Criminology Research Council grant ; (26/85)
This study investigates children's understanding and perceptions of the court process as a function of their experience with it: repeat offenders, first-timers at court, and no experience (school-children).
Forty children appearing at Children's Court for the first time in relation to criminal matters were interviewed before and after their hearing. A further twenty repeat offenders were interviewed before their hearing. The interview concerned children's perceptions and understanding of the court process and, in particular, their perceptions of the decision making process and the role of the duty solicitor. School-children, matched on age and sex to the first-timers, were asked similar questions based on a vignette about a child who was involved in an alleged offence and a subsequent Children's Court hearing. Duty solicitors who represent children on criminal matters were also asked questions about the operation of Children's Courts and their own role in them, and in addition they were asked to predict children's responses.
The main effect of experience was on children's perceptions of the decision-making process. There was a significant reduction in first-timers' own perceived influence on the outcome, and first-timers believed more strongly than school-children that arbitrary factors (such as the mood of the magistrate and the child's dress) had an effect on the outcome. The two main factors that both children at court and school-children believed did and should have the most influence on the magistrate's decision were the seriousness of the offence and prior criminal history. Information on family background was generally not seen as a legitimate or important influence on the decision, and a 'poor' background was not seen as a possible mitigating factor. Young offenders rejected the mitigating function of social background information in dispositional decisions and seemed to operate on the tariff principle or justice model rather than a 'welfare' model.
Most children acknowledged their primary responsibility for 'ending up' at court and believed that the outcome and the court process were fair. Most were also satisfied with their duty solicitor. Not surprisingly though, children had a less positive view of the duty solicitor's role than duty solicitors themselves. One of the main problems was that duty solicitors seem to be identified with the 'system'. There was, however, a strong relationship between children's satisfaction with their duty solicitor and their perceived chance to 'have their say', on the one hand, and their perception of the fairness of the court process and outcome, on the other. This finding is in line with procedural justice findings that the opportunity to be heard, either personally or via legal representation, is associated with the perceived fairness or satisfaction with a decision.