Marshall University

Marshall Digital Scholar

Theses, Dissertations and Capstones

1-1-2007

Girls in the Juvenile Justice System

Ryan Michelle Donley
donley7@[Link]

Follow this and additional works at: [Link]

Part of the Criminology Commons, and the Gender and Sexuality Commons

Recommended Citation
Donley, Ryan Michelle, "Girls in the Juvenile Justice System" (2007). Theses, Dissertations and Capstones. Paper 573.

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Marshall Digital Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses, Dissertations and
Capstones by an authorized administrator of Marshall Digital Scholar. For more information, please contact zhangj@[Link].
 Girls in the Juvenile Justice System

Thesis submitted to the Graduate College of

Marshall University

In partial fulfillment of
The requirements for the degree of
Masters of Arts in Sociology

By

Ryan Michelle Donley

Dr. Frederick Roth, Ph.D., Committee Chairperson

Dr. Kenneth Ambrose, Ph.D.
Dr. Richard Garnett, Ph.D.

Marshall University

May 2007
 Abstract

Girls in the Juvenile Justice System

By Ryan Michelle Donley

Juvenile crime has been a controversial topic of debate since the Industrial

Revolution. More recently many studies on juvenile crime have turned their attention to

sex differences in committing crime and being processed through the justice system.

Current statistics of arrest, adjudication, and placement rates for different types of status

offenses and criminal offenses will show whether Chesney-Lind’s and other researchers’

conclusions that juvenile females are treated more harshly within the juvenile justice

system still holds true twenty years later. Given the literature review and the national

juvenile crime statistics, there is strong evidence that suggests females continue to be

treated differently and more harshly than males for similar offenses and status offenses.

ii
 Acknowledgements

Many people have helped with the development of this paper, without their

support and countless hours of help, this paper would not exist. Thank you to Dr.

Ambrose and Dr. Garnett for your support and encouragement not only throughout this

process, but throughout my career at Marshall University. Dr. Roth, not enough thanks

could ever express my gratitude for the countless hours you spent reviewing this paper,

meeting with me, and bringing me back down to earth. Without these three fantastic and

dedicated professors I would not be graduating from Marshall University with a M.A. in

Sociology.

To my mother Belinda, my future husband Stephen, friends and the rest of my

family, I do not know what I would have done without all of you. Thank you for listening

about my woes throughout this process and encouraging me to jump this last hurdle.

Thank you to those who read and helped with the reviewing of this paper. The support

and encouragement from everyone has been overwhelming and I appreciate everything.

iii
 Table of Contents

Abstract………………………………………………………………………………….. ii

Acknowledgements…..…………………………………………………………………. iii

List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………….. v

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………… 1

Chapter 1: History of Juvenile Justice in the United States…………………………….. 3

Chapter 2: Literature Review…………………………………………………………… 11

Chapter 3: National Juvenile Crime Statistics Review…………………………………. 28

Chapter 4: Conclusions…………………………………………………………………. 42

Works Cited…………………………………………………………………………….. 45

iv
 List of Tables

Chapter 3: National Juvenile Crime Statistics Review

Table 3.1: Arrests by Age, 2004…………………………….……………………..…… 28

Table 3.2: Arrests by Age and Sex, 2004.……………………………….…………..…. 29

Table 3.3: Ten-Year Arrest Trends by Sex, 1995-2004…………………………...……. 30

Table 3.4: Delinquency Caseload, 1985-2002………………………………….….…… 32

Table 3.5: Percent of Cases Detained, 2002………………………………….…….…... 33

Table 3.6: Number of Adjudicated Cases Per Gender, 2002……………….…….…….. 33

Table 3.7: Property Offense Case Processing, 2002……………….………...…….…… 34

Table 3.8: Public Order Offense Case Processing, 2002……………………..…..……. 34

Table 3.9: Percent of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Involving Females, 1985-2002... 35

Table 3.10: Percent of Petitioned Status Offense Cases Adjudicated, 1985-2002……... 35

Table 3.11: Female Proportion of Offenders in Custody, 2002.………………………... 37

Table 3.12: Female Proportion of Offenders in Disposition, 2002.…………………….. 37

Table 3.13: Percent of Offenders in Juvenile Facilities, 1997-2003………….………… 38

Table 3.14: Committed Offenders, 2003……………………………………………….. 39

Table 3.15: Percent of Residents Remaining in Placement, 2003..…………………….. 40

v
 Introduction

Juvenile crime has been a controversial topic of debate since the Industrial

Revolution. Many theories have attempted to explain why juveniles commit or do not

commit acts of delinquency and/or status offenses. Within the last five decades

researchers have included race, sex, age, and social class as characteristics that they

contend are factors which influence juvenile crime and how they are processed by the

juvenile justice system.

More recently many studies on juvenile crime have turned their attention to sex

differences in committing crime and being processed through the justice system.

Throughout the years feminist theorists have attempted to explain sex differences within

the justice system. Conflict, labeling, and power control theories, as well as chivalry and

paternalism hypothesis have all attempted to explain sex differences in committing crime

and being processed through not only the adult justice system, but also the juvenile

justice system. Conflict, labeling and power control theories are only a few theories

which attempt to explain the sex differences in why males and females commit crime and

then come to the attention of the justice system representatives. Chivalry and paternalism

hypothesis suggests that females receive lesser punishment because male police,

prosecutors, and judges feel the need to step in to save these women or to treat them

leniently as long as women sustain a submissive gender role (Viki, et. al., 2003; Daly,

1989; Grabe, et. al., 2006; Akers, 1999). The two hypothesis attempt to explain why

females are treated differently for the same or similar criminal acts that males commit, as

well as if females are treated harsher.

1
 A historical background of the juvenile justice system will be discussed so that a

better understanding of how the system has seen, treated, and dealt with juvenile

delinquents and status offenders. A review of literature will help to establish what other

researchers have discovered in previous qualitative and quantitative research, as well as

research that has been gathered about the juvenile female offender. Statistics from 1985

to 2004 of juvenile male and female crime were collected Juvenile Offenders and

Victims:2006 National Report (Synder and Sickmund, 2006) as well as FBI Arrest

Statistics 1994-2004 (Puzzanchera, et. al., 2006).

The research will illustrate whether females have been given more severe

sanctions for offenses which are also committed by juvenile males, or assigned more

lenient treatment than juvenile males from the first stage of arrest to the final stage of

incarceration. These current statistics of arrest, adjudication, and placement rates for

different types of status offenses and criminal offenses will show whether Chesney-

Lind’s conclusions that juvenile females are treated more harshly within the juvenile

justice system still holds true twenty years later.

Therefore, chapter 1 begins with the exploration of the juvenile justice history and

what factors have lead the current system to act as the juveniles parent, makes choices for

the youth that the court declares is best, treats, processes, detains, commit’s today’s

juvenile males and females. A literature review of research pertaining to juvenile females

and the juvenile justice system occurs in chapter 2. Statistical comparison of juvenile

female and male arrest, types of crimes committed, adjudication, and placement rates are

discussed in chapter 3. Chapter 4 brings the paper to a close with conclusions and

suggestions for future research.

2
 Chapter 1

History of Juvenile Justice in the United States a Historical Background

The first juvenile court in the United States was created in 1899, with the passage

of the Illinois Juvenile Court Act (Satterthwaite, 1997). This acted as the model in which

the Nation’s early juvenile court system developed techniques for legally dealing with

delinquent youth. Since 1899 the juvenile justice system has undergone many changes

that have brought it closer to resembling the adult criminal justice system (Roberts, 2004;

Satterthwaite, 1997; Ferro, 2003). Even though the juvenile justice system resembles the

adult system, it too has many flaws that affect the outcome of youth being brought into

the system and processed through.

In order to better understand the current juvenile justice system and how it arrived

at its current objective and operation, it is first necessary to examine its past history. The

past history of the juvenile justice system is important to review in order to comprehend

why today’s juvenile justice system acts as the juveniles parent, makes choices for the

youth that the court declares is best, treats, processes, detains, commit’s today’s juvenile

males and females. As well as possible factors throughout history that has changed

society and how society has decided to deal with those youthful offenders.

In today’s society, we expect children to play with toys and each other. Parents

expect children to make mistakes and to a certain degree not always follow rules. People

expect that children are shown love and discipline. Society plays a role in their

upbringing, but the parents have the primary responsibility for guiding their children into

a healthy and productive adulthood. From Ancient times to the Middle Ages, little

attention was given to the nature of children. They were seen not as having a childhood

3
that we have come to understand today. This concept of childhood did not exist. Children

were seen as miniature adults and fully responsible for their behaviors.

During the middle of the 16th century, Elizabethan England created statutes

known as “poor laws” (Ferro, 2003; Roberts, 2004; Satterthwaite, 1997). These statutes

forced homeless, neglected, or delinquent minors into workhouses, apprenticeships or to

families for domestic service (Ferro, 2003). Individuals were indentured until the age of

21 or longer. Poor laws became the model for dealing with poor or delinquent children

and were brought from England to the American colonies (Ferro, 2003; Satterthwaite,

1997).

Once the poor laws reached the American colonies, new ideas on childhood

evolved, which caused new ways of thinking about children (Ferro, 2003). Puritans

influence gave more attention to the process of child rearing. Puritans believed that if

proper child rearing did not occur then the child could be eternally damned and believed

that every human was innately sinful, and therefore, every child was born with original

sin. To save a child, that child had to be “broken” of its natural will and subordinated to

parents, society, and God. Such a view lead to a Puritan law where any male over the age

of sixteen who refused to obey his parents could be taken in for a hearing and if found

guilty, could be punished including, in the most serious of cases, a sentence of death

(Ferro, 2003; Roberts, 2004; Satterthwaite, 1997). Essentially the Puritans created the

offense category known as status offense, any act that is considered illegal for children

but not for adults (Ferro, 2003; Satterthwaite, 1997).

By the early 19th century the United States was becoming more urbanized and

industrialized. By 1825, New York City’s population had reached 166,000 inhabitants

4
(Ferro, 2003) Fueled by a massive influx of immigrants, slums rapidly sprung up because

of the city’s inability to expand municipal services (sanitation, public health, clean water,

etc.) and substandard economic conditions lead to a rise in criminal activity occurred

among New York’s juveniles. Property crime (e.g., burglary) among juvenile males and

prostitution among juvenile females increased substantially. Youth who were not in

school, unemployed, and had no adult supervision were a reoccurring problem within

these impoverished, urban communities (Ferro, 2003; Satterthwaite, 1997). It is safe to

say that the problem of juvenile delinquency was linked directly to the rise of the urban

poor spawned by the Industrial Revolution.

The Puritan ideal of “breaking” a child of their innate sin began to erode during

the early 19th century. More attention was being given to the special nature of childhood.

Society began to see children as children not as miniature adults and developed a more

adherent process of nurturing a child as a part of successful child rearing. Consequently

concern from society’s upper class arose that urban youth were more likely to engage in

delinquent behavior because of exposure to the conditions in poor urbanized

neighborhoods. These children, it was believed, had to be “saved” by some kind of

intervention (Ferro, 2003) which in turn provided the basis for the child saving movement

(Ferro, 2003; Satterthwaite, 1997).

In 1825, The Society for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency established the

New York House of Refuge, which was designed to exclusively accommodate juveniles

(Ferro, 2003; U.S. Department of Juvenile Justice, 2006). Houses of Refuge not only

housed children who had committed crimes but also poor children, orphans, or children

thought to be wayward, incorrigible, or beyond the control of their parents. Similar

5
houses of refuge were established throughout the United States by juvenile justice

reformers known as the “Child Savers.” Child Savers, otherwise known as Reformers,

began to connect crime and delinquency with poverty stricken areas. Instead of trying to

“break” a child, like the Puritans, reformers wanted to rescue children, be placing them

into state operated facilities (e.g., orphanages, work houses) from the conditions of urban

slums that appeared to cause their criminal behavior.

In 1839, a case involving a young girl in Pennsylvania who was involuntarily

incarcerated in a house of refuge for committing a status offense was challenged claiming

that the incarceration was illegal (Ferro, 2003; Roberts, 2004). The Pennsylvania

Supreme Court not only refused to examine the events that led to the commitment, the

length the girl would be incarcerated, or the conditions of the youth’s confinement, but

also held that the incarceration was justified (Ferro, 2003). The Pennsylvania Supreme

Court, in its ruling of Ex Parte Crouse, established the doctrine of parens patriae for the

United States, which dates back to the Middle Ages in England. The doctrine enabled the

state to assume responsibility for children until they began to exhibit positive changes,

and to provide for their care or protection (Ferro, 2003; Roberts, 2004; U.S. Department

of Juvenile Justice, 2006; Satterthwaite, 1997). Parens patriae was the foundation stone

upon which modern juvenile court was established.

The first juvenile court in the United States was established in Cook County,

Illinois in 1899 developed under the doctrine of parens patriae. Because children were not

of full legal capacity, the state had the authority to provide protection for children whose

legal guardians or parents were unable to provide appropriate care or protection (Ferro,

2003; U.S, Department of Justice, 2006; Roberts, 2004). The structure of the juvenile

6
court was recognized as the model for all juvenile court systems and developed

nationwide. By 1910, thirty-two states had established juvenile courts and/ or probation

services (Ferro, 2003; Roberts, 2004; Satterthwaite, 1997). The model for the new

juvenile justice system replaced punishment with rehabilitation methods. The ideal of

rehabilitating delinquent youth, rather then punishing, proved very attractive and helped

to generate programs, juvenile courts or both in all but two states by 1925 (Ferro, 2003;

Roberts, 2004; U.S. Department of Juvenile Justice, 2006). The model’s mission was to

turn delinquent youth into productive citizens through treatment, rather then punishment,

and encouraged the evolution of a separate procedural and substantive system of juvenile

justice.

The rehabilitation model incorporated the ideas that a juvenile’s criminal

tendencies could be reversed if procedures were taken and applied at an early age. This

model was more concerned with how to transform the youthful offender into a productive

and functioning citizen once the offender’s debt to society had been paid. To accomplish

this goal, juvenile offenders were sent to reformatory schools. These reformatory schools

were created to segregate youthful offenders from adult criminals, reform the youthful

offenders by focusing on education, and removing youthful offenders from adverse home

environments (Ferro, 2003). In theory, these schools were supposed to have a

transformative effect on wayward youth. However, in the case of People ex rel

O’Connell v. Turner (1870) the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional

to confine youths who had not been convicted of a criminal offense to reform school

(U.S. Department of Juvenile Justice, 2006; Ferro, 2003).

7
 The next fifty-five years remained focused on rehabilitating juvenile offenders.

The system itself spawned many important and influential Supreme Court cases and

legislation that continued to help structure today’s juvenile justice system. One of many

was The Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act-1968. The legislation was

designed to encourage states to develop community plans and programs that would

discourage juvenile delinquency. Once the programs were drafted and approved, states

would receive federal funding.

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act-1974 which succeeded the

1968 legislation established a strong prevention model of juvenile delinquency,

deinstitutionalizing youth who were already within the system and keeping juvenile

offenders separate from adult offenders (Ferro, 2003; Satterthwaite, 1997; Synder and

Sickmund, 2006). States would receive federal funding only if they removed youth from

secure detention centers and correctional facilities and separated them from adult

offenders

As a result of a steep rise in gang activity and violence in the 1980’s and 1990’s

The question of how we save the children, which was asked only half a century ago, had

shifted to how can we protect society from these youthful offenders. Reform and

rehabilitation were abandoned in favor of a more punitive system. Tolerance for gang

activity and the violence that accompanied that life style waned dramatically. The public

mood was more attuned to “getting tough on crime.” The government was forced to turn

its back on rehabilitating youthful offenders and focus on punishment because of public

out cry for “get tough on crime”. The American public became increasing troubled about

the perception of how lax the police and courts appeared to be when dealing with habitual

8
and violent juvenile criminals. Although there were misconceptions concerning the

increase in juvenile crime, many States responded by passing retaliatory laws. The United

States government amended The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act-1974

allowing some states to try juveniles as adults for some violent crimes and weapons

violations. Minimum detention sentences were instituted in some states. Some of these

laws transferred certain classes of offenders from juvenile criminal court jurisdiction.

Others required the juvenile courts to treat certain classes of juvenile offenders as

criminals, but in juvenile court. These laws also resulted in offenders who were charged

with certain offences to be excluded completely from juvenile court jurisdiction or be

waived automatically to adult criminal court. In some states juveniles who were

adjudicated for certain offenses faced mandatory sentences.

As society’s tolerance and perception of juvenile delinquency shifted throughout

the decades, the way that youthful offenders were viewed and treated tried to keep pace

with an ever evolving society. In the beginning society wanted to punish children who

were capable of mens rea. This shifted to poor laws, where homeless, neglected, or

delinquent juveniles were remanded to workhouses or apprenticeships. The Puritans

focused on child rearing and breaking children of their innate sins. During the

Progressive Era the focus was on saving the children and turning them into productive

citizens.

About fifty-five years later society’s tolerance for crime had been exhausted and

calls for tougher actions against juvenile crime ensued. These conceptions of delinquency

and how to deal with youthful offenders shaped not only today’s juvenile justice system

but also the modern study of delinquency. Therefore, a literature review of female

9
juvenile delinquency and their involvement within the juvenile justice system will be

discussed in Chapter 2.

10
 Chapter 2

Literature Review

Why people commit or do not commit crime has long been of interest to

researchers. Early research on crime focused on adult male crime, and then eventually

included juvenile male criminal activity. At the advent of the Industrial Revolution

interest shifted to include adult and juvenile females. Even though researchers became

interested in the study of adult and juvenile females, compared to the amount of research

on adult and juvenile males, females were severely under represented in the academia

department.

The earliest attempt to explain criminal behavior was by Caesar Lombroso who

wrote many books about crime and criminals. Two of those that were especially

influential were, L’uomo delinqunte [The Criminal Man] and la donna delinquente [The

Female Offender] (Curran et. al., 2001; Morrison, et. al.,1896). Lombroso’s work

attempted to move the study of crime away from innocence until proven guilty,

punishment that fits the crime, free will, and moral culpability, towards more empirical

data that distinguished recidivist criminals from “normal” people by the use of physical

characteristics (Curran et. al., 2001; Morrison, et. al.,1896).

Lombroso was an enthusiastic student of Darwinism and drew on the concept of

atavism to explain criminal behavior. He saw the criminal as a biological degenerate or

“biological throwback”, almost ape-like (Curran et. al., 2001; Morrison, et. al., 1896).

The criminals were seen as “biological throwbacks” to a more primitive ancestral state

and could be recognized by physical features that indicated their more “savage” nature

(Curran et. al., 2001; Morrison, et. al., 1896). Lombroso termed this as atavism and

11
claimed that the criminal behavior could be explained by this form of biological

degeneracy (Curran et. al., 2001; Morrison, et. al., 1896). Criminal atavists could be

identified by certain physical characteristics, which Lombroso referred to as stigmata’s

(Curran et. al., 2001; Morrison, et. al., 1896). Male criminals could be distinguished from

law abiding citizens by moles, excessive body hair, tattoos, receding foreheads, large

hands, and bumps on the head (Curran et. al., 2001; Morrison, et. al., 1896). Also

included in his work were ways to identify a female criminal.

Normal women were also conceived of by Lombroso as being atavistic. The

criminal woman, however, was masculine and because masculinity was seen as a good

thing in only males, this masculinity then transformed the criminal woman into a type of

“monster” (Curran et. al., 2001; Morrison, et. al., 1896). In contrast to the male criminal,

being more identifiable by physical characteristics, the female criminal was less

identifiable (Curran et. al., 2001; Morrison, et. al., 1896). These women were preserved

to be childlike, jealous, vengeful, have low intelligence, are deceitful, and are

kleptomaniacs (Curran et. al., 2001; Morrison, et. al., 1896).

Early social scientists interested in female crime shared Lombroso’s assumptions

about the physical and psychological nature of women. Even though Lombroso’s work

was flawed, it helped to pave the way for future work on not only adult and juvenile male

crime, but also adult and juvenile female crime.

The gender difference of criminals has long been in interest to researchers.

Because delinquency is predominately a male phenomenon, most research has therefore

solely focused on the male gender. Nevertheless, the number of young women within the

juvenile justice system has increased over the decades (Lenssen, et al, 2000;

12
Puzzanchera, et. al., 2006). The reasons why they are ensnared by the system have stayed

relatively constant over the years.

Juvenile females are arrested to some degree in all categories of offenses.

However, juvenile females tend to be arrested more often for offenses that are less

serious (referred to as status offenses) and tend to be considered victimless crimes. These

status offenses include such offenses as truancy, running away, drinking alcohol,

smoking, being incorrigible, and curfew violation are considered illegal when committed

by juveniles. Girls are more likely to be arrested for these status offenses than they would

be for robbery (Chesney-Lind & Sheldon, 1998).

According to Puzzanchera et. al. (2006), there are four major status offenses:

Truancy, liquor violations, runaway, and ungovernablity. The most serious of these

offenses is considered to be running away, followed in sequence by ungovernable, liquor

offenses, and truancy (Puzzanchera, et. al., 2006). Juvenile females constituted 59% of all

runaways in 2003 (Puzzanchera, et. al., 2006). This status offense category represented

the highest percent of female cases out of the four major status offenses followed by

ungovernable cases (39%), liquor cases (35%), and truancy cases (27%) (Puzzanchera, et.

al., 2006).

Females become involved in the juvenile justice system through a number of

entry points. They typically enter the juvenile justice system as a result of status offenses

(those offenses which are illegal for minors but not for adults), charges of prostitution,

drug and alcohol charges, and petty property offenses (Horowitz and Pottieger, 1991;

Chesney-Lind, 1989; Lunnenmann, 2000; Chesney-Lind, 1999; Chesney-Lind,

1988;Sondheimer, 2001; Bloom et. al., 2002; Bloom et. al., 2002; Hoyt and Schere, 1998;

13
Alder, 1984; Bloom et. al., 2004; MacDonald and Chesney-Lind, 2001; Junger-Tas, et.

al., 2004; Murphy and Brown, 2000). They do enter the system for more serious offenses,

but this occurs at a lower rate then the above factors.

The most typical way that females are brought to the attention of juvenile justice

representative is through the action or referral of their parents. Females typically enter the

system because they run away or are considered incorrigible or ungovernable and are

beyond the control of their parents (Macdonald and Chesney-Lind, 2001). In other words,

these girls become involved in the system not because they are necessarily criminals, but

rather because they have violated parental authority. Furthermore, when females are

brought before the courts because of parental referral, they are said to be treated more

harshly than males (MacDonald and Chesney-Lind, 2001). Parental initiation of

complaints to either the courts or police plays a tremendous role in status offender

referrals (Chesney-Lind, 1988).

Juvenile females are usually referred to the juvenile justice system because they

have run away from home. Research has shown that the most common reason females

run away from home is due in large part because of domestic physical, mental, and/or

sexual abuse and they fear the home situation (Chesney-Lind, 1999; Chesney-Lind, 1988;

Ferro, 2003; Alemagno, et. al., 2006). When brought before the court because of a

parental referral, the judge will sometimes send girls back home and if they run away

again will be found in contempt of court. In abusive home situations girls who

continually run away are eventually sentenced to a detention center. Because the rates for

running away tend to be much higher for females than males female detention rates tend

to be disproportionately high as well.

14
 Juvenile girls are more likely than boys to be arrested and detained in detention

centers or training schools for status offenses (Polakow, 2000; Chesney-Lind, 1989;

Chesney-Lind & Sheldon, 1998; Bynum & Thompson, 2002; Regoli & Hewitt, 2003).

Once girls are sent to either a detention center or training school they are detained for

longer periods of time and treated more harshly for status offense than boys who are

charged with the same crime (Chesney-Lind & Sheldon, 1998).

Collecting data on serious juvenile crime in Miami, Florida over a two year

period, Horowitz and Pottieger (1991) found that females were more likely to commit

and be arrested for prostitution. Moreover, girls were more likely to be formally

processed for miscellaneous offenses and drug and alcohol offenses. The study suggested

that girls are treated more harshly for violating ascribed gender roles. Petty property

crimes committed by males were considered to be more serious offense than when

committed by females. They were also three times more likely to receive incarceration

sentences for petty property crimes.

The researchers concluded that there appeared to be gender and race differences

within the juvenile justice system (Horowitz and Pottieger, 1991). They suggested that

gender-role stereotyping and paternalism may contribute to gender differences in how the

juvenile justice system handles serious offenders.

Throughout the years American society has gone through many changes in

regards to women’s roles in society. Women were expected to conform to the traditional

roles of homemaker and childrearing. They were discouraged from labor force

participation or being independent and self-determining. As women began to exercise

independence in many untraditional spheres of life they started to engage in more risk

15
taking behavior. Juvenile females were also being monitored less frequently by adults

and were being socialized more like juvenile males than ever before. While females were

being encouraged to take on these new roles, they were also expected to maintain their

previous ones of submissiveness and taking care of the family.

Females and males are expected to fulfill certain gender roles that have been

defined by society and ascribed to them at birth. Gender roles are an integral part of

socialization throughout the developmental stages and well into adulthood. The gender

role that is ascribed to girls is that they are expected to be polite and deferential,

respectful of others, thoughtful, and stay close to home. On the other hand, the gender

expectations for boys are that they be encouraged to be tough and aggressive,

adventurous and active in risk taking behaviors. These different standards of behaviors

and expectations for boys and girls have had a long history in child rearing and determine

how society will respond to the violation of those standards.

Acceptable behaviors and expectations for boys and girls have had an influence

on how the juvenile justice system responds to juvenile crime. These ascribed roles and

expectations have drawn the attention of researchers to how juvenile justice

representatives treat female offenders. Pollack (1950) examined how general attitudes

towards women effect the processing through the justice system. The research postulated

that the predominately male justice system inherited a chivalrous attitude towards women

in general, thus transferring this attitude to the female offender (Pollack, 1950). Because

of this chivalrous attitude, the female offender was consequently treated more leniently

than the male offender. The paternalism hypothesis is similar although feminists argue

that paternalism is not the same “because paternalism does not always result in a more

16
lenient treatment of female criminals or delinquents” (Akers, pg. 191). Female

delinquents could be handed a lenient sanction, but could just as easily receive a harsher

penalty to reinforce a submissive gender role (Chesney-Lind, 1989; Akers, 1999). She is

more likely to be shown leniency by the court when appropriate gender behavior and

characteristics are displayed. When traditional gender roles are violated, antagonistic

behavior and non-female characteristics are displayed at any time throughout the judicial

process, females can expect to receive harsh treatment (Daly, 1989; Akers, 1999; Visher,

1983; Viki et. al., 2003). Probation officers and judges often embrace the parental role, a

form of judicial paternalism (Chesney-Lind, 1988).

Both of these hypothesis suggest that females could be treated a certain way

within the justice system due to how predominately male justice system representatives

see a female’s gender role or typescript. Females who display an appropriate role receive

special treatment in contrast to those females who violate gender expectations. When

female roles are violated, she is more likely to receive a harsher disposition (Visher,

1983).

Girls activities tend to be monitored closer, to be dependent upon males, are

discouraged from risk taking behaviors, etc than boys (Chesney-Lind, 1988, Hagan, et.

al., 1979, 1990, 2002).

Hagan et. al. (1979, 1990, 2002) found that female adolescent’s identification

with their mothers and the mothers’ monitoring of daughter’s activities, lead to a

reduction in risk-taking and delinquent behavior particularly in the patriarchal family

structure. However, in egalitarian family structures, mothers displayed less control over

their daughters and there was an increased acceptance to risk-taking behavior which, they

17
argued, resulted in more delinquency. In contrast, Morash and Chesney-Lind (1988)

asserted that gender differences appeared in families regardless of the type of family

structure. The important factor for explaining low levels of delinquency, especially in

males, was the quality of the youth’s relationship with the mother. The family’s social

class rather than the socialization for risk-taking behavior predicted delinquency for both

male and female juveniles.

Gender roles differ across social class, race, culture, and family structures. A two

parent, middle class family may have more rigid gender roles than a specific ethnic,

minority family or a single parent home. Junger-Tas, et. al. (2004) compared eleven

European countries and found that there is a substantial gap in the rate of delinquency

between girls and boys across all of the eleven countries and ethnic groups. Specifically,

their data confirmed that social controls by families and academic institutions were

related to youth delinquency. For example, a female having a bad relationship with her

parents and experiencing dysfunctional mental well-being were predictors of female

problem behaviors. Juvenile relationships with parents and parental control were

significantly related to drug use, truancy, and running away from home (Junger-Tas, et.

al., 2004). Junger-Tas, et. al. (2004) concluded that their results illustrated that the

different ways females and males are socialized were robust predictors of delinquent

behavior.

Researchers suggested and demonstrated that there are many factors beyond legal

requirements, which juvenile justice representatives process juvenile offenders, including

characteristics or cues such as race, social class, economic background, group affiliation,

demeanor, and dress (MacDonald and Chesney-Lind, 2001; Junger-Tas, et. al., 2004;

18
Murphy and Brown, 2000; Bloom et. al., 2002). The type of crime committed (status or

delinquent offense), victim referral, parental referral, eye witnesses, was the crime

committed out in public all influence police officers perception on whether to arrest or

not, probation officers documentation in pre-sentencing reports, prosecutors decision to

petition cases, judges decision on to dismiss a case, place youth on probation or into a

placement facility (Horowitz and Pottieger, 1991; Chesney-Lind, 1989; Lunnenmann,

2000; Chesney-Lind, 1999; Chesney-Lind, 1988; Sondheimer, 2001; Bloom et. al., 2002;

Bloom et. al., 2002; Hoyt and Schere, 1998; Alder, 1984; Bloom et. al., 2004;). Not all of

these factors are used at the same stages of the criminal processing. Police may use such

characteristics as gender, race, social class, demeanor, if there was a victim, whether or

not there were eye witnesses, and if the crime was committed out in public. Judges may

use cues such as race, gender, type of crime committed, and parental referral. Because

male justice representatives use different cues, specifically gender, to process juvenile

offenders paternalistic chivalry can determine whether police will arrest girls, how

probation officers write referral reports and whether judges will give leniency or harsh

punishment to female juvenile offenders.

Visher (1983) conducted observations of 900 patrol shifts with 5688 police-

suspect interactions during 1977. She was interested in the behavior of police officers and

their interactions when they encountered female (n=142) and male suspects (n=643) who

were involved in criminal offense or violations of public order. When police officers

came into contact with a female suspect, the results demonstrated that police arrest

decisions were influenced by the suspect’s race, age, demeanor, if an arrest was requested

by a victim, as well as “commission of property offenses” (pg. 15). The likelihood for a

19
police officer to arrest a male suspect was influenced by demeanor, race, victim’s

accounts of events, violent and property offense. In regards to age, Visher’s results

revealed that younger females were treated more harshly than older females. It is possible

that the reason the younger females are treated more harshly than older females is

because of the expectation that young females are to act with respect to elders. It is also

plausible that police officers are treating juvenile females harsher then males because

they are doing it “for their own good”. This in turn is a form of paternalistic treatment.

Paternalism is very similar to the chivalry hypothesis. However, feminists argue that

paternalism is not the same as chivalry “because it does not always result in a more

lenient treatment of female criminals or delinquents” (Akers, pg.191). When a female is

brought into the criminal justice system, she can be handed a lenient sanction, but a

harsher penalty can just as easily be imposed to maintain a submissive gender role

(Chesney-Lind, 1989; Akers, 1999).

The Chivalry hypothesis postulates that female criminals receive more lenient

treatment within the criminal justice system (Viki, et. al., 2003; Daly, 1989; Grabe, et. al.,

2006; Akers, 1999). The reasoning behind why females are said to be treated more

leniently is due to male police, prosecutors, and judges seeing females as being weak and

irrational, therefore, those representatives needed to step in to save these women (Akers,

1999).

Chivalry and paternalism both look to explain if females are treated differently

(i.e.- harsher or more leniently) than males within the justice system. However, one

suggests that females receive lesser punishment because male justice representatives need

to step in to save these women. The other suggests that females are treated leniently as

20
long as women sustain a submissive gender role. Both attempt to explain how and why

females are treated harsher for the same or similar criminal act or status offenses that

males commit.

Sealock and Simpson (1998) examined the “mechanisms of police decisions to

arrest and how bias in police decisions can occur” (pg. 429) by collecting official police

records of contacts between police and juveniles during 1968 to 1975. The research

suggested that police officers use their personal knowledge of societal typescripting in

their arrest decision processing. Typescripting is constructed from two ideas: “type” abnd

“script”. “Type” refers to actors that have ascribed or achieved characteristics that are

associated with gender, race, and socioeconomic status. Contained within these types is a

“script”, which are socially approved behaviors that individuals and groups are expected

to follow. When individuals do not follow their expected typescript, they are considered

“countertypes.”

Sealock and Simpson (1998) examined the effect that a juvenile suspect’s gender

had on likelihood of arrest. They found that there was support for arrest bias in suspect

characteristics. Males demonstrated a higher chance of being arrested than females.

Sealock and Simpson (1998) also suggested that their findings demonstrated that black

suspects and poor suspects were more at risk of being arrested than white suspects and

suspects from higher economic backgrounds. During the police officer’s decision making

process, conflicting typescript and countertype may occur due to challenging their

heuristic justification. Other information could possibly influence the officer’s decision to

arrest, as explained by Sealock and Simpson (1998):

“Any additional information available to the officer that would increase the subjective
disutility of a nonarrest would heighten the likelihood of an arrest. This effect is expected

21
 to be stronger for the female offender because any element that would increase the
officer’s perception of he severity of her actions would intensify her atypicality. Thus the
unpredictability of her future behavior would be increased; as a result, an officer would
perceive greater subjective disutility in not placing her under arrest.” (pg. 453)

The analysis also concluded that with prior arrests, females were more likely to be

arrested again than males for any offense. Females were also more likely to be penalized

severely for status offences than boys who behaved similarly. Conducting a means-

difference test demonstrated that their sample was significantly more likely than males to

be arrested for status offenses. When a logistic regression test was performed with the

same sample but with their control variables, the results demonstrated the opposite affect.

Sealock and Simpson concluded that one or more variables played different roles for

males and females in each status offense. They suggested that legal variables, such as the

seriousness of offense, the threat to the public that the youth poses indicated by the

number of prior police contact, and the nature of the offense “may be subjected to sex

bias” (pg. 450). These biases were said to possibly be “evidence that paternalistic

attitudes toward female offenders” occurred (pg 450).

Guevara, et. al. (2006), examined independent and interactive effects of race and

gender on juvenile justice decision making process. They collected data from a sample of

juvenile court referrals to two mid-western juvenile courts looking at male and females

separately by race. Using descriptive statistics with weighted data, the results

demonstrated that that the majority of the referred youths were white and male. More

than half of all youths in the sample had no prior referrals, were commonly charged with

property offenses, and were not detained prior to adjudication. Females were more likely

to be charged with property crime, had a higher rate of having cases dismissed, while

males were more likely to have a prior court referral, receive probation, and to be charged

22
with some other offense. When the investigators examined the correlations between the

independent variables (race, gender, age, priors, person offense, property offense, and

other offense) and the dependant variables (predetained, dismissed, probation, and

placement), “race and gender affected the pre-adjudication detention and disposition

decisions” (pg.269). The researcher predicted that white females would receive the most

lenient disposition outcomes and non-white males would receive the most severe

disposition outcomes, but the data did not support their hypothesis. What it did

demonstrate was that females did not always receive the most lenient of outcomes, as

well as being less likely to receive detention prior to adjudication than males. Guevara et.

al. suggested that the overall results inferred that gender and race intersected which

influenced juvenile court cases outcomes.

Sagatun (1989) examined how probation officers explained reasons why juvenile

males and females commit crime. Sagatun (1989) found that the sex of the probation

officers impacted their descriptions of male and female juvenile delinquents. Probation

officers were more likely to refer to the youthful offender in a more negative light if that

offender was the same sex as the probation officer. Both sexes also considered that the

opposite sex offender had higher self esteem. Probation officers, male and female,

suggested that they would use the same description and explanations for both male and

female juvenile delinquency (the reason that the youths in trouble were experiencing low

self esteem). Sagatun (1989) goes on to say that “boys were often described by both male

and female officers as “fun loving with a spirit of adventure,” while female delinquents

were described as “willful and destructive” (pg. 139). The girls were evaluated as being

23
rebellious and more negative than delinquent boys, while boys were seen as being

“traditional” (pg. 139) by both male and female probation officers.

Horn and Evans (2000) examined pre-sentencing reports from probation officers

and how the gender of both probation officers and clients influenced how supervisory

officers allocated cases and assessed the content of the probation officers’ reports. They

found that male officers were not only assigned more males delinquency cases, but also

received more cases involving robbery, burglary and drug offences. By contras, female

officers were assigned more female delinquency cases and were allocated more fraud and

forgery, driving, and “other theft” (pg. 189) offenses. Even though male and female

probation officers recorded similar problems and motivations as causes for delinquency,

there were certain type of motivations that were identified more often by male probation

officers than by female probation officers. Horn and Evans (2000) suggest are that male

probation officers are more likely to record motivations such as “delinquent values and

unemployment” (pg. 195) while female probation officers record motivations such as

“lack of leisure facilities, financial problems, and oppressive behavior” (pg. 195).

Probation officers were likely to report that female offenders had “interpersonal

problems, psychiatric problems” (pg. 195) in contrast to male offenders who were often

recorded as being unemployed and having a lack of leisure facilities. They concluded that

the gender of the offender may have more to do with the differences in problems and

motivations that are recorded, rather than the gender of the probation officer.

Mallicoat (2007), using attribution theory, examined if there was a difference in

probation officers’ assignment of culpability and descriptions of youthful offenders in

pre-sentencing reports and how gender may affect sentencing recommendations. Her

24
sample consisted of 315 cases where youth were sentenced to probation between January

2001 and July 2002. Mallicoat then constructed information as either being high or low

internal attribution and high or low external attribution. Internal consisted of

characteristics such as personality, attitudes towards others, or adjustments to

adolescence (pg. 11). External referred to environmental or situational characteristics (pg.

11). Using a multivariate analysis, Mallicoat (2007), concluded that “gender is a

significant predictor for attribution type in that probation officers use positive internal

high culpability and positive external low culpability attributions to describe males more

often than females. In contrast, probation officers describe females using significantly

high scores of negative external low culpability attributions compare to males (pg 24).”

Those probation officers find girls more blameworthy for external low culpability

compared to boys has significant implications for how the juvenile justice system chooses

to deal with boys and girls. The analysis illustrated that assignment of culpability by

probation officers varied by gender and that certain characteristics were described in

reports for one gender and not another for certain crimes. For example, sexual behaviors

were often described for girls despite the type of offense for which they were arrested,

while boy’s sexual behavior was described only if they had been engaged in sexual

criminal activity (Mallicoat, 2007).

Sanborn (1996) conducted research that included open-ended survey interviews

from judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and probation officers (n=100) from three

different juvenile courts that assessed what perspective factors influenced disposition

decisions within the juvenile court. Although Sanborn was unable to determine precisely

what factors influenced dispositions decisions and to generalize any findings, he was able

25
to describe how the three juvenile court personnel from urban, rural, and suburban areas

perceived certain factors that they felt influenced dispositions. Factors such as family and

child’s treatment need’s were ranked by subjects in the urban court as being relatively

low in how they affected the disposition. However, the suburban and rural courts

considered these as relatively important in their dispositions. The urban court saw “who

the complainant was, the child’s character, and the method of adjudication”(pg. 103) as

being more influential during disposition hearings than the rural or suburban courts. Race

and sex was acknowledged by subjects as having some influence on dispositions, while

class influenced some dispositions in the suburban and rural courts.

MacDonald and Chesney –Lind (2001), hypothesized that once juvenile female

offenders were found delinquent they would be sanctioned more severely than juvenile

male offenders who were also found delinquent. They concluded that at early stages of

judicial processing, it appeared that gender had no effect on the decision making. If girls

passed the petition and adjudication phases of the justice system, they would be more

harshly sanctioned for relatively minor offenses than a male.

In their analysis of 110 juvenile females being held in an urban juvenile detention

center in Ohio, Alemagno, et. al. (2006) found that females were more likely to be taking

medication for an emotional problem, consider suicide, report violence or fear of violence

related to unwanted sexual contact, report having exchanged sex for money or drugs, and

run away from home for more than two nights due to fear of a volatile situation at home.

Alder (1984) found that girls tended to be referred to placement facilities for misconduct

and delinquency more often than boys. Frazier and Bishop (1990) analyzed contempt of

26
court proceedings in Florida and found that girls were far more likely to be treated more

severely by the courts than boys charged with similar contempt offenses.

This chapter has discussed research spanning the last 50 years. The findings

suggest that the gender of the juvenile has an influence over the justice process. Females

are treated more harshly when displaying characteristics or cues that violate described

female gender roles. Factors that effect a harsher treatment also include prior record, race,

social class, demeanor, age and circumstances of their arrest. Therefore chapter 3 will

examine statistical data ranging from 1984 to 2004 concerning arrest, adjudication, and

placement of juvenile offenders.

27
 Chapter 3

National Juvenile Crime Statistics Review

In 2004, a total of 1,578,895 Juveniles were arrested, girls accounted for 472,063

of all arrests (Synder and Sickmund, 2006). Within the juvenile justice system girls

account for a much smaller percentage of total population, but are overrepresented in

non-criminal status offenses and are still relatively invisible (Chesney-Lind, 1989).

Juvenile females were arrested more often then juvenile males for running away

(Synder and Sickmund, 2006). This was the only category where girls out numbered boys

in arrest rates in 2004. If only examining arrest by age for running away, the total number

of persons arrested that were under the age of eighteen was 86,093 (Puzzanchera, [Link].,

2006). The largest number of arrests came from juveniles thirteen to fourteen years old.

As juveniles aged the number of arrests for running away decreased from fifteen to

seventeen years old (see table 3.1). Females constituted more arrests for running away

from the age of thirteen years old to seventeen years old, see table 3.2 (Puzzanchera, et.

al., 2006). Juvenile thirteen to fourteen years old ranked highest in arrests for disorderly

conduct, sexual offenses (expect forcible rape and prostitution), weapons, vandalism,

other assaults, property crime, arson, larceny-theft, burglary, aggravated assault, and

forcible rape (Puzzanchera, et. al., 2006).

Table 3.1
Arrests for Runaways by Age, 2004

Ages
Under Under
Offense 18 10 10-12 13-14 15 16 17
Runaways 86,093 710 4,840 25,001 22,146 21,892 11,504
Source: Puzzanchera,C; Adams, B.; Synder, H.; Kang, W. (2006). Easy Access to FBI Arrest Statistic 1994-2004 Online.
Available: [Link]

28
 Table 3.2
Percent of Arrests for Runaways by Age and Sex, 2004

Under
10 10-12 13-14 15 16 17
Female .004% 4.6% 30.8% 26.5% 25% 12.6%
Male .013% .071% 26.5% 24.5% 26% 14.4%
Source: Puzzanchera,C; Adams, B.; Synder, H.; Kang, W. (2006). Easy Access to FBI Arrest Statistic 1994-2004 Online.
Available: [Link]

Juvenile female arrest rates increased 1.4% from 2003 to 2004 (Synder and

Sickmund, 2006). There are a total of thirty-one categories that all individuals can be

arrested for. Out of those thirty-one categories, girls arrest rates increased in twenty of

those. The average increase for each category for girls during this time was about 8.5%.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) found that girls

arrest rates increased 1.4%, while boys arrest rates decreased by 3.1% between 2003 and

2004 (Puzzanchera, et. al., 2006). Juvenile females increased 0.2% in violent crime

arrests and 3.2% in property crime. Compared to boys arrest rates for the same

categories, boys decreased 1.3% in violent crime, as well as decreased 5.8% in property

crime (Puzzanchera, et. al., 2006). Juvenile males decreased in the violent crime index,

but increased in other categories such as forgery, other assaults, drug abuse violations,

and disorderly conduct. For boys, the suspicion category had the largest increase in arrest

rates compared to girls who ranked second highest increase in a category for them.

Juvenile females had the largest increase in arrest rates in robbery (56.5%). When

examining the disproportionate rise, one should keep in mind that the absolute number of

girls arrested for these types of crimes is relativity small and the arrest rates for boys are

two times higher than females.

29
 Table 3.3 presents statistics between 1995 and 2004 for juvenile males and

females, the total arrest rates decreased for both juvenile males (27.2%) and females

(7.3%), however, on an individual category basis both had increases in some categories

(Synder and Sickmund, 2006). Juvenile males increased in only two categories, sex

offenses (except forcible rape and prostitution) and driving under the influence. On the

other hand, juvenile females had an increase in seven categories, the largest increase

being prostitution and commercialized vice, and driving under the influence. Even though

there has been a steady decline in overall arrest rates between 1995 and 2004, arrests

rates for girls has declined at a much slower rate then boys.

Table 3.3
Ten-Year Arrest Trends By Sex, 1995-2004

Males Females
Under 18 Under 18

Offense charged 1995 2004 Percent 1995 2004 Percent

change change
Other assaults 102,216 100,830 -1.4 38,225 50,223 +31.4

Prostitution and 450 305 -32.2 399 852 +113.5

commercialized vice
Sex offenses (except 9,453 10,339 +9.4 711 1,063 +49.5
forcible rape and
prostitution)
Drug abuse violations 105,515 96,606 -8.4 15,787 20,407 +29.3

Driving under the 8,057 8,978 +11.4 1,446 2,445 +69.1

influence
Disorderly conduct 56,064 48,899 -12.8 23,068 26,900 +16.6

All other offenses 89,023 77,322 -13.1 58,177 63,786 +9.6

(except traffic)
Source: Puzzanchera,C; Adams, B.; Synder, H.; Kang, W. (2006). Easy Access to FBI Arrest Statistic 1994-2004 Online.
Available: [Link]

United States law enforcement agencies made an estimated 2.2 million arrests of

persons under the age of eighteen in 2003 (Synder and Sickmund, 2006). Of which

30
female juvenile arrests constituted 29% of total arrests (Synder and Sickmund, 2006). In

2003 of an estimated 1,400 juveniles were arrested for prostitution and commercialized

vice, 69% were juvenile females (Synder and Sickmund, 2006). The second highest

offense category for juvenile females in 2003 was running away constituting 59% of an

estimated 123,000 juvenile arrests (Synder and Sickmund, 2006). Most offenses

committed by girls tend to be less serious in nature and occur less often than boy’s

offenses (Chesney-Lind & Sheldon, 1998; Curran & Renzetti, 2001).

In 2003, females were more likely than males to be detained for simple assault

(11% vs. 7%), technical violations (29% vs. 21%), and status offenses (10% vs. 4%)

(Synder and Sickmund, 2006). Females were also more likely than males to be

committed for technical violations (15% vs. 11%), and status offenses (14% vs. 3%)

(Synder and Sickmund, 2006).

Between 1994 and 2003, female juvenile delinquency rates actually decreased

however, they only decreased by 3%, while the juvenile male total case rates decreased

by 22% (Puzzanchera, et. al., 2006). During this ten year period, juvenile female arrests

either increased more or decreased less than male juvenile arrests in many offense

categories. Arrests for runaway, for instance, decreased 40% for girls, while males

decreased 42%. Disorderly conduct increased by 46% for girls, while boys increased by

only 2% (Puzzanchera, et. al., 2006). Female juvenile arrest rates measured most

significantly for nonviolent delinquent and criminal acts, while there was not a significant

increase for violent criminal acts (Puzzanchera, et. al., 2006). Juvenile females decreased

at a significantly lower rate, increased significantly more in disorderly conduct,

31
nonviolent delinquent and criminal acts, as well as decreased at a slower rater for running

away.

Between 1985 and 2002 the overall delinquency caseload for female juveniles

increased 92%, while males increased 29%, see table 3.4 (Synder and Sickmund, 2006).

Males accounted for most delinquency cases involving detention and were consistently

more likely than females to be detained. The likelihood of detention was 1.3 times higher

for males than for females in 2002. Juvenile females had an 87% increase in detained

cases (Synder and Sickmund, 2006). In contrast, the number of male cases detained rose

overall 34% between 1985 and 2002 (Synder and Sickmund, 2006). Even though both

males and females increased in the number of detained cases, females had increased at a

much higher rate then males, but males were more likely to be detained.

Table 3.4
Delinquency Caseload, 1985-2002

Source: Synder, H. & Sickmund, M., 2006. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department if Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

In 2002, males were more likely then females to be detained in person offenses

(1.2 times higher), property offenses (1.6 times higher), drug offenses (1.1 times higher),

and public order offenses (1.3 times higher) (see table 3.5 below). However, females

were more likely to be detained for status offenses.

32
 Table 3.5
Percent of cases detained, 2002

Offense Male Female

Delinquency 22% 17%
Person 26 22
Property 19 12
Drugs 20 18
Public Order 23 18
Source: Synder, H. & Sickmund, M., 2006. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department if Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Between 1985 and 2002, the volume of cases in which youths were adjudicated

rose 85% (Synder and Sickmund, 2006). In 2002, juvenile females were less likely to be

adjudicated (64%) than males (67%) (Synder and Sickmund, 2006). This was true across

person, property, drug, and public order offense categories (see table 3.6).

Table 3.6
Number of adjudicated cases per gender, per 1,000, 2002

Type of Offense Adjudicated Males Adjudicated Females

Person 397 322
Property 408 279
Drug 419 366
Public Order 421 363

Source: Synder, H. & Sickmund, M., 2006. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department if Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

In 2002, juvenile courts handled more than 423,000 delinquency cases involving

females (Synder and Sickmund, 2006). However, males accounted for more than twice as

many cases. There was a substantial gender difference on the handling of property cases

in 2002. Table 3.7 displays that property cases involving male juveniles had a higher rate

of being petitioned than females. If the cases were petitioned, males were adjudicated at a

higher rate. If cases were adjudicated, males were ordered to a residential placement at a

higher rate then females. Male and female juvenile offenders were equally likely to have

33
their property cases dismissed or released without formal or informal sanctions (Synder

and Sickmund, 2006).

Table 3.7
Property offense case processing, 2002

Source: Synder, H. & Sickmund, M., 2006. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department if Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

When male and female juvenile offenders were involved in adjudicated public

order cases, females were more likely to receive formal probation as their most severe

disposition than were males (see table 3.8). If the public order case was not petitioned

female juveniles were more likely to have their case dismissed, receive other sanctions,

or probation than males (Synder and Sickmund, 2006).

Table 3.8
Public order offense case processing, 2002

Source: Synder, H. & Sickmund, M., 2006. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department if Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

In formal status offenses, caseloads differed substantially from the delinquency

caseloads. A major difference between delinquency and status offense cases is that

34
females accounted for a larger portion of status cases than delinquency cases, see table

3.9 (Synder and Sickmund, 2006). Not only were girls more likely to be formally

processed for status offense cases, they were also more likely to be arrested for running

away than boys (Chesney-Lind, 1999).

Table 3.9
Percent of petitioned status offense cases involving females, 1985-2002

Offense Female Proportion

Runaway 61%
Truancy 46%
Ungovernability 46%
Liquor 30%
Source: Synder, H. & Sickmund, M., 2006. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department if Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Petitioned status offense cases that were adjudicated, running away cases were not

only overall less likely to be adjudicated, female juveniles were also less likely to have

their cases adjudicated (see table 3.10). The most likely disposition for the indicated

status offenses was formal probation.

Table 3.10
Percent of petitioned status offense cases adjudicated, 1985-2002

Offense Male Female Total

Runaway 47% 45% 46%
Truancy 63% 63% 63%
Ungovernability 63% 62% 63%
Liquor 64% 61% 63%
Source: Synder, H. & Sickmund, M., 2006. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department if Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Male offenders dominated the juvenile justice system in 2003 for they represented

85% of all juveniles in residential placement (Synder and Sickmund, 2006). From 1991

to 2003 the detained population of males increased 29%, while females increased 98%

(Synder and Sickmund, 2006). The committed delinquent population had a much greater

increase of juvenile females (88%) than males (23%) (Synder and Sickmund, 2006).

35
Even though males have a larger population in residential placement, the female

population increased at a much high rate.

The female population in 2003 accounted for a 15% of all juvenile offenders in

residential placement. Detention centers held the largest portion of female offenders

(45%), followed by long-term facility (24%), and group homes (12%) (Synder and

Sickmund, 2006). Males were more likely to be detained in a long-term secured facility

(37%), followed by detention center (35%), and then group home (9%) (Synder and

Sickmund, 2006). The volume of juvenile female offenders in custody has increased over

the years. However, the female proportion is greater among status offenders (40%) that

are in custody (Synder and Sickmund, 2006).

The proportion of juvenile females who were in custody for status offenses

fluctuated between 1991 and 2003 (Synder and Sickmund, 2006). In 1991 the proportion

of girls in custody for status offenses was 45%. Four years later the proportion decreased

by 4%. An increase of 7% in the female proportion of offenders in custody for status

offenses occurred in 1997. By 1999, the proportion decreased by 9%. There was another

increase of 3% by 2001 and a decrease of 1% in 2003 to bring the total proportion of

offenders in custody for status offenses to 40% (Synder and Sickmund, 2006). Compare

those to the female proportion of delinquent offenders in custody, the data shows that

female delinquent offenders who were detained rose from 12% to 18% and those

delinquent offenders who were committed rose from 8% to 12% with no decrease during

the twelve year period (Synder and Sickmund, 2006). (see table 3.12)

36
 Table 3.11
Female proportion of offenders in custody

Year Total Delinquent Status

1991 13% 9% 45%
1993 12 9 44
1995 12 10 40
1997 14 11 47
1999 13 12 39
2001 14 13 41
2003 14 14 40
Source: Synder, H. & Sickmund, M., 2006. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department if Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Table 3.12
Female Proportion of offenders in Disposition

Year Total Detained Committed

1991 9% 12% 8%
1993 9 12 8
1995 10 13 8
1997 11 15 10
1999 12 17 11
2001 13 18 11
2003 14 18 12
Source: Synder, H. & Sickmund, M., 2006. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department if Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

The Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report states that in 2003

boys were less likely to be held in custody for status offenses then girls (4% vs. 10%).

From 1997 to 2003 girls in custody increased for delinquency offenses, while boys

decreased, see table 3.13. Girls are more likely to be held in custody for status offenses

than in delinquent offenses (40% vs. 14%). They were more likely than males to be held

for simple assault and technical violations. Those females in custody also tended to be

younger than males (Synder and Sickmund, 2006).

37
 Table 3.13
Percent of Offenders in Juvenile Facilities, 1997-2003

100%
90% Female
Status
80% Offenders
70%
Female
60% Delinquency
50% Offense
40% Male
30% Delinquency
20% Offense
10% Male Status
Offenders
0%
1997 1999 2001 2003

Source: Synder, H. & Sickmund, M., 2006. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department if Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

The time in placement does not always coincide with the seriousness of the

offense. The longest time in placement were those offenders held for criminal homicide,

median time being 345 days. Sexual assault offenders had the second highest median

time in placement of 271 days. The average time in placement for committed status

offense (105 days) was virtually the same as the average time for weapons (107 days),

auto theft (105 days), burglary (104 days), and theft (103 days) offenders, see table 3.14

(Synder and Sickmund, 2006).

38
 Table 3.14
Committed Offenders, 2003

Most Serious Median days in

Offense placement
Homicide 345
Sexual assault 271
Robbery 154
Arson 141
Public Order (not weapons) 128
Aggravated assault 126
Simple assault 112
Drug trafficking 112
Weapons 107
Auto Theft 105
Status offense 105
Burglary 104
Theft 103
Drugs (not trafficking) 97
Technical violation 62

Source: Synder, H. & Sickmund, M., 2006. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department if Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

In 2003, males tended to stay in facilities longer than females, see table 3.15

(Synder and Sickmund, 2006). After 28 days 25% of females remained detained. Among

detained males, 25% remained after 36 days. 14% of detained females and 20% of males

remained in custody after 45 days. After 180 days, 29% of committed females and 35%

of committed males remained in custody (Synder and Sickmund, 2006). Males had a

greater median time in placement than females (71 days vs. 41 days) (Synder and

Sickmund, 2006).

39
Table 3.15
Percent of Residents Remaining in Placement, 2003

Source: Synder, H. & Sickmund, M., 2006. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department if Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

When the current statistical data from Synder and Sickmund (2006) are examined,

female rates in the juvenile justice system fluctuated between 1985-2004 by either

decreasing at a significantly slower rate or increasing at a significantly faster rate.

Juvenile females increased at a much faster rate than males for the detained population.

They also increased more than males for the committed delinquent population and were

in custody at a much younger age. Females were more likely to be detained for simple

assault, technical violations, and status offenses. They were also more likely to be

committed to placement for technical violations and status offenses. As a most severe

disposition females had a higher rate of receiving formal probation than males for

adjudicated public order cases. If public order cases were not petitioned, females were

more likely to have the case dismissed, receive other sanctions, or probation.

Females accounted for a greater portion of status offense cases than delinquency

cases. Status offense cases were more likely to be formally processed for females and

they were also more likely to be arrested for running away. Being detained in a detention

center was the most common placement facility to house detained females. They were

also represented more than males as status offenders who were detained. Females were

40
slightly less likely than males to be adjudicated for status offenses. Status offenders, both

male and female, were held in custody on average for the same length of time as those

offenders who committed weapon offense, auto theft, burglary, and theft offenses.

This chapter discussed National statistical data over nineteen years. The findings

suggest that juvenile females are more likely to be arrested and held in custody for status

offenses than delinquent offenses and more often than males. The data are inconclusive

on if the statement that girls are treated more harshly within the juvenile justice system

still stands true for all delinquent and criminal acts. It is believed that girls are still treated

more harshly for committing status offenses. Therefore chapter 4 will bring the paper to

a close with conclusions about literature and statistical review, as well as suggestions for

future research.

41
 Chapter 4

Conclusions

The past history of the juvenile justice system has had a great influence on today’s

juvenile justice system and how that system acts as the juvenile’s parent by making

choices for the youth that the court declares is best. As society’s perception and tolerance

shifted throughout, the way that youthful offenders were viewed and adjudicated was

unable to keep pace or adjust to the increase of female involvement in criminal activities.

Over the decades the female role and expectations in society has shifted. Women

were expected to conform to the traditional roles of homemaker and childrearing. In the

second half of the 20th century the acceptance of females in the work force and out of

homes and kitchens became more common. As women began to exercise independence

in many untraditional spheres of life they started to engage in more risk taking behavior.

Consequently, the way that the children were being raised within the family unit also

began to change. Juvenile females were also being monitored less frequently by adults

and were being socialized more like juvenile males than ever before. Parental

expectations for their daughters began to coincide with their expectations for their sons.

Daughters were encouraged to become independent, confident, assertive, and engage in

risk taking behaviors. Their rearing was very similar to that of boys. While females were

being encouraged to take on these new roles, they were also expected to maintain their

previous ones of submissiveness and taking care of the family. Therefore, when a

juvenile female displayed non-conforming gender roles to juvenile justice authorities,

they were more likely treated harsher than males who displayed the same demeanor

(Visher, 1983).

42
 The statement made by Chesney-Lind and other researchers of twenty years ago,

that females are treated more harshly than males in the juvenile justice system, is

certainly still true today for some offenses. It appears that for certain types of crimes,

specifically status offences, juvenile females are treated more harshly within the justice

system. Females constitute a small number of total arrests, but are over represented in

status offenses for arrests and placement. Detention centers held the highest number of

females, who were commonly in placement for status offenses.

Currently one can now dispute the findings asserted decades ago that female

juveniles are committed for longer periods of time than their male counterparts. The

evidence suggests that in 2003 females were detained for shorter amounts of time but

were committed for less serious offenses. Juvenile females were not being treated more

harshly than males for length of time in placement but were committed at a much

younger age than males. However, status offenders, on average, were detained the same

amount of time as those offenders who commit auto theft, weapons, burglary and theft

offenses.

Given the literature review and the national juvenile crime statistics, there is

strong evidence that suggests females continue to be treated differently and more harshly

than males for similar offenses and status offenses. These differences in treatment and

processing beings at the first contact with juvenile justice representatives, and continue

throughout the system. Characteristics or cues guide the police in their decision making

process on whether to arrest or return to the youths parents (Visher, 1983; Sealock and

Simpson, 1998). Once arrested females encounter more bias treatment during the pre-

sentencing reports. Both male and female probation officers were more likely to describe

43
female offenders in a negative light as being rebellious, willful and destructive (Sagatun,

1989). Despite the type of crime that a female offender was arrested for, their sexual

behavior was often described in the pre-sentencing report. In contrast, male sexual

behavior was described only if they have been engaged in sexual criminal activity

(Mallicoat, 2007).

From the current literature and statistics reviews, some conclusions can be drawn.

There is evidence that females are treated more harshly for status offenses and those

offenses that are considered moral offenses. However, the current statistical data are

inconclusive in that females are treated more harshly across all criminal/delinquent

offenses. Females are no longer being detained for longer periods of time than males, but

are committed at a much younger age than males.

The research and statistics presented in this paper illustrate compelling

information about the treatment of female juveniles in the justice system. Observations,

surveys and a closer examination of juvenile court statistics or records, past and present,

need to be performed to indicate clearer results. Another factor, such as the gender of the

presiding judge needs to be taken into consideration. The gender of the judge needs to be

taken into consideration now because more women are in positions of authority within

the justice system compared to twenty years ago. If the gender of a probation officer

influences pre-sentencing reports and how that probation officer describes the youthful

offender, then the gender of the judge should in turn also influence how the juvenile is

dealt with at this level. Further research needs to be conducted at all levels of juvenile

judiciary processing in order to gain a clearer assessment of the treatment of females.

44
 Works Cited

Adler, F.; Mueller, G.O.W.; Laufer, W.S. (2003). Criminology and the Criminal Justice
System. McGraw-Hill Companies; 5th edition.

Alemagno, S.A.; Shaffer-King, E., Hammel, R. (2006). Juveniles in detention: How do girls
differ from boys? Journal of Correctional Health Care. V.12, p. 45-53.

Akers, R.L. (1999). Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation (2nd ed.). Illinois;
Roxbury Publishing.

Alder, C. (1984). Gender bias in juvenile diversion. Crime & Delinquency. V. 30, p. 400-414.

Barrett, D.E.; Katsiyannis, A.; Zhang, D.(2006). Predictors of offense severity, prosecution,
incarceration and repeat violations for adolescent male and female offenders. Journal of
Child and Family Studies. V. 15, p. 709-719.

Bishop, D.M.; Frazier, C.E.(1992). Gender bias in juvenile justice processing: Implications of
the JJDP Act. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. V. 82, p. 1162-1186.

Bloom, B.; Owen, B.; Deschenes, E.P.; Rosenbaum, J. (2002). Improving Juvenile Justice for
females: A statewide assessment in California. Crime & Delinquency. V. 48, p. 526-552.

Bloom, B.; Owen, B.; Deschenes, E.P.; Rosenbaum, J. (2002). Moving towards jutice for female
juvenile offenders in the new millennium. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice. V.
18, p. 37-56.

Bloom, B.; Owen, B.; Covington, S. (2004). Women offenders and the gendered effects of public
policy. Review of Policy Research. V. 21, p. 31-48.

Bynum, J.E.; Thompson, W.E. (2002). Juvenile Delinquency: A sociological approach (5th ed.).
Boston; Allyn and Bacon.

Chesney-Lind, M.(1988). Girls in jail. Crime & Delinquency. V.34, p. 150-168.

Chesney-Lind, M. (1989). Girl’s, crime and a woman’s place: Toward a feminist model of
female delinquency. Crime and Delinquency. V. 35, p. 5-29.

Chesney-Lind, M.; Sheldon, R.G. (1998). Girls, delinquency, and juvenile justice (2nd ed.).
Belmont; Wadsworth.

Chesney-Lind, M.(1999). Challenging girls’ invisibility in juvenile court. The Annal of The
American Academy. P. 185-202.

Curran, D.J.; Renzetti, C.M. (2001). Theories of crime. Boston; Allyn and Bacon.

45
Daly, K.; (1989) Neither conflict nor labeling nor paternalism will suffice: Intersections of race,
ethnicity, gender, and family in criminal court decisions. Crime & Delinquency. V. 35, p.
136- 168.

Ferro, J. (2003). Juvenile Crime. New York, New York; Facts on File, Inc.

Figueira-McDonough, J. (1987). Discrimination or sex differences? Criteria for evaluating the

juvenile justice system’s handling of minor offenses. Crime & Delinquency. V. 33,
p.403-424.

Gavazzi, S.M.; Yarcheck, C.M; Lim, J.Y.(2005). Ethnicity, gender, and global risk indicators in
the lives of status offenders coming to the attention of the juvenile court. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. V.49, p.696-710.

Gavazzi, S.M.; Yarcheck, C.M.; Chesney-Lind, M.(2006). Global risk indicators and the role of
gender in a juvenile detention sample. Criminal Justice and Behavior. V.33, p. 579-612.

Goodkind, S. (2005). Gender-specific services in the juvenile justice system: A critical

examination. AFFILIA. V. 20. p. 52-70.

Grabe, M.E.; Trager, K.D.; Lear, M.; Rauch, J. (2006). Gender in crime news: A case study test
of the chivalry hypothesis. Mass Communication & Society.
V. 9, p.137-163.

Hagan, J.; Simpson, J.H.; Gillis, A.R. (1979). The sexual stratification of social control: A
gender-based perspective on crime and delinquency. British Journal of Sociology. V. 30,
p. 25-38.

Hagan, J. (1990). The structuration of gender and deviance: A power-control theory of

vulnerability to crime and the search of deviant role exits. Canadian Review of Sociology
& Anthropology. V. 27, p.137-153.

Hagan, J.; McCarthy, B.; Foster, H. (2002). A social development model of serious delinquency:
Examining gender differences. The Journal of Primary Prevention. V. 22, p. 389-407.

Hanmer, T.J. (1990). Taking a stand against sexism and sex discrimination. New York; Franklin
Watts.

Heilbrun, [Link].(1982) Female criminals: Behavior and treatment within the criminal justice
system. Criminal Justice and Behavior. V.9, p.341-351.

Horn, R.; Evans, M. (2000). The effect of gender on pre-sentence reports. The Howard Journal.
V. 39, p. 184-197.

Horowitz, R.; Pottieger, A.E. (1991). Gender bias in juvenile justice handling of seriously crime-
involved youths. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. V. 28, p. 75-100.

46
Hoyt, S.; Scherer, D.G.(1998). Female juvenile delinquency: Misunderstood by the juvenile
justice system, neglected by social science. Law and Human Behavior. V.22, p. 81-107.

Jenson, J.M; Potter, C.C.; Howard, M.O. (2001). American juvenile justice: Recent trends and
issues in youth offending. Social Policy & Administration. v. 35, p. 48-68.

Johnson, J.B.; Secret, P.E.(1995). The effects of court structure on juvenile court decision
making. Journal of Criminal Justice. V.23, p. 63-82.

Junger-Tas, J.; Ribeaud, D.; Cruyff, M.J.L.F. (2004). Juvenile delinquency and gender.
European Journal of Criminology. V. 1, p. 333-375.

Laundra, K.H.; Kiger, G.; Bahr, S.J. (2002). A social development model of serious delinquency:
Examing gender differences. The Journal of Primary Prevention. V. 22, p. 390-407.

Lenssen, S.A.M.l Doreleijers, T.A.H.; van Dijk, M.E.; Hartman, C.A. (2000). Girls in detention:
What are their characteristics? A project to explore and document the character of this
target group and the significant ways in which it differs from one consisting fo boys.
Journal of Adolescence. V. 23, p. 287-303.

Mallicoat, S.L.(2007). Gendered Justice: Attributional differences between males and females in
the juvenile courts. Feminist Criminology. V. 2, p. 4-30.

McDonald, J.M.; Chesney-Lind, M. (2001). Gender bias and juvenile justice revisited: A
multiyear analysis. Crime & Delinquency. V. 47, p. 173-195.

Merlo, A.V.; Benekos, P.J. (2003). Defining juvenile justice in the 21st century. Youth Violence
and Juvenile Justice. V. 1, p. 276-288.

Morash, M. (2006). Understanding Gender, Crime, and Justice. Thousand Oaks, California;
Sage Publishing

Morrison, D.W.; Lombroso, C.; Ferrero, W.(1896). The Female Offender. D. Appleton & Co.

Murphy, E.; Brown, J. (2000). Exploring gender role identity, value orientation of occupation
and sex of respondent in influencing attitudes towards male and female offenders. Legal
and Criminological Psychology. V. 5, p. 285-290.

Puzzanchera,C; Adams, B.; Synder, H.; Kang, W. (2006). Easy Access to FBI Arrest Statistic
1994-2004 Online. Available: [Link]

Regoli, R.M.; Hewitt, J.D. (2003). Delinquency in society (5th ed.). New York, NY; McGraw-
Hill.

47
Roberts, A.R. (2004). Juvenile Justice Sourcebook: Past, Present, and Future. New York;
Oxford University Press.

Sagatun, I.J. (1989). Gender biases in probation officers: Attributions of juvenile delinquency.
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology.

Sanborn, J.B. Jr. (1996). Factors perceived to affect delinquent dispositions in juvenile court:
Putting the sentencing decision into context. Crime & Delinquency. V. 42, p. 99-113.

Sanborn, [Link]. (2001).A parens patriae figure or impartial fact finder: Policy questions and
conflicts for the juvenile court judge. Criminal Justice Policy Review. V. 12, p. 311-332

Satterthwaite, M.(1997). Juvenile Crime. Philadelphia, Penn; Chelsea House Publishers.

Saulters-Tubbs, C. (1993). Prosecutorial and judicial treatment of female offenders. Federal

Probation. V. 57, p. 37-41.

Sealock, M. D.; Simpson, S.S. (1998). Unraveling bias in arrest decisions: The role of
juvenile offender type-scripts. Justice Quarterly. V.15, p.417-457.

Sondheimer, D.(2001). Young female offenders: Increasingly visible yet poorly understood.
Gender Issues. P. 79-90.

Synder, H.; Sickmund, M.,(2006). Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department if Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Steffensmeier, D.; Demuth, S. (2006). Does gender modify the effects of race-ethnicity on
criminal sanctioning? Sentences for male and female white, black, and Hispanic
defendants. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. V. 22, p. 241-261.

Steffensmeier, D.; Zhong, H.; Ackerman, J.; Schwartz, J.; Agha, S. (2006). Gender gap trends
for violent crimes, 1980 to 2003. Feminist Criminology. V. 1, p. 72-98.

Viki, G.T.; Abrams, D.; Hutchison, P. (2003). The “true” romantic: Benevolent sexism and
paternalistic chivalry. Sex Roles. V. 49, p. 533-537.

Visher, C. A. (1983). Gender, police arrest decisions, and notions of chivalry.

Criminology, v.21, p.5-28.

48