in criminal court is arguably the most important decision made regarding youth who are charged with committing crimes. 1 Without a doubt, this issue is among the most controversial in the field of juvenile justice due primarily to ...

The Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Oct 13, 2013

When juvenile court was introduced in 1899, due process for the youths processed there was not am... more When juvenile court was introduced in 1899, due process for the youths processed there was not among its concerns. For more than six decades juvenile court operated more like a clinic than a court of law. In the late 1960s and early 1970s the United States Supreme Court extended to juvenile defendants a few constitutional rights that the Court believed constituted “fundamental fairness.” Today, youths prosecuted in juvenile court certainly have more due process rights than were granted in that forum in the first half of the twentieth century, but they do not have the due process protections guaranteed to adult offenders. Keywords: domino theory; due process adjustment; “no rights” formula; rights as harmful; rights as inapplicable; rights as inappropriate; rights as undeserved

Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 2008

This Article examines and refutes the validity of the explosion of claims in the literature that ... more This Article examines and refutes the validity of the explosion of claims in the literature that juveniles are not competent to stand trial in criminal court. After providing a framework through which to analyze the legal relationship between juvenile defendants and the requirements for competency to stand trial, this Article summarizes the current advocacy presented by researchers in favor of finding that juvenile defendants are categorically incompetent to stand trial. However, this Article argues that the research in support of such a finding relies upon faulty premises and suffers from critical methodological problems. In support of this conclusion, this Article surveys various studies of juvenile competence undertaken by developmental psychologists, and explains that many such studies share particular logical and practical flaws. Thus, this Article argues that there is in fact no categorical problem ofjuvenile incompetency to stand trial, and that the solutions proposed to solve this so-called problem are in fact worse than the legal dilemma itself This Article concludes with a number of proposals that would better serve to protect the rights of juvenile defendants, in lieu of a universal finding that such defendants are incompetent to stand trial.

The Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment, Dec 28, 2015

Crime & Delinquency, Apr 1, 1994

Recent juvenile justice commentators have been guilty of serious misrepresentations about the pro... more Recent juvenile justice commentators have been guilty of serious misrepresentations about the process of transferring juvenile defendants to criminal court. If accepted, these misrepresentations could lead to dramatic changes in juvenile court certification policy. The purposes of this article are twofold. The first is to thoroughly explicate the transfer phenomenon and thereby neutralize the misrepresentations in the literature. The second objective is to identify the perspectives of various juvenile court workers regarding certification so as to further enable policymakers to comprehend and to address this volatile subject.

Crime & Delinquency, 1996

The dispositional stage is the most critical decision-making level delinquent youths encounter in... more The dispositional stage is the most critical decision-making level delinquent youths encounter in juvenile court. Previous research has produced inconsistent results concerning what motivates court officials in making sentencing decisions. One hundred workers (judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and probation officers) from three juvenile courts (urban, suburban, and rural) were interviewed to ascertain their perspectives as to factors which should and do influence dispositions in juvenile court. The data demonstrate that the factors perceived to affect these decisions vary among juvenile courts and that research may never be able to determine precisely the impact any of the factors has on the dispositional outcomes.

Journal of Criminal Justice Education, Mar 1, 1997

Page 1. BOOK REVIEW ESSAY OH WHERE, OH WHERE, HAS JUVENILE COURT GONE? (AND WHERE, OH WHERE, SHOU... more Page 1. BOOK REVIEW ESSAY OH WHERE, OH WHERE, HAS JUVENILE COURT GONE? (AND WHERE, OH WHERE, SHOULD IT GO?) Reinventing Juvenile Justice, by Barry Krisberg and James F. Austin. New-bury Park, CA: Sage. 1993. 209 pages. $16.95. ...

Criminal Justice Review, May 1, 1993

Page 1. http://cjr.sagepub.com/ Criminal Justice Review http://cjr.sagepub.com/content/18/ 1/118.... more Page 1. http://cjr.sagepub.com/ Criminal Justice Review http://cjr.sagepub.com/content/18/ 1/118.citation The online version of this article can be found at: DOI: 10.1177/ 073401689301800128 1993 18: 118 Criminal Justice Review Joseph B. Sanborn, Jr. ...

Justice Quarterly, Jun 1, 1986

Page 1. A HISTORICAL SKETCH OF PLEA BARGAINING* JOSEPH B. SANBORN, JR.** Plea bargaining is one o... more Page 1. A HISTORICAL SKETCH OF PLEA BARGAINING* JOSEPH B. SANBORN, JR.** Plea bargaining is one of the most emotional and controversial topics in the field of criminal justice. Not only is it defined and documented poorly, its origins also are much disputed. ...

Justice Quarterly, Mar 1, 1992

Page 1. PLEADING GUILTY IN JUVENILE COURT: MIIMAL ADO ABOUT SOMETHNG VERY IMPORTANT TO YOUNG DEFE... more Page 1. PLEADING GUILTY IN JUVENILE COURT: MIIMAL ADO ABOUT SOMETHNG VERY IMPORTANT TO YOUNG DEFENDANTS JOSEPH B. SANBORN JR. Glnssboro State College This study was designed to examine the guilty plea process in juvenile court. ...

Criminal Justice Policy Review, Mar 1, 1995

Parents play a critical role in juvenile court proceedings. Nevertheless, precisely what parents ... more Parents play a critical role in juvenile court proceedings. Nevertheless, precisely what parents should do in this forum has been ignored in the literature. In this study 100 personnel (judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys and probation officers) from three juvenile courts (urban, suburban and rural) were interviewed to determine how parents impact the proceedings and to identify problems created by their participation. The data suggest that solutions to these problems will be difficult, and perhaps impossible, to implement.

Justice System Journal, Sep 1, 1995

Page 1. Guardian of the Public and/or the Child: Policy Questions and Conflicts for the Juvenile ... more Page 1. Guardian of the Public and/or the Child: Policy Questions and Conflicts for the Juvenile Court Prosecutor * Joseph B. Sanborn, Jr. For several decades, prosecutors rarely worked in juvenile courts. The In re Gault decision ...

Crime & Delinquency, Oct 1, 1994

Traditionally, adjudicatory hearings in juvenile court operated under the direction of the parens... more Traditionally, adjudicatory hearings in juvenile court operated under the direction of the parens patriae doctrine, the state's obligation and license to care for children. Adjudications were achieved in informal, clinic-like sessions. The Supreme Court purportedly transformed juvenile court hearings into criminal-like trials via the Gault and Winship decisions. This research examines the extent to which juvenile court personnel currently perceive remnants of parens patriae in the adjudicatory hearing. One hundred workers (judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and probation officers) from three different juvenile courts (urban, suburban, and rural) were interviewed concerning sources of unfairness in the contemporary adjudicatory hearing. The results indicate that court workers see numerous obstacles to fairness in the juvenile court adjudicatory hearing.

Criminal Justice Review, Jan 9, 2020

Defense attorneys in criminal court serve one role: advocate pursuing the client's legal interest... more Defense attorneys in criminal court serve one role: advocate pursuing the client's legal interests. Defense attorneys in juvenile court may assume that role or act as a guardian, pursuing the client's treatment interests. Ethically, defense attorneys are obliged to be zealous in their representation. In the site of this study, North Carolina mandates juvenile court defense attorneys to abide by their client's expressed interests. In Dilemma of Duties, Anne Corbin examined all three aspects of defense attorney behavior. Corbin employed open-ended interviews of 24 juvenile defenders from two juvenile courts to ascertain whether they operationalized the clients' expressed wishes, identified a zealous advocate role, experienced role conflict (and its impact), departed from their role, and adapted to role conflict. The sample was mostly male, White, and married/partnered. There were 11 "least" experienced (0-9 years) and 13 "most" experienced (10þ years) defenders. Twenty-one defenders self-identified "advocate" or "interest" types: expressed (9), best (5), legal (3), personal-best-person-desired (2), true (1), or best defense (1). Three participants "declined to answer" this question. Corbin noted that some defenders went "off script" in the identification process, and there was some inconsistency with the defenders' role definitions, but "all recognized the importance of the expressed-interests component to their zealous advocate role." Nevertheless, 15 defenders did not identify as an expressed-interests type. Corbin also found eight defenders who said role departures were acceptable due to the client's age, mental health/capacity, substance abuse, and living/health conditions (table 4.2 but 10 defenders were identified on page 73). Most juvenile defenders stated they experienced both pressures to depart from the zealous advocate role and conflicting expectations of their role. Nevertheless, only six defenders claimed the conflict prevalence was often, while 11 said it was either never, rare, or sometimes and 7 did not indicate. Most defenders identified the conflict source as parents, client, prosecutors, court counselors (probation officers), or judges. Time pressures were also mentioned by most defenders as a conflict source, as was the disposition (or sentencing) stage. Most defenders noted that role conflict results in tension and stress, and most said they spend either a little, some, or much time coping with role conflict. Although most defenders claimed role conflict impacted work quality, only seven held that the impact was negative; 15 defenders maintained that case outcomes were affected, however. Finally, Corbin discovered that role conflict led to defenders' adopting various ways in which to survive the conflict and represent their clients: managing the client, the parent, the courtroom, and themselves. The interviews led Corbin to question whether effective defense representation occurs in the two juvenile courts (defense attorneys may not be able to do their jobs) and to suggest that due

Criminal Justice Policy Review, Dec 1, 2001