latino youth in washington state’s juvenile justice system

8/9/2019 LATINO YOUTH IN WASHINGTON STATES JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM

1/87

AND GRINGO JUSTICE FOR ALL?

LATINO YOUTH IN WASHINGTON STATES JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM

Viviana GordonPolitics 458

Whitman CollegeNovember 19, 2006


2/87

2

Introduction

My research focuses on Latino youth in the juvenile justice system. It addresses

questions of why Latino youth are disproportionately represented in the juvenile justice

system compared to their Anglo counterparts as well as to their overall proportion in the

population. Specifically, this report will examine how race and ethnicity have an effecton juvenile court processing and detention decision-making.

The American legal and justice systems have a long and insufferable history of

tolerating, enforcing and often encoding into law, discriminatory ideology, particularly

with regard to racial minority groups. The differential treatment of Latino youth in the

juvenile system manifests yet another battle in a succession of hard fought struggles for

racial equality under the law. My research involves a critique of the legitimacy, equality,

and equity of the hallowed institutions of law and justice. It examines current systems

and practices, ranging from law enforcement to pre-trial detention, to determine if they

are inherently biased or enable the differential treatment of Latinos. Underlying these

questions is a reflection on whether Latino youth are at greater risk for delinquentbehavior based on extralegal factors that disproportionately affect the Latino population.

Finally, this report explores the justice system in historical and theoretical terms as a

means of social control, governed by the power interests and values of dominant groups.

My research draws from a wide variety of scholarly literature and studies on

minorities in the justice system. I explore data driven reports conducted on the state and

national levels as well as by individual jurisdictions. I examine efforts to reduce racial

disparities in juvenile court processing through case studies of recent initiatives in

Multnomah County (Portland, Oregon), Santa Cruz, California, and King County

(Seattle, Washington). I am particularly interested in how my analysis of successful

measures can inform statewide policy and practice in Washington State. I examine the

feasibility of such reforms in a case study of Walla Walla County and the Walla Walla

Juvenile Justice Center where my community partner, Vance Norsworthy works as a

juvenile court counselor. Mr. Norsworthy has provided me with critical insight into the

inner workings of the juvenile justice system and general support throughout my research

process.

Overall, the results of my research corroborated my hypothesis about the

existence of racial disparity in the juvenile justice system. I found Latinos are

overrepresented at nearly every stage in the juvenile justice process across state and

national jurisdictions. A substantial amount of research on minority overrepresentation

theorizes that Latinos come into contact with the juvenile system at greater rates than

their Anglo counterparts due to differential crime patterns among racial and ethnic

minority groups and biased law enforcement practices. However, scholarly research

indicates that even after these initial factors disproportionately bring Latino youth into the

front door1

of the juvenile system, racial disparities are exacerbated at nearly every

1Fuller, Joanne. Personal Interview. 11 October 2006.


3/87

3

decision-making stage in the process. This amounts to a cumulative disadvantage

Latino youth face upon entering the Juvenile Justice System.2

My recommendations for policy reforms address this differential treatment within

the juvenile system, specifically by reducing the potential for extralegal factors, such as

race, socioeconomic class and family circumstance, to influence juvenile court processingand detention decision-making. The successful initiatives I examined in Portland and

Seattle provide concrete strategies for not only reducing racial disparity in the system, but

reducing the overall numbers of youth detained as well as rates of recidivism. The

strategies aim to end the governance of Gringo Justice,3

by ensuring that the criteria

and practices employed by justice personnel are racially and culturally neutral.

An Overview of the Juvenile Justice System

The Juvenile Justice System is an umbrella term for an incredibly complex and

nuanced network of institutions, authorities and practices. Juvenile court processing

significantly differs from the adult criminal proceedings with which people are generallymore familiar. There are a number of critical points and decision-making stages where

racial disparities can occur.4

For these reasons, I preface my report with an overview of

the juvenile system in order to provide definitions and context for some key concepts and

terms that my research relies upon heavily.

While the adult system is generally used for punitive measures, the juvenile

system has historically been guided by the goals of rehabilitation and delinquency

prevention through treatment and individualized justice. Unlike the criminal justice

system where district attorneys select cases for trial, the juvenile court controls its own

intake. Additionally, unlike criminal prosecutors, juvenile intake personnel have the

discretion to consider extra-legal factors, such as the juveniles family situation, in

deciding how to handle cases. Juvenile court intake also has discretion to handle cases

informally, bypassing judicial action through diversion. Additionally, the juvenile

system uses different, slightly euphemistic terminology, from the adult system;

defendants are referred to as juveniles, convictions as adjudications, a convicted

criminal is an adjudicated delinquent, jail time is detention, incarceration is

confinement, the sentence imposed is a disposition, the trial is an adjudicatory

hearing, and a probation officer is a court counselor.

Although individual state statutes define who falls under the jurisdiction of

juvenile court, the vast majority of states define juveniles as youth charged with a legal or

2Munoz, Ed A. Misdemeanor Sentencing Decision: The Cumulative Disadvantage Effect of Gringo

Justice. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences. Vol. 20, no. 3. (August 1998): 298-3203

Ibid.4Snyder, Howard N., and Melissa Sickmund. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. U.S. Department of Justice. March 2006


4/87

4

status violation who were under the age of 18 at the time of the offense.5

However, caseprocessing of juvenile offenders varies significantly from state to state and even within

states, among jurisdictions. Consequently, any descriptions of juvenile processing aregeneral outlines of the most common sequences of key decision points. The description I

outline here is largely drawn from the national office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention (OJJDP) and is corroborated by the majority of my sources. However, itshould be noted that practices at the Walla Walla Juvenile Justice Center differ from thisgeneral description in a few regards. I will further expound upon these differences in the

context of my interviews and case studies.

The vast majority of youth first come into contact with the juvenile systemthrough arrestby a law enforcement official.

6At arrest, a decision is made to either refer

the matter further into the justice system or divert the case out of the system. Referralscan also be made by parents, victims, probation officers and school personnel. Once the

youth is referred to juvenile court they go through an intake process, generallyadministered through the probation department, which screens cases based on whether

the evidence is sufficient to prove the allegation. Then intake personnel decide whether torelease the youth and dismiss the case, handle the matter informally in diversion, or

request formal intervention by the court.

If the case is to be handled formally in juvenile court, the intake worker will fileone of two types of petitions: a delinquency petition requesting an adjudicatory hearing,

or a waiver petition requesting a direct file to adult criminal court. In response to theadjudicatory petition, an adjudicatory hearing is held and the judge determines whether

the juvenile is responsible for the offense. A waiver petition is filed when the intakepersonnel believe a case under the jurisdiction of juvenile court would be handled more

appropriately in criminal court, due to the nature or severity of the offense or prioradjudications. The court decision in these matters generally centers on the perceptions of

the juveniles amenability to treatment and rehabilitation in the juvenile system

During the processing of a case, before adjudication, a juvenile may be held in

pre-trial detention in a secure facility. After arrest, a juvenile court counselor reviews the

case to decide whether a youth should be detained pending a hearing before a judge,which must be held within 24 hours of the arrest. At the preliminary hearing, a judge

reviews the case and determines whether continued detention is warranted.

If the juvenile is adjudicated in court, a court counselor develops a dispositionplan. To prepare this plan, probation staff assesses the youth often through a variety of

psychological evaluations and diagnostic tests, and consider available support systemsand programs. The juvenile court counselor presents their dispositional recommendations

5Snyder, Howard N., and Melissa Sickmund. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report.





5/87

5

to the judge at a dispositional hearing and the judge orders a disposition in the case.Dispositions almost always include some sort of supervisedprobation, and often include

additional requirements such as drug and alcohol treatment, restitution to the communityor victim, a curfew, random urinalysis tests, and perfect school attendance. Occasionally

the court orders a secure residential placement or commitment to a specialized facility.

To clarify, secure detention refers to the pre-trial holding of a youth in a detentionfacility while secure confinement indicates the youth has been adjudicated delinquentand committed to the custody of a correctional facility.

7

Scholarly literature and studies focusing on minorities in the justice system base

their research off of statistical findings of overrepresentation, disparity and differentialtreatment. These three terms have different meanings. Overrepresentation refers to a

situation in which a larger proportion of a particular group is present at various stageswithin the juvenile justice system (such as intake, detention, adjudication, and

disposition) than would be expected based on their proportion in the general population.

Disparity means that the probability of receiving a particular outcome (for example,

being detained in a short-term facility vs. not being detained) differs for different groups.Disparity may in turn lead to overrepresentation. Finally, differential treatmentoccurs if

and when juvenile justice system decision-makers treat one group of juveniles differentlyfrom another group based wholly, or in part, on their race.

8While my report seeks to

account for statistical indications of overrepresentation in the juvenile system on the basisof differential treatment of Latino youth, it should be noted that neither

overrepresentation nor disparity necessarily implies differential treatment.

Scholarly Literature Discussion: Accounting for the Causes of Overrepresentation

Theoretical Framework

Race and juvenile justice have been studied extensively in scholarly literature.

That racial minority groups are overrepresented in the juvenile system is undisputed. Yetfindings occasionally conflict over whether higher rates of minority detention necessarily

indicate that race has an effect on case processing decisions.

Scholarly literature identifies a multiplicity of factors contributing to minorityoverrepresentation, ranging from differential patterns of delinquency among minority

youth to biases inherent in the system. One scholar, Michael O. Maume, synthesizes themost salient explanations into three distinct theories.

9The theories are not mutually

7Austin, James, Kelly Dedel Johnson and Ronald Weitzer. Alternatives to the Secure Detention andConfinement of Juvenile Offenders. US Department of Justice Juvenile Justice Bulletin. September 20058Building Blocks for Youth. Donde Esta La Justicia?: A Call to Action on behalf of Latino and Latina

Youth in the U.S. Justice System. (2005)

9Maume, Michael O. and Reid C. Toth. Race in Context: The Impact of Structural Factors on Racial

Differences in Juvenile Court Processing. International Review of Modern Sociology. Vol. 32, no. 1

(Spring 2006)


6/87

6

exclusive. Rather they outline a number of complementary, and complexly intertwined

structural causal factors that produce disparity in the juvenile system. These theories

serve as a useful framework to present scholarly findings pertinent to the Latino

overrepresentation in Washington.

The first theory is legal, namely that racial differences at various stages ofjuvenile processing are largely due to the legal characteristics of the offender such as

prior record, offense type, seriousness of the offense, and the number of charges. Thus

disparities occur because some racial minority groups are more likely than whites to

commit offenses that call for formal legal resolution and intervention and would

logically be expected to appear throughout the legal process.10

The second theory is

interactionist, which applies to the juvenile justice decision-makers as they interpret

extralegal cues and attributes of the juvenile to inform judicial decisions. This theory

involves both social and environmental risk factors that disproportionately impact the

Latino population as well as bias inherent to the juvenile system that results in differential

treatment of minorities. The final theory is that of conflict. This theory proposes that

youth who are members of the lower status groups receive harsher dispositions in orderto ensure that they are brought under the control of the elite group and that they will

mature into law abiding supports of the status quo.11

Variables such as race and

socioeconomic status determine the relationship of the juvenile to the legal system. Thus

disparities can be accounted for by racism inherent in the legal system.

Legal Theory

Differential Crime Patterns and Risk-Factors for Delinquency

The legal characteristics of Latino youth offenders are salient to account for their

overrepresentation in the juvenile system. Indeed, a few studies maintain that juvenilejustice processing is solely informed by legal factors such as the juveniles prior offenses,

number of charges and the severity of the current offense.12

They conclude the

overrepresentation of minority youth is a consequence of differential delinquency

patterns wherein minority youth commit proportionately more crime than white youth,

commit more serious crimes, and have more extensive criminal histories.13

These studies

imply that racial disparity exists in the absence of differential treatment.

The few studies that find no evidence of differential treatment have been critiqued

on the grounds of their sample jurisdictions. Because juvenile justice systems are

10

Maume, Michael O. and Reid C. Toth. Race in Context: The Impact of Structural Factors on RacialDifferences in Juvenile Court Processing. International Review of Modern Sociology. Vol. 32, no. 1

(Spring 2006)11

Maume, Michael O. and Reid C. Toth. Race in Context: The Impact of Structural Factors on Racial


(Spring 2006)12

Kalogeras, Steven and Marc Mauer. Annotated Bibliography: Racial Disparities in the Criminal Justice

System. The Sentencing Project. (2003)13

Kalogeras, Steven and Marc Mauer. Annotated Bibliography: Racial Disparities in the Criminal Justice

System. The Sentencing Project. (2003)


7/87

7

fragmented and administered at the local level, racial disparity exists in somejurisdictions but not in others. One would not expect research findings to be consistent,

given variation across timeframes and regions.14

Recent reviews of studies on the effectsof race on decision-making, conducted across a wide range of time frames and

jurisdictions, have yielded more conclusive evidence of differential treatment in juvenile

case processing.

15

While legal characteristics and differential delinquency patterns do not wholly

account for overrepresentation, they certainly contribute to overrepresentation bydisproportionately bringing Latino youth in the front door

16of the juvenile system. A

recent study conducted in Washington State by George S. Bridges determined thatbetween one-fourth and one-half of racial disparity in the juvenile system is due to racial

differences in crime patterns and arrest rates.17

Accounting for overrepresentation basedon legal factors merits the questions of why Latino youth are committing crimes and

getting arrested at greater rates than their Anglo counterparts.

Structural Inequalities: The Social Context of being a Latino youth

Like most matters of race in the Unites States, disparity does not begin at arrest,but at the starting gate the social contexts into which many Latino youth are born.

18

While the overrepresentation of Latino youth in the juvenile system may be partlyattributable to higher rates of delinquency, delinquent behavior is largely a product of

socio-economic and environmental factors generated by structural racism in Americansociety. Vestiges of racism continue to produce marginalized education, segregated

residential districts, vast socioeconomic inequalities and discrimination in employment.

On every indicator of social and economic well-being, on both the state andnational level, Anglo youth fare better than their Latino counterparts. Latino youth are

disproportionately at risk for exposure to a number of adverse social, economic andenvironmental conditions, which studies demonstrate to be risk factors for delinquency.

One study found that while exposure to a single risk factor slightly increased thelikelihood of later problematic school and legal behaviors, exposure to multiple risks led

14Pope, Carl E, Kimberly Kempf Leonard and William H. Feyerherm. Minorities in Juvenile Justice.. Sage

Publications. 1995

15Pope, Carl E, Kimberly Kempf Leonard and William H. Feyerherm. Minorities in Juvenile Justice.. Sage

Publications. 1995

16Fuller, Joanne. Personal Interview. 10 October 2006.

17Governors Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee. Washington State Juvenile Justice Report 2005.

(2006)18

Hoytt, Eleanor Hinton, Vincent Schiraldi, Brenda V. Smith and Jason Ziedenberg. 8 Pathways toJuvenile Detention Reform: Reducing Racial Disparities in Juvenile Detention. Annie E. Casey

Foundation.


8/87

8

to significantly greater levels of school and criminal problems.19

In this way, race has anindirect bearing on the representation of minorities in the juvenile system; Latino youth

are disproportionately impacted by risk factors that increase their propensity fordelinquency and exacerbate their representation in the juvenile system.

Socioeconomic Conditions

Scholarly research has consistently demonstrated a correlation between

socioeconomic conditions and delinquency.20

Poverty is generally an indicator of fewerjob opportunities, disorganized neighborhoods with higher crime rates, more exposure to

violence and substance abuse, shoddier public education systems, and limited access toresources that can function as a safety net. The stressors and conditions of poverty and its

correlates increase youth propensity towards delinquency. As Latino youthdisproportionately come from low-income families, reside in segregated communities,

and face tremendous barriers to accessing public services, some studies point tosocioeconomic demographics to account for overrepresentation in the juvenile system.

21

Family Disorganization

Recent scholarly research indicates that family structure is a better predictor of

juvenile delinquency than both poverty and race.22

Thus, the differences and patterns ofLatino youth family structure are salient to accounting for delinquency trends. Nationally,

Latino youth are significantly more likely than Anglo youth to come from single parentor female-headed households, in which the parents are likely to deal with unsteady

employment or work multiple jobs, and domestic violence.23

A number of studies,examining risk factors which increase youth propensity toward delinquency, point to the

importance of parental monitoring and supervision, which would both be impeded byeconomic strains and a disorganized family structure.

24Numerous studies emphasize the

challenges Latino parents face acculturating to family standards in American society.25

19Chapman, John F., Rani A. Desai, Paul R. Falzer and Randy Borum. Violence Risk and Race in a

Sample of Youth in Juvenile Detention: The Potential to Reduce Disproportionate Minority Confinement.

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice: A Interdisciplinary Journal. Vol. 4, no. 2 (April 2006): 170-18520

Snyder, Howard N., and Melissa Sickmund. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report.Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. U.S. Department of Justice. March 2006



(Spring 2006)



Hsia, Heidi M., George S. Bridges, and Rosalie McHale. Disproportionate Minority Confinement 2002

Update. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. US Department of Justice, September

200424

See Cota-Robles, Sonia, and Wendy Gamble. Parent-Adolescent Processes and Reduced Risk for

Delinquency: The Effect of Gender for Mexican American Adolescents. Youth and Society. Vol. 37, no. 4

(June 2006): 375-392


9/87

9

School

There are many other factors that put Latino youth at disproportionate risk for

delinquency involved with their experience in educational systems.26

Research indicates

that when a youth drops out of school their risk for delinquent involvement increasessignificantly. Over the last several years, racial disparities in annual dropout rates haveaccumulated to produce noticeable differences in the status dropout rates of Latino youth

(the proportion of youth who are not enrolled in school and have not completed highschool or received an equivalency certificate.) Other studies have examined Latinos in

school with regard to school misbehavior and aggression27

and lack of involvement inactivities

28as indicators of delinquency.

Gang Involvement

Furthermore, these socioeconomic conditions, dynamics of family structure, and

school failure rates, which markedly detriment Latino youth, increase their propensitytoward violent, antisocial behavior and joining gangs. Through research conducted

specifically on Latino youth in Washington State, Rosalinda Mendoza found Latinoyouth were disproportionately at risk for gang involvement.

29

Mental Health Service Underutilization

Studies estimate that more than one half of juveniles in the justice system have at

least one diagnosable mental illness, a proportion much greater than that of thepopulation at large.

30A substantial amount of research demonstrates a strong correlation

between mental health issues, particularly when untreated, and disruptive or delinquentbehavior. Findings from one recent study, by Purva Rawal, of mental health service

utilization among racial groups in the juvenile system indicated Latino youth had the

Shears, Jeffrey K., and Rich Furman. Examining Interpersonal Relationship Predictors of Delinquency

Across Ethnic and Racial Samples. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal. Vol. 22, no. 3-4 (August

2005): 281-29925

Perreira, Krista M., Mimi V. Chapman and Gabriela Stein. Becoming an American Parent: Overcoming

Challenges and Finding Strength in the New Immigrant Latino Community. Journal of Family Issues. Vol.

27, no. 10 (October 2006): 1383-141426



200427

Lopez, Vera A., Mark W. Roosa, Jenn-Yun Tein and Khanh T. Dihn. Accounting For Anglo-HispanicDifferences in School Misbehavior. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice. Vol 2 (2004): 27-4628

Wong, Siu Kwong. The Effects of Adolescent Activities on Delinquency: A Differential InvolvementApproach. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. Vol. 34, no. 4 (August 2005): 321-333

29Mendoza, Rosalinda. Analysis of the Social Capital Stock of Young Latinas/os and Gang Membership

in Washington State in The State of the State for Washington Latinos.Whitman College (2005)30

Rawal, Purva, Jill Romanasky, Michael Jenuwine and John S. Lyons. Racial Differences in the Mental

Health Needs and Service Utilization of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System. The Journal of Behavioral

Health Services and Research. Vol. 31, no. 3 (July/September 2004): 242-354


10/87

10

lowest rate of prior, current and overall mental health service utilization despite havingconsiderable mental health needs.

31Rawal proposed this phenomenon was a

consequence of the significant barriers Latinos encounter to access services. Latino youthhad the lowest rates of health insurance coverage which was impacted by low

socioeconomic status and undocumented status due to high rates of immigration.32

Additionally, Latino parent may be more hesitant to seek mental health servicesfor their children than white parents. Evidence suggests that mental illness may carry a

greater stigma among minority and low-income populations. Additionally, Latino parentsmay be unfamiliar with available services and possess their own cultural beliefs about the

causes and proper means of treating mental illness.33

They may seek support from familymembers or ministers rather than mental health professionals. Whatever the reasons for

differential service utilization among Latinos, it not only aggravates risks fordelinquency, but has serious consequences for their subsequent experience within the

juvenile system.

Synthesis

Given the social contexts in which many Latino youth begin it is not surprisingthat they are at increased risk for delinquent behavior and be subsequently arrested and

detained in the juvenile system.34

But these environmental and social risk factors fordelinquency are not sufficient to account for disparities in arrest rates or the accumulation

of disparities through subsequent stages of court processing.35

If the social context forLatino youth puts them behind white youth at the starting gate,

36they fall further

behind if they come into contact with the justice system. The first point of contact is mostoften with law enforcement.

Law Enforcement Practices

Differential treatment of minority youth in law enforcement is well documented.

31Rawal, Purva, Jill Romanasky, Michael Jenuwine and John S. Lyons. Racial Differences in the Mental








Health Services and Research. Vol. 31, no. 3 (July/September 2004): 242-35434Hoytt, Eleanor Hinton, Vincent Schiraldi, Brenda V. Smith and Jason Ziedenberg. 8 Pathways toJuvenile Detention Reform: Reducing Racial Disparities in Juvenile Detention. Annie E. Casey

Foundation.

35Ibid.

36Hoytt, Eleanor Hinton, Vincent Schiraldi, Brenda V. Smith and Jason Ziedenberg. 8 Pathways to

Juvenile Detention Reform: Reducing Racial Disparities in Juvenile Detention. Annie E. Casey

Foundation.


11/87

11

Individual police practices and policies, such as targeting patrols in low-income or racialminority neighborhoods and in public places in general, disproportionately impact

minority youth. A number of studies find discrepancies in law enforcements treatment ofminority youth.

37One study examines how police perceptions of suspicious behavior

result in bias toward minority youth.38

The differential effects of racial profiling on Latino youth have been documentedextensively in scholarly literature.

39Latinos are similarly affected by police practices of

gang profiling. On the state and national level, Latino youth more likely than white youthto be involved in a gang. Latino gang members are often targeted. Additionally, family

members, gang affiliates and Latino youth who fit a general gang profile are routinelypersecuted.

A significant amount of research has been conducted on relations between Latinos

and law enforcement. Specifically, one study concluded the effects of the languagebarrier impede the delivery of police services to Spanish speaking Latino youth.40

Another study, which focused on Latino youth perceptions of, attitudes towards andcontact with police, found Latinos were more likely to have negative interactions with

law enforcement compared with black and Anglo youth.41

The differential treatment of minority youth by police is made manifest once theyouth enters the juvenile system. Bias is evidenced by the fact that at the intake stage,

minority youth are more likely than white youth to have their case rejected and bereleased.

42This influence race has on the intake decision is a false positive. It is not so

much lenient treatment as it is corrective of bias in law enforcement practices that resultin minority youth being arrested on weaker evidence and more questionable grounds than

white youth.

37Conley, Darlene J. Adding Color to a Black and White Picture: Using Qualitative Data to Explain

Racial Disproportionality in the Juvenile Justice System. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency.

Vol. 31, no. 2 (May 1994): 135-14838

Johnson, Richard R. Confounding Influences on Police Detection of Suspiciousness. Journal of

Criminal Justice. Vol. 34 (2006):435-44239

Reitzel, John D., Stephen K. Rice and Alex R. Piquero. Lines and Shadows: Perceptions of RacialProfiling and the Hispanic Experience. Journal of Criminal Justice. Vol. 32 (2004): 607-61640

Herbst, Leigh and Samuel Walker. Language Barriers in the delivery of police services: A study ofpolice and Hispanic Interactions in a Midwestern City. Journal of Criminal Justice. Vol. 29 (2001): 329-

340

41

See Hagan, John, Carla Shedd and Monique R. Payne. Race, Ethnicity and Youth Perceptions ofCriminal Injustice. American Sociological Review. Vol. 70, no. 3 (June 2005): 381-407Cheurprakobkit, Sutham and Robert A. Bartsch. Police Work and the Police Profession: Assessing

Attitudes of City Officials, Spanish Speaking Hispanics, and their English-Speaking Counterparts. Journal

of Criminal Justice. Vol. 27, no. 2 (1999): 87-100

Cheurprakobkit, Sutham. Police-citizen contact and police performance attitudinal differences between

Hispanics and non-Hispanics. Journal of Criminal Justice. Vol. 28 (2000): 325-33642


(Spring 2006)


12/87

12

The War on Drugs

The differential treatment of Latinos by law enforcement is most pronounced in

policing and prosecutorial practices toward drug offenders. While some studies find

racial disparities in long term patterns and consequences of addiction,

43

the majority findthat the effects of substance abuse do not disparately impact Latinos as adjudication rateswould suggest. Indeed, a national Bureau of Labor Statistics survey found Latino youth

were significantly less likely to use drugs or alcohol than whites, but were significantlymore likely to be arrested and adjudicated delinquent for drug crimes.

44Regardless of this

point of tension on rates and effects of addiction, that racial disparities are producedthrough differential policing of drug use, enforcement drug laws and prosecution of drug

crimes is well documented in scholarly literature.45

In particular, the War on Drugs is intimately connected with race and ethnicityas stereotypes associated with drug trafficking and gang violence are often attached to

Latino males.

46

One recent study found that ethnicity effects are the largest in thesentencing of drug offenders.47

There has been a significant amount of research

examining the racial implications for disparate sentencing inherent in drug laws.48

Another study found that in drug cases where juveniles had similar records and were

charged with similar offenses, Latinos were more likely to be charged with a felony thanwhites.

49

Many studies have attributed disparities in arrests to police practices that tend to

target drug sales and use in public places, like street corners, where they can get higherrates of arrests. Low-income Latino youth tend to spend more time on the streets and thus

their criminal involvement is often more visible to law enforcement and easily targeted.

43See Prendergast, Michael L., Yih-Ing Hser and Virginia Gil-Rivas. Ethnic Differences in Longitudinal

Patterns and Consequences of Narcotics Addiction. Journal of Drug Issues. Vol. 28, no. 2 (Spr ing 1998):

495-515

Munoz, Ed A. Misdemeanor Sentencing Decision: The Cumulative Disadvantage Effect of Gringo


Snyder, Howard N., and Melissa Sickmund. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report.




(Spring 2006)46

Demuth, Stephen and Darrell Steffensmeier. Ethnicity Effects on Sentence Outcomes in Large Urban

Courts: Comparisons Among White, Black and Hispanic Defendants. Social Science Quarterly. Vol. 84,

no. 4 (December 2004): 994- 101147Demuth, Stephen and Darrell Steffensmeier. Ethnicity Effects on Sentence Outcomes in Large Urban


no. 4 (December 2004): 994- 101148

Barnes, Carole Wolff and Rodney Kingsnorth. Race, Drug and Criminal Sentencing: Hidden Effects ofthe Criminal Law. Journal of Criminal Justice. Vol. 24, no. 1 (1996): 39-55



(Spring 2006)


13/87

13

Similarly, the types of drugs targeted by law enforcement have disparate consequencesfor Latino youth.

50A recent study conducted in Seattle, found such policing practices

yielded disparate consequences for minorities.51

Synthesis

Scholarly research on the social and economic structural disadvantages Latinoyouth disproportionately face at the starting gate

52in the U.S. indicates they are at

greater risk for delinquent behavior. These disadvantages are compounded by biased lawenforcement practices and differential enforcement of drug laws to produce significant

racial disparities in the proportion of youth arrested and referred to juvenile court. Yet thedisadvantage Latino youth face does not cease once they reach the front door of the

juvenile system. Extralegal factors such as poverty, neighborhood and family structureportend to all subsequent stages of case processing wherein race has both direct and

indirect affect on decision-making.53

Interactionist Theory

Differential Treatment within the System

Once the juvenile is referred to the system internal policies and practices continue

to disadvantage Latino youth. The interactionist theory of minority overrepresentationpoints to juvenile justice decision-makers and the system at large as sources of

differential treatment and generators of racial disparity. While some studies findinconclusive evidence of racial bias in case processing, recent reviews of studies have

yielded more consistent findings of differential treatment.54

Most significant and conclusive of the reviews is a seminal meta-analysiscommissioned by the U.S. Department of Justice and conducted by researchers Carl Pope

and Richard Feyerherm. Pope and Feyerherm analyzed thirty-four studies of state andlocal juvenile justice systems and found that two-thirds supported the existence of

disparity and bias in the processing of juveniles through the justice system.55

Pope and

50Beckett, Katherine, Kris Nyrop, Lori Pfingst and Melissa Bowen. Drug Use, Drug Possession Arrests,

and the Question of Race: Lessons from Seattle. Social Problems. Vol. 52, no. 3 (2005): 419-44151

Beckett, Katherine, Kris Nyrop, Lori Pfingst and Melissa Bowen. Drug Use, Drug Possession Arrests,and the Question of Race: Lessons from Seattle. Social Problems. Vol. 52, no. 3 (2005): 419-44152

Hoytt, Eleanor Hinton, Vincent Schiraldi, Brenda V. Smith and Jason Ziedenberg. 8 Pathways to


Foundation. 53Leiber, Michael J. and Kristin Y. Mack. The Individual and Joint Effects of Race, Gender, and Family

Status on Juvenile Justice Decision-Making. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. Vol. 40, no.

1 (February 2003): 34-7054

Pope, Carl E, Kimberly Kempf Leonard and William H. Feyerherm. Minorities in Juvenile Justice.. SagePublications. 1995



(Spring 2006)


14/87

14

Feyerherm found considerable evidence that minority youth are often treated differentlythan white youth within the juvenile justice system and that racial and/or ethnic status did

influence decision-making. They concluded that this "race effect" in juvenile processingnegatively affected outcomes for minorities. Their research suggests the effects of race

may be felt at various decision points, they may be direct or indirect, and they may

accumulate as youth continue through the system.

56

Pope and Feyerherm found thatwhile racial effects can occur at every stage of juvenile processing, disparities are mostpronounced at the beginning stages of intake and pre-trial detention decision. The

majority of studies found that minority youth are more likely to be detained than whiteyouth even when legal factors are held constant.

57Proverbially, Latinos do more time

for the same crime.58

Since Pope and Feyerherms review, a substantial amount of research hasaccumulated, confirming interactionist theories of overrepresentation. Interactionist

explanations for overrepresentation look at practices internal to the juvenile justicesystem, specifically how decision-makers interpret extralegal cues of the juvenile

offender to inform their judicial decisions. This focus on how decision-making affectsoverrepresentation entails an examination of the extralegal factors that impact decision-

making with regard to decision-makers perceptions, stereotypes and risk assessments ofLatino youth. Scholarly literature consistently confirms Pope and Feyerherms findings

and locates the most critical junctures of differential treatment as the intake and pre-trialdetention decision-making stages.

59

The consequences of differential treatment of Latino youth are particularly

pronounced in dispositional outcomes such as higher rates of direct file to adult criminalcourt, lower likelihood to bypass formal case processing in diversion, and higher rates of

confinement to secure facilities. Interactionist theories of overrepresentation are

concerned with differential outcomes and options for Latino youth in the juvenile system,including their decreased capacity to acquire private council, access alternatives todetention, and successfully comply with diversion requirements. Furthermore, Latino

youth are disproportionately impacted by inefficient case processing as the disadvantagesthey face in the juvenile system are exacerbated.

Decision-Making

56Pope, Carl E. and Feyerherm, William. (1995) Minorities and the Juvenile Justice System: Research

Summary, (second printing). Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of

Justice: Washington, D.C.57

Leiber, Michael J. Disproportionate Minority Confinement (DMC) of Youth: An Analysis of State andFederal Efforts to Address the Issue. Crime & Delinquency. Vol. 48, no. 1 (January 2002): 3-4558

Wordes, Madeline, Timothy S. Bynum and Charles J. Corley. Locking Up Youth: The Impact of Raceon Detention Decisions. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. Vol. 31, no. 2 (May 1994): 149-

16559

Kalogeras, Steven and Marc Mauer. Annotated Bibliography: Racial Disparities in the Criminal JusticeSystem. The Sentencing Project. (2003)


15/87


16/87

16

responds to crime, but responds as well to specific community conditions.65

Overall,juveniles in jurisdictions with higher medium incomes are treated less severely by

juvenile justice decision makers. Maume concludes that income influences communitybeliefs, which in turn shape decision makers attitudes. The decision makers may be less

inclined to subject wealthier juveniles to formal social control and process them more

leniently as a result. They tend to consider formal state action, in response todelinquency, a last resort.66

This finding is significant to accounting for Latinooverrepresentation; as Latino youth disproportionately come from low-income families

and live in low-income neighborhoods, the preferential treatment of middle and upperincome youth would tend to detain and penalize them at higher rates.

Impact of Family Structure on Decision-Making

In this same study, Maume observed that the impact of socioeconomic status on

decision making was generally mediated by an evaluation of the juveniles familystructure, a variable which had a more direct correlation to case processing outcomes.

When decision-makers perceived that youth did not have a stable support system athome, that parents were inadequate disciplinarians or that the familys resources were

merely insufficient, they were more inclined to intervene with court action. Thisintervention could manifest as using detention to keeps a youth off the street, ordering

treatment as a way to socialize youth into dominant society, or giving harsherdispositions as a form of compensatory discipline. Reflecting on the implications of this

finding, Maume concluded; The juvenile court supports a structural-functional model offamily life. This model puts minority youth at risk for more intrusive court interventions,

because of the greater likelihood that minority families were perceived as dysfunctionaland non-supportive.

67

A similar study by Vic Bumphus confirmed Maumes findings that non-

traditional family structures tend to collide with the juvenile justice system and result indifferential treatment for youth that often falls down socioeconomic or racial lines.

68

Another study conducted by Stephen Demuth and Darrell Steffensmeier yielded similarfindings and concluded more broadly that juvenile court officials tended to perceive that

minority families are unable to provide the needed informal social control so minorityyouth are in greater need of more formal social control which predicated their

65


(Spring 2006)

66Ibid.



(Spring 2006)68

Bumphus, Vic W. and James F. Anderson. Family Structure and Race in a Sample of Criminal

Offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice Studies. Vol. 27, no. 4 (1999): 309-320


17/87

17

assessment of the need for court intervention.69

A recent study conducted by Michael Leiber and Kristin Mack, examining theextent to which the effects of race on juvenile justice outcomes are influenced by gender

and family status, corroborated the findings of Maume, Bumphus and Demuth.70

Leiber

and Macks study gave particular focus on the perceptions of decision makers with regardto their reliance on stereotypical beliefs about minority youth as more dysfunctional anddelinquent than whites. It hypothesized that just as racial stereotyping may influence

detention decision makers, traditional notions of the nuclear family may affect thedecision making process as well. Specifically, beliefs that the single-parent family is

inferior to the two-parent family may exacerbate the extent to which racial stereotypingaffects court processing for juveniles.

Leibers study drew from juvenile court data from four Iowa jurisdictions and

confirmed previous findings that race impacted decision-making and its effects weremost pronounced at intake.

71Additionally, it revealed that minority youth from a single-

parent household generally receive severer outcomes than their Anglo and two-parentcounterparts. Although this study did not distinguish among racial minority groups, in its

documentation of dispositional outcomes, the bearing family status has on decisionmaking is pertinent to accounting for the overrepresentation of Latino youth. As Latino

youth disproportionately come from single parent households, this finding represents anindirect effect race has on decision-making.

Impact of Mental Health Needs on Decision Making

Effectively identifying and addressing mental health needs is an important priority

for rehabilitation and a thus a central function of the juvenile justice system.Consequently, differential underserviced mental health needs among racial groups signify

an extralegal variable that impacts decision-making and can result in differentialtreatment and dispositional outcomes along racial lines.

A recent study by Purva Rawal reviewed 473 juvenile cases across three Illinois

counties, found that Latino youth in the juvenile justice system are most at risk forunderserved mental health needs.

72The juvenile justice system tends to act as a catchall

for mental health, addiction and behavioral needs. Latino youth are much more likely

69Demuth, Stephen and Darrell Steffensmeier. Ethnicity Effects on Sentence Outcomes in Large Urban


no. 4 (December 2004): 994- 101170

Leiber, Michael J. and Kristin Y. Mack. The Individual and Joint Effects of Race, Gender, and Family


1 (February 2003): 34-7071



1 (February 2003): 34-7072





18/87

18

than white youth to have their first contact with a states child and adolescent servingsystems, which includes the mental health sector, through the juvenile justice system.

73

Court officials often believe that a minority youths best chances to receive services maybe in the juvenile system itself. One juvenile court counselor explained, The courts

incarcerate kids for help. Judges think that incarcerating them is the only way to get them

treatment. The judges cannot order CPS (Child Protective Services) or mental health todo anything, but they can order me to do it.74

The court often addresses juvenile mentalhealth needs through treatment in detention or dispositional stipulations. As Latino youth

often lack the resources or family support to obtain treatment outside of the juvenilesystem, this practice would result in higher rates of detention and harsher dispositions for

Latino youth.

Private Counsel

Racial disparities in mental health service utilization reflect racial discrepancies inaccess to resources. Limited resources reduce a youths ability to access private legal

counsel.

75

As they enter the juvenile system Latino youth are more likely than whiteyouth to rely on the overburdened and often incompetent indigent defense system.76

Juvenile indigent defense attorneys face distinct challenges: excessive caseloads; lack ofresources for independent evaluations; expert witnesses, and investigations; lack of

computers, telephones and office space; lack of training; low salaries, and morale; anddecreased ability to keep up with rapidly changing juvenile codes.

77One study finds

youth represented by private attorneys are less likely to be detained or adjudicated, andmore likely to have their cases returned to juvenile court if they were originally

prosecuted as adults.78

Intake

Scholarly literature consistently affirms the importance of disaggregating the

context of the decision-making to locate the roots of racial disparity. Unlike later stagesof the process which are largely governed by formal legal standards, decision makers

discretion is greatest at the intake stage and therefore the potential for differential

73Ibid.

74Jones, M.A., and Poe-Yamagata. And Justice for Some: Differential Treatment of Minority Youth in

the Juvenile Justice System. Building Blocks for Youth. (2000)

75Hsia, Heidi M., George S. Bridges, and Rosalie McHale. Disproportionate Minority Confinement 2002

Update. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. US Department of Justice, September200476

Hoytt, Eleanor Hinton, Vincent Schiraldi, Brenda V. Smith and Jason Ziedenberg. 8 Pathways toJuvenile Detention Reform: Reducing Racial Disparities in Juvenile Detention. Annie E. Casey

Foundation.

77Ibid.



2004


19/87

19

treatment is increased.79

Indeed the intake decision among all decisions madethroughout the juvenile court process produces the most collective disparity in the

juvenile justice process.80

Differential treatment at this early point in the process sets thestage for disparate treatment at subsequent stages.

81Scholarly literature generally

concurs with Cohen and Kleugel in recognizing decision-making at the intake stage of

court processing to be the most crucial determinant of the final dispositional outcome.

82

The intake stage is the first decision-making point in the juvenile system to which

juveniles are referred. Intake personnel may decide whether a referral should bedismissed, diverted, or formally processed.

83Studies consistently reveal that minority

youth are significantly more likely to have their cases formally processed than Angloyouth, and less likely to bypass formal judicial action through diversion.

84

Several recent studies present notable and corroborating findings on the

differential treatment of Latinos at the intake stage. In 2006, Michael Maume examinedstatewide juvenile court data of all cases disposed of in Missouris juvenile courts, to

determine the impact of race on the intake decision of juvenile processing.

85

Maumehypothesized that both legal and extralegal characteristics affect decision-making.

Maume considered the legal variables of the nature and severity of the offense, thenumber of current charges and the number of prior offenses. He also considered the

extralegal factors of age, median household income and race (measured as white v.nonwhite). Furthermore, Maumes study drew from a previous study in operationalizing

the intake decision as a trichotomy,86

That is, he considering three possible outcomes forthe juvenile at the intake stage: release, informal diversion, and formal processing where

the case is referred further into the system.



(Spring 2006)80



(Spring 2006)81

Leiber, Michael J. and Kristin Y. Mack. The Individual and Joint Effects of Race, Gender, and FamilyStatus on Juvenile Justice Decision-Making. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. Vol. 40, no.

1 (February 2003): 34-70

82Cohen, L.E., and Kleugel, J.R. Selecting Delinquents for Adjudication: An Analysis of Intake

Screening Decisions in two Metropolitan Juvenile Courts. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency.

Vol. 16 (1979): 143-16383Ray , K.E.B., and Alarid, L.F. Examining Racial Disparity of Male Property Offenders in the Missouri

Juvenile Justice System. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice. Vol. 2, no. 2 (2004): 107-12884

Ibid.85



(Spring 2006)86



1 (February 2003): 34-70


20/87

20

After controlling for all of the aforementioned variables, Maume found cleardifferences between whites and nonwhites at the intake stage.

87For example, 42% more

nonwhites were released at intake because their case was rejected due to insufficientevidence to prosecute, recalling differential arrest patterns. Additionally, nonwhite

juveniles were twice as likely to have their cases formally processed, and three times as

likely to receive pre-trial detention. The majority (58 percent) of white juveniles receivedan informal adjustment or diversion, compared to 35 percent of non-white juveniles.Maume finds that decision-makers are often less inclined to refer minority youth to

diversion because of low completion and success rates. Consequently great deals of low-risk Latino offenders are denied diversionary options even when such a direction is most

appropriate for their offender profile.

The significance of this methodological decision to consider racial proportions ofjuveniles referred to diversion highlights a critical juncture of differential treatment.

Official court records frequently only record juveniles formally processed and notformally processed. The disproportionate numbers of minority youth whose cases are

rejected at intake tend to mask racial disparities. Because decisions made at the intakestage are widely believed to be such a significant determinate of the final disposition,

findings of racial disparity predicate further differential treatment as the minority juvenileis processed through subsequent stages of the system.

88

Unsuccessful Diversion

Given thee socioeconomic stressors and contextual limitations disproportionately

faced by Latino youth, Maumes observation that minority youth have low completionrates of diversion is logical. This finding holds true in Washington State. A study

conducted in by the Governors Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee found that minority

youth are less likely to appear at diversion hearings, less likely to comply with diversionrequirements and less likely to be diverted for subsequent offenses than similarly situatedwhite youth.

89These trends often resulting in additional punitive measures imposed upon

Latino youth, further exacerbating racial disparities.

Pre-Trial Detention



(Spring 2006)88



(Spring 2006)89

Governors Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee. Washington State Juvenile Justice Report 2005.(2006)


21/87

21

Decisions made at the pre-trial detention stage tend to exert a similar formativeinfluence on the ultimate disposition of the case.

90After the intake decision, if a case is

referred further into the system, the subsequent decision-making stage determineswhether they will be detained before their court appearance, released or set up with a

detention alterative program. A Washington study confirmed national findings that youth

detained prior to adjudication, instead of being released to their parents or a program, aremore likely to be incarcerated. Indeed, it concluded that pre-adjudication detention isone of the best predictors of subsequent secure confinement.

91Under the law, juvenile

detention centers are intended to detain juveniles pending trial only if they pose a dangerto themselves or others or if they are a risk to flee the jurisdiction rather than appear for

scheduled court hearings. Unfortunately, one study found evidence is abundant that pre-trial detention is used excessively, inefficiently, and inequitably in many jurisdictions

nationwide, perhaps most.92

In 1997, 79% of all youth held in juvenile pre-trialdetention nationwide were not charged with violent felony crimes. Many were accused

only of a misdemeanor, status offense or property crime.93

One recent study by George S. Bridges in Washington found that at the pre-trialdetention stage, minority youth were more likely to be detained than white youth even

after differences between the offenses and backgrounds of the youth were taken intoaccount.

94These findings are particularly troubling because rates of pre-trial detention are

disproportionately high for Latinos, indicating the misuse and overuse of pre-trialdetention has racial repercussion.

A study conducted by Madeline Wordes found similar racial disparities in the

detention of white and Latino youth at three stages in the juvenile justice process: policedetention, court intake detention and preliminary hearing detention.

95The study drew

from a random sample of 728 felony cases across five counties. Wordes collectedextensive data from case files, police agencies and juvenile courts to be able to

disaggregate extralegal variables in the youths family and social context as well as holdfor actual offense behavior. Her findings indicated that Latino youth were more likely to

be detained at each decision point, even after controlling for the influence of a



200491

Governors Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee. Washington State Juvenile Justice Report 2005.

(2006)92


(Spring 2006)

93Mendel, Richard A. Less Cost, More Safety: Guiding Lights for Reform in Juvenile Justice. American

Youth Policy Forum. 200194



200495

Wordes, Madeline, Timothy S. Bynum and Charles J. Corley. Locking Up Youth: The Impact of Raceon Detention Decisions. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. Vol. 31, no. 2 (May 1994): 149-

165


22/87

22

multiplicity of legal and extralegal factors. Unlike past studies which deduced racial

effects on case processing were mediated through socioeconomic and family factors,

Wordes study suggests race has a unique, singular and direct impact on decision-making.

Alternatives to Detention

Limited resources impact a youths ability to access and qualify for existing

alternatives to detention. Detention alternatives, also called diversionary detention, give

decision-makers alternatives to sending youth to a secure detention facility while

awaiting adjudication, Additionally, detention alternatives can serve to more generally

provide social services and rehabilitative treatment during that interim time period.

Detention alternatives range from home detention to boot camp to community-based

programs. They often involve intensive case management, drug and alcohol treatment,

therapy, and collaboration with parents and schools. However, studies consistently find

that when decision-makers perceive that minority youth lack the family and community

resources to make them appropriate for alternatives to detention, they determine secure

detention to be the most effective place of treatment. To account for low Latinoenrollment and completion rates of detention alternatives, one study cites language

barriers, unaccommodating hours, and general cultural incompetence, making existing

detention alternatives inaccessible to many Latino youth and their families.96

Inefficient Case Processing

A significant proportion of youth held in pre-trial detention are detained for

failing to appear at an earlier court hearing. Court hearings are often spaced with long

delays, particularly from the arrest date to the preliminary hearing date. In this time, there

is minimal, if any, follow up from the court to remind the juvenile of the hearing or

encourage attendance. This results in failures to appear, a major problem in the systemand one which give cause for juveniles to be rounded up and detained.97

Latino youth are

disproportionately impacted by these delays and are more likely to failure to appear at

court dates due to unique cultural and language barriers which I will discuss further

shortly.

The disparate effects of pre-trial detention on minority youth are exacerbated by

inefficient case processing. Inefficient case processing lengthens the duration of stay for

many detained youth causing the juveniles to spend far more time than necessary away

from their families, out of school, often in overcrowded facilities, and surrounded by

other troubled youth. Due to overcrowding, detention creates a heightened risk for

violence, and decreases the quality for the education, rehabilitation, health and other

services provided, setting the youth up to have trouble reintegrating once released, and

putting them at greater risk to recidivate.98

96Ibid.

97Mendel, Richard A. Less Cost, More Safety: Guiding Lights for Reform in Juvenile Justice. American

Youth Policy Forum. 200198

Ibid.


23/87

23

Language Barrier

The most direct and evident extralegal factor that uniquely impacts Latinos in the

court system is the language barrier. As mentioned earlier, limited English proficiency

and general unfamiliarity with the American justice system impacts Latino youth at the

earliest stage of the juvenile process, in the delivery of police services.

99

As the juvenilemoves into the system and the stakes increase, the language barrier continues obstruct

equal access to justice for non-English speakers and the system consistently demonstrates

its inability to accommodate and serve non-English speakers. As noted by Judge Donna

Carr of the Ohio Court of Appeals, In a criminal proceeding, rights are conveyed in

words. Words have meaning. If the words have no meaning to a defendant, then such a

defendant has no rights. A trial without rights is a sham.100

Indeed, the high level of

abstraction of the terminology used in a courthouse makes a court appearance a

confusing and often terrifying experience even for native English speakers.101

However,

due to limited resources and pervasive nativist ideologies, overcoming language barriers

has not been a priority in most jurisdictions. This is evidenced by the paucity of data and

scholarship on the issue with no studies examining the language barrier in juvenileproceedings.

One explicitly anecdotal study conducted by Martin Urbina examines the

consequences of the unavailability of court interpreters and unqualified court interpreters

in adult criminal proceedings. Urbina prefaces his study explaining, The field of court

interpretation is an area that has received little attention, is poorly understood, short

sighted and carries severe negative consequences when not executed in a professional and

proper manner.102

The study operates on the premise that equal access to the law is

being denied to non-English speaking Latinos in our nations courts due to poor (or lack

of) interpretation.103

Between 2000 and 2003, Urbina regularly attended both federal and

state court to observe interpretation in Wisconsin, and conversed with over 30

practitioners (judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys and interpreters) regarding the

problem of the language barrier.

Wisconsin is similar to Washington in terms of the demographics of its Latino

population. Both states have a rapidly growing Latino population composed

predominantly of people of Mexican origin. Notably, the limited English proficient

population in Wisconsin has grown substantially over the last ten years and continues to

be on the rise, increasing the demand for interpreters services in the criminal justice

system.104

In both Wisconsin and Washington, as well as nationally, Spanish is by far the

99Herbst, Leigh and Samuel Walker. Language Barriers in the delivery of police services: A study of

police and Hispanic Interactions in a Midwestern City. Journal of Criminal Justice. Vol. 29 (2001): 329-

340100

Urbina, Martin G. Language Barriers in the Wisconsin Court System: The Latino/a Experience.

Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice. Vol 2 (2004): 91-119 101

Ibid.102

Ibid.103

Ibid.104

Ibid.


24/87

24

most common language for which court interpreters are needed; in Wisconsin 86% ofrequest for court interpreters are for Spanish.

105

The study found as the Latino population in Wisconsin has increased, the shortage

of and demand for qualified court interpreters has become more pronounced; Not only

are there too few qualified interpreters, but there are far too many unqualified interpretersbeing used in the court system.106

Interpreters are often selected and assigned to casesprimarily because they are bilingual even though most of them have little, if any

experience interpreting and often have little understanding of the legal system let alone oflegal terminology.

Interpreters also need to be able to convey complex legal concepts to people who

are generally unfamiliar with the U.S. justice system and concepts like due process andconstitutional rights. Urbina found interpreters often have no idea of their limitations. He

observed verbatim translations be very deceiving as intended meanings were often lost ininterpretation or translated so literally that they become nonsensical. For example words

like offense (crime) and appearance (coming before the court) were consistentlytranslated as ofensa (insult) and apariencia (physical appearance). Additionally, the

word plea is often translated as supplication or entreaty.107

Urbina observed how untrained and unprofessional court interpreters can have asignificant impact on court proceedings. Since the typical Latino defendant is

uneducated, some interpreters make the mistake of correcting the testimony of thedefendant, paraphrasing it, or interpreting what is being said to the defendant in a much

lower vocabulary. Furthermore, interpreters often offered legal advice to defendants orinserted suggestions into their interpretations. Likewise, confused and scared, some

defendants asked interpreters questions like, Should I plead guilty? Indeed, a priorstudy on court interpreters noted, There has probably never been a court interpreter who

has not responded to (or even invited) requests for assistance that fall outside theinterpreters functions. The impulse comes from the same source of empathy that makes

people want to be interpreters in the first place.108

The juvenile system poses its own unique challenges confronting the languagebarrier. The language barrier experienced by juveniles and their parents is compounded

by a general unfamiliarity with justice proceedings. Additionally, Latino families arecommonly distrustful of legal authorities due to experiences with corrupt systems in

Mexico and other Latin American countries, experience with persecution and harassmentby INS agents, and the threat of deportation for undocumented individuals. The language

barrier impacts and often informs juvenile outcomes as Spanish speaking families often

105Urbina, Martin G. Language Barriers in the Wisconsin Court System: The Latino/a Experience.

Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice. Vol 2 (2004): 91-119106

Ibid.107

Ibid.108

Ibid.


25/87

25

fail to understand the stipulations of the court order and are thus incapacitated to enforcetheir childs compliance with probation requirements.

109

Stereotypes and Cultural Insensitivity

A number of the aforementioned aspects of the interactionist theory demonstratehow seemingly colorblind policies and practices have differential outcomes for Latinoyouth. Yet the centrality of race in their effects cannot be understood without recognizing

how racial generalizations and stereotypes may factor into the discretionary authorityjuvenile officials are afforded at each decision-making stage. Studies have confirmed that

racial stereotyping affects differential perceptions of youths problems which in turnimpacts case processing decisions. In one recent Washington study, George S. Bridges

and Sara Steen tried to determine why minority youth received harsher sentencingrecommendations than whites when they were charged with the same crimes and had a

similar delinquency history. Bridges and Steen examined 233 narrative reports written byjuvenile probation officers in Washington State, analyzed the written judgments and

contrasted the rationale for their decisions with objective measures of risk.

110

Bridges and Steen found that juvenile court officials subjective assessments ofyouth shaped case outcomes, consistently resulting in harsher dispositions for minority

youth.111

They found probation officers assessed minority and white youth using differentcausal factors. Probation officers were more likely to see the crimes of minority youth as

caused by internal factors (e.g., personal failure, inadequate moral character andpersonality) and crimes by whites as caused by external factors (e.g., poor home life,

lack of appropriate role models and environment). Probation officers interpretations ofsubjective factors like the youths remorse or cooperativeness ultimately influenced their

assessment that the delinquent behavior of minority youth was the result of individual

failings, unmitigated by larger social forces, for which state intervention was the onlyrecourse.112

Decision-makers are generally guided by red flags that indicate a youthslikelihood to re-offend, such as their school performance or family stability. For many

decision-makers, their basis for evaluating the red flags comes from experience and ismore of a subjective judgment of what has worked in the past rather than explicit bias.

Nevertheless, these red flags may or may not be accurate measures of assessing a youths

109Perreira, Krista M., Mimi V. Chapman and Gabriela Stein. Becoming an American Parent:

Overcoming Challenges and Finding Strength in the New Immigrant Latino Community. Journal of

Family Issues. Vol. 27, no. 10 (October 2006): 1383-1414110

Bridges, George S. and Sara Steen. Racial Disparities in Official Assessments of Juvenile Offenders:Attributional Stereotypes as Mediating Mechanisms. American Sociological Review. Vol. 63 (1998)

111Governors Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee. Washington State Juvenile Justice Report 2005.

(2006)112

Bridges, George S. and Sara Steen. Racial Disparities in Official Assessments of Juvenile Offenders:Attributional Stereotypes as Mediating Mechanisms. American Sociological Review. Vol. 63 (1998)


26/87

26

risk and differential perceptions of minority youth can be informed by negativestereotypes as well as cultural illiteracy.

113Specifically, images of gang members as

predominantly minority youth may infuse perceptions of Latino youth with suspicions ofgang involvement. The consequences of presumed or actual gang affiliations are great.

Such a charge mandates harsher penalties and disproportionately targets profiles of low-

income Latinos.

114

The bias of decision-makers is amplified by the gap in communication between

white decision makers and minority youth when cultural differences are misinterpreted.Prior research suggests that the attitude, body language and general demeanor of youth

affects their sentence outcome. Behaviors such as not making eye contact or wearingoversized clothing, often relate to generational and cultural aspects of Latino youth of

which the decision maker is unaware or unaccustomed. One court official explained, Imexpecting when they come to court theyre going to show some measure of deference

toward the court and not walk in with an attitude. How are we to feel that its appropriateto release the kid who has absolutely no respect for the court, for the law enforcement, for

the attorney, for the cop on the street, for our laws obviously!

115

One study conducted by Ed Munoz addresses factors largely unexamined inscholarly research which can uniquely inform Washington States experience. It

examined Latinos of Mexican origin in rural and small town jurisdictions outside of theAmerican Southwest. Munoz analyzed misdemeanor sentences in three non-urban

Nebraska counties with significant Latino populations.116

The analysis compared Angloand Latino male misdemeanants and controlled for county, offense type, prior offenses,

and age. Latinos overall had significantly greater proportions of individuals charged withmisdemeanor offenses, received more total charges, and subsequently received harsher

punishments in the form of greater fines and lengths of probation.117

The findings suggestthat biased discretion in the enforcement, processing and sentencing of misdemeanor

offenses is but one part of the cumulative disadvantage that Latinos face in the overallcriminal justice system.

118This study is significant because it provides evidence of

113Hoytt, Eleanor Hinton, Vincent Schiraldi, Brenda V. Smith and Jason Ziedenberg. 8 Pathways to


Foundation.



115Bridges, George S. and Sara Steen. Racial Disparities in Official Assessments of Juvenile Offenders:

Attributional Stereotypes as Mediating Mechanisms. American Sociological Review. Vol. 63 (1998)116

Munoz, Ed A. Misdemeanor Sentencing Decision: The Cumulative Disadvantage Effect of GringoJustice. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences. Vol. 20, no. 3. (August 1998): 298-320



Munoz, Ed A. Misdemeanor Sentencing Decision: The Cumulative Disadvantage Effect of GringoJustice. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences. Vol. 20, no. 3. (August 1998): 298-320


27/87

27

gringo justice outside of the American Southwest, where Latinos historically have

resided.119

As a result, it can serve as a measure of how the diffusion of stereotypical

beliefs of Mexicans influences societys reaction to Mexican criminality. Munoz assesses

that Nebraska provides an excellent social laboratory to explore these claims,120

as

would Washington due to similar racial demographics, patterns of Latino immigration in

pursuit of work in farm labor and meatpacking, and relative rapid increase in the Latinopopulation due to those industries.

Conflict Theory

Recall the conflict theory, the third and final theoretical explanations for minority

overrepresentation in juvenile justice. The conflict theory proposes that race effectively

determines the Latino youths relationship to an inherently racist legal system. The

conflict theory proposes youths who are members of the lower status groups receive

harsher dispositions in order to ensure that they are brought under the control of the elite

group and that they will mature into law abiding supports of the status quo.121

Throughout American history, Latinos have been caste as a lower status group, andsocioeconomic realities persist in locating them among the most disadvantaged

populations today. The conflict theory is critical to laying the historical and theoretical

groundwork for examinations of Latino overrepresentation. At this day in age racism is

less tangible. By in large, it has been erased, or at least rephrased, in the law books. Yet it

continues to impact juvenile court processing of Latinos in very real ways.

Analyzing themes in sociological research on law and crime, Stephen Demuth and

Darrel Steffensmeir propose three theoretical paradigms where socially disadvantaged

and/or minority offenders are prone to more coercive treatment by legal agents.122

There

conclusions are useful to inform how conflict theory shapes court processing. Demuth

and Steffensmeir explain differential treatment of minority youth occurs because 1) they

lack resources to resist the imposition of negative labels; 2) their behavior threatens the

economic and moral interests of more powerful groups; and 3) their crime is feared more

and thus sanctions will be harsher when criminals are perceived to be racially or

culturally dissimilar and hence more dangerous or unpredictable. Indeed, the conception

is commonplace among the general public that crime is overwhelmingly a minority or

underclass problem.123

119Ibid.



121Ibid.



no. 4 (December 2004): 994- 1011



no. 4 (December 2004): 994- 1011


28/87

28

Stereotypes

The differential treatment of Latinos in the justice system today cannot be

understood in isolation. It has roots in socially constructed stereotypes, images and

beliefs that have been attached to Latinos throughout history and dictate the social andeconomic structures that order society. These distorted perceptions have infused legalsystems and judicial institutions with justification and rationale for the dual standard of

enforcement and punishment that favor Anglos over Latinos.124

Early research on Mexicans and the justice system often portrayed them asinnately criminal and prone to thievery and lawlessness.

125Although recent research on

racial stereotyping by juvenile justice authorities has primarily focused on the labelingand stereotyping of African American male offenders, whom court officials often view as

aggressive and irresponsible, disrespectful of authority, and more criminal in theirlifestyles.

126However, recent research suggests that Latino offenders elicit similar

negative stereotypes. Prior studies of ethnic stereotypes report characterizations ofLatinos as lazy, irresponsible and dangerously criminal.127

These stereotypical images have endured centuries and continue to be invoked to

mobilize bias against Latinos particularly when they are perceived as a threat. Generally,an increase in the Latino population increases their visibility which in turn can create

inter-ethnic conflict by representing an actual or perceived economic threat. The conflicttheory would predict that long-time Anglo residents, would perceive Latino immigrants

as a threat to maintaining the status quo as it functions to ensure their social, economicand political dominance. Thus, one powerful way to subordinate Latinos and maintain

dominance is through a system Munoz termed gringo justice, wherein differ

latino youth in washington state’s juvenile justice system

Documents