What is the difference between a juvenile case that is petitioned and one that is non-petitioned? What types of cases are most likely to be petitioned and which are most likely to non-petitioned?
What will be an ideal response?
During the initial hearing, a decision is made not only about detention but also about whether the case will be handled formally (petition) or informally (nonpetitioned). This decision is most often referred to as the intake decision (the juvenile equivalent of the charging decision for adults accused of violating the criminal law). About 44 percent of delinquency cases are handled informally (termed nonpetitioned). An informal process is used when the decision makers (police, probation officers, intake workers, and prosecutors) believe that accountability and rehabilitation can be achieved without the use of formal court intervention. Informal sanctions are voluntary. At times, they involve no more than a warning and counseling, but more often they consist of voluntary probation, restitution, and community service. Juvenile cases that are handled formally are referred to as petition cases (or petitioned). Approximately 56 percent of delinquency cases and 58 percent of status offense cases receive such treatment. Intake officers are more likely to petition in delinquency cases if: Juveniles are older and have longer court histories; the delinquency is serious (involves violence, for example).
You might also like to view...
Are sobriety and license and safety checkpoints valid? If so, when?
What will be an ideal response?
Which of the following functions would normally be considered part of a community relations unit?
A) crime prevention program B) crime report C) youth program D) department newsletter
Because of its ability for establishing and maintaining self-esteem and personal dignity, efforts should be prioritized by all probation and parole officers in assisting the offender in ______________.
A. finding a job B. improving marital relationships C. remembering to report to the officer as directed D. submitting regular monthly reports
In United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, the defendant challenged her 24 hour detention at the international border. The Court:
a. Ruled in favor of the defendant, holding that the length of detention exceeded the detention time limit previously established in United States v. Sharpe b. Ruled against the defendant, holding that the circumstances justified the length of the stop because one would reasonably expect delays in passing through immigration and customs at a very busy U.S. border crossing c. Ruled against the defendant, holding that the Court has never established the length of detention permissible under a Terry stop and that Montoya de Hernandez’s 24 hour detention was reasonable under the circumstances d. Ruled in favor of the defendant, affirming their position in Place, that the government agents’ failure to act in a reasonable and diligent manner caused an unnecessary delay and the 24-hour detention made the seizure unreasonable