Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Access Criminology and Criminal Justice journals now

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Punishment & Society
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ward, G.
Right arrow Articles by Kupchik, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Accountable to what?

Professional orientations towards accountability-based juvenile justice

Geoff Ward

University of California, Irvine, USA

Aaron Kupchik

University of Delaware, USA

Formal philosophical and procedural aspects of American juvenile justice have been transformed over the past half-century by `accountability' movements. Yet the meaning of accountability in juvenile justice — specifically who is to be held accountable and to whom — has varied over time making its present application unclear. In this article, we first describe two models of accountability ideals and how each developed. We discuss how traditional rehabilitative ideals were first displaced by `system accountability' reforms emphasizing fairness and youths' rights, followed by `juvenile accountability' reforms emphasizing punishment and victims' interests. We then explore how juvenile court judges, lawyers and probations officers in four states prioritize these accountability principles. While decision makers in our sample prioritize a system accountability perspective, especially as this relates to rehabilitative ideals, there is considerable diversity in orientation. Professional roles and racial identities of decision makers significantly shape their prioritization of various accountability goals.

Key Words: accountability • juvenile justice • juvenile responsibility • system responsibility

Punishment & Society, Vol. 11, No. 1, 85-109 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/1462474508098134


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?