“Separating the Good from the Bad in Juvenile Court”
An Ethnographic Study of Juvenile Processing and
Labeling at Ferguson Juvenile Justice Center
Cyrus Azima
Sociology Immersion Program
Doctors R. M. Emerson and R. I. Fretz
June 9, 2009
Azima
Introduction
The juvenile justice system is responsible for judging and treating minors under 18 years
of age who commit crimes and status offenses (doing something that minors are prohibited to
do). The focus is different than a standard adult court in that the juvenile system is said to look
out for the interests of not only the victim but the offender as well. Because the system deals
with minors there is a strong emphasis on “turning them around” or “saving them” before they
are “lost.” This involves the utilization of various tools, both service delivery oriented and
punitive. This ethnographic study, which I conducted while interning at a juvenile court, seeks to
broaden the understanding of the decision making processes of key players who are charged with
“saving” children who end up in the juvenile justice system.
Like any other bureaucracy, the juvenile justice system works with scarce resources and
actors have to make quick decisions regarding their allocation. In his study entitled, “Defendant
Attributes In Plea Bargaining: Notes On The Modeling Of Sentencing Decisions,” Douglas W.
Maynard describes how prosecutors and defense attorneys in the criminal justice system employ
“a gestalt framework” when analyzing the traits of a perpetrator. Maynard observed that gestalt
decision making in adult plea bargaining involved attorneys first taking a position regarding
sentencing and then citing the attributes of the crime or the defendant that backed their decision
up. And according to Maynard, “Whether defendant attributes are used at all, which ones are
used and how, cannot be known beforehand.” This is opposed to “variable analysis” which is
where an attorney would first judge and weigh the attributes and then come to a decision. In the
juvenile justice system gestalt decision making is used to analyze traits however I have found
that those traits don’t necessarily establish a sentence outright. How else could a minor’s
demeanor, grades, family background, and crime be used to establish what kind of punishment
~1~
Azima
he deserves?
The answer is that traits are commonly analyzed in order to first establish a minor’s
“moral character.” And that process has become the focus of much of the scholarly discussion
surrounding the juvenile justice system. In his book and study entitled, “Judging Delinquents:
Context and Process in Juvenile Court,” Robert Emerson describes moral character in the
juvenile court as being actively established via “Interaction and communicative work involving
the delinquent, his family, enforcers, complainants generally and the court itself.” While my
findings agree with Emerson’s observations of these officials making “selective reports of
incidents” in order to establish moral character; Emerson’s work and the majority of research has
focused on the decisions of attorneys, supervisory probation officers and judges. The first two
actors take information that is readily available to all parties and then make “pitches” and
“denunciations” to the judge. Missing from the picture is any research detailing the decisions of
investigatory probation officers, whose work is critical because they know what courtroom
actors look for and they have the means to literally create, manipulate or conceal that
information.
My ethnographic research on the juvenile system was carried out with no prior
knowledge or assumptions of the juvenile system or related scholarly work. My research was
done during an internship with the probation department where I was on-site in court two days a
week for ten weeks. I was able to observe and interact with court proceedings, case files, judges,
individual attorneys and especially investigations unit probation officers. My goal was
uncovering common patterns or sociological processes, none of which were preconceived. To the
best of my ability I tried to take unbiased jottings and notes during the process and I compiled
full fieldnotes at the end of each day of research in which I expanded on the events,
~2~
Azima
conversations, and topics I observed. My findings are presented here in this ethnographic
research paper.
I propose that overall the actors at the juvenile court employee a modified method of
gestalt decision making influenced by external factors they feel implicit to their roles as “public
servants” or “juvenile reformers.” First, I describe factors that influence the decision making
process of district attorneys. Second, I uncover how investigations unit probation officers
establish the “moral character” of a minor based on various factors and how their perceptions
influence the information they gather and their recommendations to the court. Third, I identify
tactics that investigations unit probation officers use during intake interviews (also known as preplea interviews) to get minors and parents to be cooperative and candid. To better understand
how these actors make their decisions it is first necessary to become familiar with the field
setting.
Setting
The Ferguson Juvenile Justice Center handles cases that involve minors who commit
crimes while under 18 years of age. In rare instances an adult (someone who is over 18 years of
age) can be involved in a juvenile court case for a crime committed while he was a minor but
that was never settled. Juveniles can also be tried as adults in certain cases where the law deems
the crime as particularly sophisticated, violent or heinous. In such cases the juvenile is removed
from the juvenile justice system and referred to the courts used for adults. This paper does not
focus on these instances but rather on cases that are formally handled in the juvenile system.
The juvenile court is located in a lower socio-economic area in a residential suburb of
Los Angeles. The neighborhood in which it is located is considered almost unanimously by those
who work in the building as a “bad neighborhood.” In addition I was also told that there is a high
~3~
Azima
level of gang activity, above average levels of crime, drug use, and unemployment. In my
observations I noticed a significant amount of graffiti in the surrounding area of the court
building. Many homes and businesses located in the surrounding area also had signs of
dilapidation or disrepair ranging from broken windows, unkempt lawns, missing or damaged
street signs, and visible trash on the corners of many streets.
The court where this research is done is somewhat unique in that it has representatives
from each of the departments that make up the juvenile justice system centrally located in one
building; the probation department (with the investigation unit in the building I worked in and
the supervision unit in an adjacent building across the street), district attorney, public defenders
as well as the judges, courtroom staff and representatives from the school district all work there.
New cases are referred to Ferguson Juvenile Justice Center on a daily basis as police officers in
the neighborhood issue citations and make arrests that involve minors. According to official
juvenile intake and court processes, when a minor is arrested or cited by a police officer for a
crime: he can be warned, referred to a social service, sent to informal court or he can be referred
to formal juvenile court. Ferguson deals with the formal cases that have been referred by the
police. The District Attorney’s office then decides which of citations to file and then the minor is
formally arraigned, which means he comes into court and hears the charges that the DA filed
against him. If no charges are filed the DA can opt to handle a case informally in the J.O.I.N.
program (which is an informal teen court) or the juvenile can have his charges dropped and no
further legal action is taken against him.
After arraignment, the probation department conducts an intake investigation (also
known as pre-plea interview) with the juvenile and his guardian. After the interview the
probation officer who conducts the investigation writes a report on his findings that is made
~4~
Azima
available to everyone in the court. He also makes a non-binding recommendation to the DA and
judge as to what punishment he recommends for the juvenile (investigations unit officers are to
assume that the minor is guilty of the charges and that everything in the police report is true and
correct). If offered by the DA, the juvenile can then agree to a plea-bargain (which means he
pleads guilty in exchange for a reduced charge) or he can say he is innocent and the case goes to
trial. There the DA tries to have the petition sustained (have the minor proven guilty) and the
minor’s defense attorney tries to have the petition dismissed (prove he is innocent). The final
stage in a trial or plea-bargain is disposition, where the judge formally rules on the case and
decides the sentence. In a plea-bargain the sentence is pre-determined; in a trial sentencing is
based on minimum and maximum ranges that depend on the charge and are set by the law. The
judge has discretion on exactly what the final sentence will be as long as it is within those
ranges.
While the DAs, defense attorneys and judges go through their process in court; the
investigations unit of probation department gets involved once a minor is arranged. Before pleabargaining or trials occur an investigations unit probation officer is legally required to conduct an
intake interview (also known as pre-plea interview) with a minor and his guardians (if any) for
every case filed by the DA at Ferguson. The minor is generally read his Miranda rights by the
PO before the intake interview begins because any information gathered can be used against him
in court. During the interview the PO gathers general information about the minor and his family
like race, immunization records, a minor’s occupation, the family’s income level and whether or
not they receive any government aid. He also inquires about the juvenile’s general behavior,
family life and school performance. A “risk assessment” (or LARC) which is an automated
questionnaire that asks the PO his perception of various “risk factors” surrounding the juvenile’s
~5~
Azima
life is also required. The PO must bubble in “good”, “fair” or “poor” for a series of questions that
range from his perception of a juvenile’s gang activity, family abuse, drug use, violent
tendencies, relationship to authority and various other “observable characteristics.” If a risk score
is extremely high then the court can opt to remove the minor from his home even if the offence
he committed does not legally warrant that type of “punishment.” This is done for the minors
own “safety and wellbeing” at the discretion of the judge. After the intake interview the PO also
contacts the victims of a crime and gathers information from them as well. The process
culminates with writing an intake (or pre-plea) report which includes the information from the
intake interview, the “risk-score” and the PO’s recommendation for sentencing. The report is
then submitted to the court.
Methodology
I negotiated access to the court by applying for and being accepted into an unpaid
internship through the Department of Probation. The internship and the writing program I was
involved in were made possible by UCLA’s Sociology Immersion Program under the guidance
of Dr. Fretz of the English Composition Department and Dr. Emerson of the Sociology
Department. When I first came to the site along with four other immersion students we were
given a tour and an overview of the location and were introduced to different departments by Mr.
Gottfried. He remained my direct point of contact on a day to day basis and was also responsible
for eventually giving us an assignment or a specific area in the probation department to work
with. One intern requested that she be placed with the district attorney’s office because she
planned on going to law school after her graduation.
I was generally identified as an intern for the probation department to everyone I first
encountered. Sometimes I was identified by the probation supervisor (Mr. Gottfried) as an intern
with no particular departmental affiliation, as an intern from UCLA, or as an intern doing
~6~
Azima
research who was writing a paper. That last introduction caused some people to be secretive or
selective in what information they discussed around me. For example, a PO in the supervision
unit across the street didn’t know at first but eventually found out that I was conducting research.
From that point on his demeanor around me completely changed and he would constantly leave
the room and walk down the hall when he used his cell phone. He also stopped joking around me
even though he was completely nonchalant before he found out about my research. I was also
known to some as a potential probation officer because in reality I was applying for a job in the
probation department at one point. This enabled me to work more closely with probation officers
and because I was in the process of becoming “one of them” some POs gave me career advice
and attempted to “show me the ropes.”
Sometimes when people in various departments explained their roles or jobs they would
give me “the official line” at first. This usually involved mentioning that they were “here for the
kids” and that their job is to look out for “the best interest of the kids.” As sit-down
conversations and informal meetings progressed, people tended to open up. An example of this is
PO Miss Roderick, who said to me one day that the majority of kids at Ferguson are, “some bad
ass kids.” At the start of our internships Mr. Gottfried organized meetings with heads of the
various departments including the two judges of the court, the district attorney (Mr. Jameson)
and the public defender’s office. Being an intern as opposed to an employee limited my
interaction with members of those other departments to a certain degree. I was not part of
employee meetings or lunch hours. Therefore when I observed people talking about cases it was
when people were discussing it within the realm of their own department and I was unable to
observe many meaningful interactions between members of different departments because of
this. For example, lunch room discussions were something I was rarely privy to.
~7~
Azima
Because I worked closest with members of the probation department investigations unit,
it was with them that I established significant relationships. This allowed me to regularly be in
the position to ask them “what they thought” about a particular case or kid. I developed a special
relationship with one probation officer (Miss Miller) in the investigations unit and I was
eventually assigned to her by Mr. Gottfried. Miss Miller took me under her wing and acted as my
mentor. She was the most open with me and though she knew that I recorded much of what I
observed on my notepad, she always told me what she was comfortable with me repeating and
what she was not, regardless of if she was personally identified. Starting at about my 5th week I
would report directly to her every day instead of Mr. Gottfried and as a result, I focused much of
my research primarily on learning about her role in the probation department which is
investigating cases, doing intake interviews and compiling the corresponding reports. Mr.
Gottfried called this “the bread and butter of the investigations unit.”
There are four probation officers total that work in the investigations unit at Ferguson,
three women and one man and they are all Black. Mr. Gottfried, their supervisor was mixed race
but most people including myself thought he was Hispanic. Although I am Iranian most people
thought I was Hispanic as well. Each PO in investigations went through approximately 12 intake
interviews a week. I was able to get a significant amount of data by sitting in on these interviews
and I did my best to move around from office to office in order to gain different perspectives. I
was even was allowed to conduct some intake interviews myself under Miss Miller’s supervision
towards the end of my internship.
Data for my research was gathered in person throughout the duration of my internship
two days a week, four hours a day, for approximately ten weeks. On many occasions I was able
to record my observations on a small pad that I carried around with me to make jottings. This
~8~
Azima
was acceptable because of my role as an intern but it caused some concern with certain
employees. For example if someone was retelling a story they would sometimes look down and
notice that I or another intern was writing things down, in some cases this caused them to cut the
story short and in other cases it wouldn’t really affect them. When I thought it was appropriate to
take jottings I did and other times I took mental notes when I felt that writing something down
would affect the way a story or situation was told to me. After every full day of fieldwork at
Ferguson I would go to another location, review my jottings and notes and write full
ethnographic field notes as described in, “Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes” (WEFN). Every four
hours of fieldwork resulted in approximately six pages of fieldnotes. In total I generated 78
single spaced pages of notes. These notes were then systematically analyzed for themes and
patterns as mentioned in the coding procedure of WEFN. Analytic themes were extracted via a
process of taking my fieldnotes, coding various encounters as topics and then analyzing
variations and patterns in those topics. The themes in this paper were identified solely in this
process and no prior information about the juvenile justice system or the sociology of the
courtroom environment influenced how my themes were selected and recorded. This was done
strictly on the basis of my own personal interest and inductive reasoning.
Once I selected my themes Dr. Emerson suggested the academic material pertinent to
what I discovered. Through Dr. Emerson I was introduced to Maynard’s previous work on
gestalt decision making and as I read though the material I recognized the similarities between
what Maynard observed in adult court and what I observed in juvenile court. Emerson’s own
research on the dynamics of establishing moral character also elaborated on themes I had already
discovered and it helped me to realize that research on probation investigations and intake
interviews was essentially “uncharted territory” as far as sociologists are concerned.
~9~
Azima
Lastly I will discuss the ethical challenges of undertaking this ethnographic field
research. The first challenge I faced in this site was deciding what information I felt ethical to
reproduce. At times when people expressed that they didn’t want something they said recorded
or retold I was able to relieve their fears by noting that their names would not be used and they
would remain anonymous. On the basis of their wishes I have chosen what information to
reproduce and what not to. When comments were made on a personal level or about non-work
related details I found it especially difficult to separate what to write and what not to write. In
many cases I showed discretion in the jottings I took while I was there but recorded everything I
could remember when I sat down to formally type up my notes. This enabled me to focus on the
jottings and elaborate on that material that was both relevant to my work and ethical to
reproduce.
The most important ethical and legal aspect of this research is the fact that the cases I
handled and worked on involved minors under the age of 18 years. I was given access to police
reports, case files and other confidential information regarding these minors once I passed my
background check. In order to maintain their privacy and legal rights their names have all been
changed and pseudonyms have been employed. This applies to both the employees at Ferguson
and the juveniles there who were on trial.
Analysis
A minor in the juvenile justice system is processed according to legally mandated rules
and procedures but in many ways his fate lies in the discretion of the individual actors of the
court. In order to understand the process of how minors are dealt with I first discuss factors that
influence a DA’s decision to file a case. Second, I analyze how probation officers establish moral
character during intake interviews and the consequences thereof. Third, I analyze various
~ 10 ~
Azima
“tactics” that probation officers use to get juveniles to be more forthcoming during intake
interviews and how they often use the interview as an opportunity to lecture and “change” a
juvenile before it’s too late.
GESTALT DECISION MAKING IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE
According to the head DA at Ferguson, Mr. Jameson, most people think a DA’s primary
goal is to get the greatest number of convictions possible in the process of filing cases. However,
I propose that when deciding what cases to file, DAs at Ferguson exercise a considerable amount
of discretion, employ a modified version of Maynard’s “gestalt decision making” and are
influenced by factors that go beyond what most people think.
In filing charges, District Attorneys do not seek the greatest number of convictions.
Instead their primarily goal is insuring that convictions are appropriate in relation to the
characteristics of the offence and the offender. The following excerpt takes place during a quick
sit down meeting between the head of the District Attorney’s office at Ferguson, Mr. Jameson
and a group of UCLA Interns. In order to understand the following excerpt it’s important to
know that Jameson is describing a hypothetical case where he is filing charges against a juvenile
for committing a felony robbery. Under the law, if the juvenile is convicted for this crime he
would then be sentenced to DJJ, a state correctional facility for juveniles. Jameson is giving us
this hypothetical because he wants to point out a loophole in the juvenile justice system.
Jameson says, “DJJ equals prison for kids, only people who do 707B’s [Serious
Felonies] go to DJJ” […] (Jameson starts giving us an example that illustrates a
problem when trying to get a conviction that results in DJJ) A kid gets sent in for
a robbery which merits DJJ; then he gets caught on [petty] theft; if we file for the
theft then we can’t send them to DJJ. I respond to Jameson. So, in that case you
just wouldn’t file on the theft charge, you would just file for the robbery charge?
Jameson looks up at me and responds, Yes. (FN April 16th)
~ 11 ~
Azima
The loophole in this example is that a kid could commit a “serious crime” and then get a
sentence that DA Jameson considers inappropriate. Jameson says the robbery the kid committed
merits DJJ, i.e. he deserves that particular punishment but the law stipulates that if Jameson files
the theft charge then he can’t send him [the juvenile] to DJJ. This is because in this case the
sentence would be limited to the maximum established for the most recently filed charges. So the
tool that Jameson uses to insure that the punishment fits the crime is oddly enough his ability not
to file at all. By giving us this example Jameson shows that the job of a DA is not only getting
convictions but also making sure that the punishment fits. Dropping the charges means that the
petty theft would not show up on the minor’s record and that the victim, whoever it may be,
would not receive any restitution. Be that as it may Jameson agrees that in his discretion he is
willing to let the kid get away with the second crime for the sake of insuring the appropriate
punishment.
In addition to insuring that the punishment fits the crime, another example of discretion
in the DA’s office is that he will sometimes drop charges if a minor’s offence is considered
extremely trivial and the minor is considered “a good kid.” The next excerpt is from a second
meeting with DA Jameson where he was asked by our supervisor, Mr. Gottfried, to explain the
job of a District Attorney at Ferguson in detail. Jameson starts his informal presentation by going
over his life and how he got to be a DA. He then tells us some interesting and counterintuitive
aspects of the DA’s office. Here he gives us another hypothetical situation where a minor was
cited for petty theft by a police officer for stealing a pair of socks from a retail store. The J.O.I.N.
program he refers to is an informal juvenile delinquency diversion program that was setup by the
chief DA’s office of Los Angeles County. If a youth is recommended to the J.O.I.N. program by
~ 12 ~
Azima
a prosecuting DA he can have his charges dropped and criminal record kept clean in exchange
for following certain guidelines and directives.
Jameson, ”Not only is the Juvenile Justice system something we want to keep
kids out of, but it’s also very expensive.” Jameson gives us an example of a case
that should be kept out of the system: Kid takes a pair of socks; cops decide if it’s
petty theft, if the kid is cited or not; if a case is filed then you have to pay a DA to
review the case; a filing staff to do all the paperwork; a judge to hear the case;
all for a two dollar pair of socks. That’s why the J.O.I.N. program was started by
the DA [Head District Attorney of Los Angeles] for first time offenders. […]
Jameson describes the requirements of J.O.I.N., It’s really strict to get into the
program, you have to be a first time offender and never be in the system. The
interesting thing is that those who preside are former police officers. “We want to
shock um [the young offender] right now” His parents are there at the hearing;
They sit down, sign a contract. Jameson describes what the contract usually
stipulates: Go to school; obey your parents; and don’t go back to breaking the
law. (FN April 23)
Jameson believes that the “minor case” in his example should be dismissed, even though he has
the ability to prosecute the case and gain a potential conviction. He first backs up his reasoning
by listing the costs that the state would incur if the case were filed and prosecuted, “…you have
to pay a DA to review the case; a filing staff to do all the paperwork; a judge to hear the case.” In
other words a bunch of time consuming work would have to be done by a group of high paid
professionals and the state would have to foot the bill; all for “a two dollar pair of socks.” To
Jameson, the value of the socks is trivial but the value of the court’s resources is not but this isn’t
the only justification he has for dropping this case.
Jameson also says the case should be handled informally in the J.O.I.N. program which
consequently means he believes that the juvenile is a “good kid.” Jameson knows another actor
in the criminal process could have exercised his discretion and handled this case informally. His
choice of words in the beginning is the clue, “Cops decide if it’s petty theft, if the kid is cited or
not.” Jameson specifically tells us “cops decide” because he knows that the police officer who
~ 13 ~
Azima
cited the kid could have handled the case informally and let the kid off with a warning. But
Jameson knows a cop would only let a kid of with a warning if the officer thought that he was a
“good kid.” If he was a “bad kid” or “incorrigible” then citing him for even a minor infraction
would be a prudent course of action because that type of kid deserves to be punished. So by way
of coincidence Jameson is also saying how the job of a DA is to correct these types of mistakes
and make sure that “good kids” are given a second chance. This is why Jameson describes the
requirements of J.O.I.N, “It’s really strict to get into the program, you have to be a first time
offender and never be in the system.” This kid has potential to Jameson because he has no prior
record. By saying that he would refer him to the J.O.I.N. program, Jameson is essentially
asserting that “here we have a good kid who should be kept out of the system” and Jameson says
the way to do that and keep the kid on track is to “shock um” by referring them to J.O.I.N. and
not prosecuting the case.
In addition to dropping charges for “good kids”, saving time and court resources are
factors that influence DA decisions regarding filing cases and plea bargaining. The vast majority
of charges that end up filed by the DA’s office at Ferguson are settled in plea bargaining; which
means they go straight to disposition and never go to trial. An intern that worked with me at
Ferguson over the ten week research period who spent her time shadowing DAs reported to me
that the plea-bargaining process generally lasted only a few minutes and took take place in the
hall outside the courtroom at which point the prosecuting DA and a minor’s defense attorney
negotiate the minor’s charge and sentence. The excerpt below covers two consecutive events: the
first was a comment made to me by a police officer while I was standing with that intern in the
DA’s waiting room prior to our meeting with Jameson and the second takes place during that
meeting, where I ask Jameson what he thought about the officer’s comment.
~ 14 ~
Azima
I take a look around the waiting room and notice a list of 12 points on a poster.
The poster is about what to do and not to do while testifying in a court case. Step
one is to be sworn in, “Raise your right hand and repeat, I swear to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God.” I look over to Katy and
I tell her, “You know it’s interesting, I’ve sat in on a bunch of cases now and not
once have I seen someone sworn in like this sign says.” At the same time a
sheriff’s officer, an Asian American man in his 40s, slightly heavy set with a
black mustache is sitting to the right of that poster. While slouching back in his
waiting room chair, his right elbow resting on the arm rail of his seat and his head
resting in his hand, he interjects: That’s because only 5% of the cases here are
trials, the rest are just plea hearings. Katy: Yeah, most of what we see here are
the kids after they’ve plead so they don’t need to be sworn in. I ask the officer,
“What do you think about that, is that a problem?”He replies, “They [the youth on
trial] get away with murder; it’s a major flaw of the system” […] [Later we are in
the meeting with Jameson] I ask Jameson, I talked to an officer outside and he
mentioned that only 5% of cases here are trials, do you think that is a flaw?
Jameson responds, Yes, but if we had to file every case then [meaning if there
was a trial every time]; [Jameson pauses mid sentence, looks at me and waits
for a response]. I respond to Jameson: Nobody would ever get out of here.
Jameson nods his head and replies, “The backlog here is already months” If every
case here under 10oz of weed meant a trial-[he pauses]. (FN April 16th)
The entire concept and process of plea-bargaining creates a logical dilemma for the DA. The
reason that Jameson agrees that the low number of trials at Ferguson is a “flaw in the system”
can be understood intuitively; if the charge and sentence negotiated in a plea-bargain is
considered too severe by a minor then he won’t agree to the plea bargain. Instead, he can just
take his chances in court and hope he is found innocent because he has nothing to lose. Thus, the
flaw is that aggregately minors must be offered lighter sentences in order to facilitate successful
plea bargains. But what is the motivation for DAs to offer plea-bargains in the first place if they
create this dilemma where minors generally get lighter sentences then they deserve? The answer
is, DAs don’t want too many trials because they are very time consuming and saving time and
court resources are important to them.
~ 15 ~
Azima
To prove his point Jameson gives the example of a case where a minor is found with less
than 10 ounces of marijuana because it is so common. If the DA’s office was adamant that all
such cases be charged as “possession of a controlled substance with the intent to distribute” with
a corresponding punishment of six months in juvenile camp, as opposed to “misdemeanor
possession of marijuana” which routinely calls for a few months of probation, there would be an
extremely high number of innocent pleas and trails by juveniles who want to avoid such a severe
punishment. With the backlog at Ferguson being “already months” having several trials is an
extremely unattractive proposition for the DA’s office. Therefore, the low percentage of trials is
indicative of DAs saving the courts resources even though doing so can mean that some youth
“get away with murder.”
The discretionary decisions of the District Attorney’s office are based on more than just
the likeliness of a guilty verdict or conviction. Factors that the DA’s office values like avoiding
minor cases, insuring the appropriate punishment and keeping the court’s backlog low can all
affect the decision to file a case or not. The plea bargaining processes is also heavily influenced
by these factors as avoiding trials and having offenders accept plea bargains is necessary to keep
the court functioning properly. Thus, factors that one wouldn’t initially consider relevant infiling
charges are actually considered very essential by the DA’s office. And once those charges are
filed, the next step for a juvenile is visiting an investigations unit probation officer for his
mandatory intake interview.
HOW INTAKE INTERVIEWS ESTABLISH MORAL CHARACTER
According to Ms Miller, an investigations unit probation officer that mentored me
throughout my internship, “A pre-plea report is a social assessment of the background of the
minor and his family: Who does he live with? Where does he go to school? Your painting a
~ 16 ~
Azima
picture for the courts to say what intervention is necessary in order to change and redirect his
behavior.” (FN May 26th) Although the formal purpose of the intake report is to provide
nonbiased information and make a sentencing recommendation to the court; I propose that
Probation officers make “gut level decisions” (Maynard) that lead them into establishing a
juvenile’s “moral character.” Once moral character is established it not only influences the PO’s
sentencing recommendation but it also can motivate them to distort their data in order to
influence downstream decisions made by others during the plea-bargain, trial and disposition
stages of the court process.
When dealing with “minor cases” where the offender is viewed as having the potential to
reform, probation officers can manipulate the information they input in risk assessments in order
to facilitate clemency during sentencing. In the following excerpt Probation Officer Miller is
about thirty minutes into conducting an intake interview with Reggie, a sixteen year old black
boy and his older sister who is his acting guardian. Reggie is being charged by the DA with
having a knife on school grounds. At this point in the interview PO Miller knows Reggie’s older
brother is in jail for rape, his father is in jail for unspecified charges and his mother is deceased.
PO Miller looks up at Reggie, “If you come back in here [meaning commit
another crime]” Miller pauses, picks up her pen and points it at Reggie in a
threatening manner, “You goin get put away [put in jail] by this pen.” PO
Miller continues, “I can put you on probation, where your felony can drop off
your record but I think you need more help.” Miller looks over at Reggie’s sister
and starts to type on her computer, “I’m going to get this [risk assessment] score
low so [Miller pauses mid sentence]” Miller looks over at me and the other intern
in the room, “What I’m trying to say” [Miller pauses again and stumbles with her
words a bit] To say, is to get this score low is, that he is already scoring low based
on what you’re saying about the home and support so they won’t take him out of
the home. The picture painted for the court is that he has this [family] support.
Miller looks over at Reggie, “But this ant goin to be the case next time.” Miller
gets up and says, “I’m going to make some copies.” […] The interview is over,
Reggie and his sister leave and only Katya (the other intern) and I are left in the
room. Miller starts talking to us about the case. This case to me was a “minor
~ 17 ~
Azima
case” She makes quotes with her fingers and continues, “to me a weapon on
school grounds is minor.” If someone was hurt or attacked that’s a different sorry.
(FN April 21st)
Here we see that PO Miller consciously manipulates the information she gathers during the
interview in order to facilitate a lighter sentence for Reggie. During the course of the interview
Miller slips up and says to Reggie’s sister, “I’m going to get this [LARC] score low” and Miller
backtracks once she remembers that there are people in the room with her. She is concerned
about us finding out she is keeping his score low on purpose is because she is supposed to be
non-biased when she fills out the LARC. Miller knows the court is supposed to make decisions
based on the information she gathers but because she can’t “pitch” her version of the case to
them, her best recourse is to manipulate information. Keeping Reggie’s LARC score low takes
some work for Miller because his living situation shows several risk factors. Reggie is being
raised by his sister, a single mom with two kids herself while his family has a history of criminal
activity. Inputting this information into the LARC would normally generate a high score and
could result in the judge choosing to remove Reggie from the home and putting him in placement
instead of home on probation. Miller doesn’t want this to happen because she believes that
Reggie can reform at home with the help of his sister. She even lets Reggie know that this time
she is doing him a favor by recommending probation stating to him that, “this ant goin to be the
case next time.” Another reason why Miller is willing to manipulate information is because she
feels that Reggie didn’t commit a serious crime. Miller says that having a weapon on school
grounds is “a minor case” but that “If someone was hurt or attacked that’s a different sorry.”
Meaning if Reggie had attacked someone the crime would have been “serious.” Meaning Miller
would not have kept his risk score low and instead she would recommend that he be removed
from his home and put in placement.
~ 18 ~
Azima
In contrast with Reggie’s case, probation officers can seek clemency even when “serious
crimes” like felonies are committed. This happens when the juvenile is still viewed as a “good
kid” by the probation officer. In the following excerpt Probation Officer Adams is conducting an
intake interview with Rodrigo, a sixteen year old Hispanic boy who along with an accomplice, is
charged with felony vandalism. His Mother who doesn’t speak any English is also present so
Katya acts as an interpreter between PO Adams and the mother throughout the interview.
PO Adams sits back in his chair and addresses Rodrigo after looking at his report
card, “You doin pretty good in school.” “No priors on the record.” He pauses and
leans in towards Rodrigo, “What’s goin on with you man?” Mom answers, “It
was a surprise when they [the police] brought him [in].” […] PO Adams
addresses Rodrigo. It says here you were charged with felony vandalism.
(Adams’s eyes and eyebrows go up, he’s surprised when he reads the charge.) Did
you talk to your mother about what you were charged with? Adams leans towards
them and lowers his voice, “I need you to be honest with me so I can make the
best possible recommendation to the court.” […] Adams looks over the police
report and the stack of paperwork in front of him, “Whoever you hangin out with
don’t hang out with them.” Mom interjects, “I don’t understand when he could
hang out with those friends because he is always under my supervision at home.”
He is always home on time when school ends. Adams then addresses Rodrigo,
“You seem like a good kid, you have some decent grades.” […] Adams continues
down the intake questionnaire. Are you involved in gangs? Do you do drugs or
alcohol? Rodrigo answers no to all these questions. Mom interjects. I have a son
that is in a gang, maybe that’s the problem? There is a boy that is from a gang that
tries to come by the house to ask to play with Rodrigo but I always tell him to
leave and I don’t let him hang around my son. I asked the other people in the
neighborhood about him [the boy in the gang] and they said what he does and
from then I don’t allow Rodrigo to go over to his house. (Adams seems to ignore
that statement) He asks mom, “Does your son drink?” She replies, No. Adams
then turns and starts addressing Rodrigo again. […] Adams asks Mom, Your son
have a history of being suspended from school or fighting? She answers, “He was
suspended once.” They took the boy’s IPOD and gave it to his friends. Adams
responds, “So horseplay.” Mom elaborates, He was suspended on Friday and
Monday. Adams asks, “So it was recent?” Adams then asks Rodrigo to tell him
what happened. “We took his IPOD and passed it around on the bus.” Adams
nods his head. “So it was just horseplay you were doing.” […] The interview is
nearing the end. Adams leans in towards Rodrigo and starts to whisper, “Look
man when you go to court [I can’t hear what is said] that’s their job, don’t lay
down…..” Adams stops whispering, “I can look at you and tell you’re not some
kind of horrible person. When you go into court just hope for the best.” He starts
~ 19 ~
Azima
to tell Rodrigo how to talk about his positive aspects in court, “You should be
able to spit it off man, “Snap” “Snap” “Snap” [he snaps his fingers to illustrate
succession and quickness]. […] “If you have any negative peers you involved
with you need to make the decision to stop, like you are now” Mom interrupts, “I
don’t understand how he got into this.” Mom continues talking about her son
while Adams leans over to Anthony and whispers, “My advice to you is to tell
your attorney [I can’t hear what is said]” At another point in the whispering I
overhear Adams tell Rodrigo, “Don’t tell the court that your bother was in a
gang.” (FN May 5th)
PO Adams establishes that Rodrigo is a “good kid” early on in the interview by recognizing three
distinguishing factors; good grades, his mother’s positive portrayal of him and no prior offences.
That’s why Adams expresses shock when he reads Rodrigo’s charge is felony vandalism. It
prompts Him to ask, “What’s goin on with you man?” Adams doesn’t understand why Rodrigo
would act this way. This is why He makes the statement, “Whoever you hangin out with, don’t
hang out with them” Because in Adams’s mind, bad influences must have been what caused this
“good kid” to do something so bad.
However, Adams’s explanation starts to get a bit difficult to buy when the mother starts
to reveal some rather damming information. When mom says, “I have a son that is in a gang,
maybe that’s the problem?” and “a boy that is from a gang that tries to come by the house” she
raises a big red flag. PO Adams knows that gang ties often prompt the court to respond harshly
in order to quell bad behavior. That’s why He quickly skirts around that information and moves
on to the next question. But it doesn’t end there; when Adams learns from mom that Rodrigo was
recently suspended from school this also poses a problem. Adams knows that a judge may see
Rodrigo as exhibiting a pattern of delinquent behavior and that certainly wouldn’t help with
clemency. This is why Adams quickly dismisses the notion that it’s theft and leads Rodrigo’s
mom to call it “horseplay.” Now instead of reporting that Rodrigo stole an IPOD from another
student He can write that the boy has a habit of playing around. The court is unlikely to find any
~ 20 ~
Azima
details out because the mother isn’t going to be interviewed by anyone else so Adams’s quick
rephrasing once again “saves the day” for Rodrigo.
The final tactic Adams uses in insuring that Rodrigo receives clemency is coaching him
for court towards the end of the intake interview. He does this in twice, first by telling Rodrigo to
practice telling the judge his positive aspects, “You should be able to spit it off man, ‘Snap’
‘Snap’ ‘Snap’” and his second way of coaching Rodrigo is secretly whispering, “Don’t tell the
court that your bother was in a gang.” Clearly Adams wants Rodrigo to receive clemency and he
is willing to instruct the boy to hide information from the court in order to achieve this.
In contrast with the first two examples where reports are biased for the sake of clemency,
probation officers can seek harsher sentencing when a minor’s attitude and family situation are
indicative of a “bad kid.” In the following excerpt I’m sitting in PO Miller’s office waiting
around for the next interview when PO Roderick walks in and asks Miller for some advice
regarding a report she is writing about a girl who was particularly out of control.
Roderick walks in and asks Miller, “I need to know what you think about this case
I got.” This girl, [Roderick pauses and shakes her head in frustration] I don’t even
know who her guardian is. The mom is out of the picture; I can’t even find her.
The dad doesn’t even have a phone number. [Roderick starts talking going over
the intake interview] She came in here with that attitude, “I don’t care about this
bullshit!” I talked to the dean of the school, she [the girl] comes in and out of
school when she wants. Roderick raises her voice, “She has STRAIT F’s!” He
[the dean] says she cusses out her teachers and leaves [school] for weeks at a
time. Roderick calms down a little and then asks Miller a question. But my
question is, “Who has custody?” The Dad didn’t even come in to the interview
because he said he had work; the girl showed up with her aunty and the aunty said
she’s out of control and that she needs to be locked up. I interrupt and ask
Roderick, “What was she in here for?” Roderick responds, She got a 211 [she was
charged with robbery] for walking into a Walmart with 3 other girls and put on
some necklaces and tried to walk out and they stopped her. Miller says to
Roderick, It doesn’t sound like anyone is in control. Miller pauses and then says:
This girl needs placement. Roderick responds, “Thank you, that’s what I’m
sayin.” Miller goes on: But she just may run away so you need to make sure that
she is in a closed placement. Roderick says: Whatever happens this girl needs to
~ 21 ~
Azima
be locked up. Miller responds: Just make sure when you do her LARC [risk
assessment] you get the score high and she’ll get in placement. Roderick nods and
walks back into her office. (FN May 26th)
Here we have what might be considered “minor case” based on earlier criteria, a girl walks into
Walmart with some friends; she puts on some necklaces and then tries to leave without paying.
Nobody was hurt in the process and the girl was cited and released by police. But the crucial
difference here is that the probation officer feels this girl has no chance at reforming, or in other
words she is a “bad kid.” PO Roderick starts proving this by emphasizing family issues, “The
mom is out of the picture; I can’t even find her” and “The dad doesn’t even have a phone
number.” Roderick follows up by describing the girls demeanor during the intake interview,
“She came in here with that attitude, ‘I don’t care about this bullshit!’” Next, Roderick brings up
the subject of poor grades and school behavior. And if all that wasn’t enough Roderick reaffirms
her “gut feeling” that the girl needs to get “locked up” by quoting the girls aunt who showed up
during the interview stating that, “aunty said she’s out of control and that she needs to be locked
up.” Now that PO Roderick has made her case to Miller the course of action is clear, make sure
this girl gets serious punishment and have her removed from the home and put into placement.
Both probation officers know that the way this is done is by “making sure that her LARC [risk
assessment] scores high.” Now in this particular example manipulation may not be necessary; the
girl’s behavior and family situation alone should generate a high score. But both POs agree that
manipulation is warranted if necessary because clearly the girl is out of control and needs to get
put into placement. But it doesn’t end here because other factors may also influence a PO into
seeking to “prove” that a child is deserving of serous punishment.
A final example of a juvenile’s “moral character” swaying a PO’s decisions is when his
offence is considered to be particularly heinous. In the following excerpt PO Edmonds is talking
~ 22 ~
Azima
to PO Miller and I about a case that involved two boys who were charged with raping a ten year
old girl. PO Miller interviewed one of the boys earlier that week and PO Edmonds is talking to
us about the other boy involved and the punishment that she’s recommending for him in her
intake report.
PO Edmonds starts talking about the case. They did this while staying the night at
her house on various occasions. I ask Edmonds, “What did you recommend on
your report?” Well my boy is 15 now and was 14 at the time. Apparently he
pulled down her pants and did it by force. The other boy [the one that Miller had
previously interviewed], this young girl said that boy was her “boyfriend” and
everything was “consensual.” That boy wasn’t related. But the boy I had [She
pauses] this was another story; They [sic] first cousins. Edmonds describes the
victim’s statement in the police report, “The boy put his hand over her mouth
when he did it so she couldn’t scream.” “Then he put it in her butt.” “That’s
rape.” He got approved for placement but I’m recommending camp. I respond to
Edwards. That boy must have learned that behavior from somewhere though
right? A 14 year old doesn’t just rape his cousin without having been raped
himself or experienced some type of abuse right? Edmonds raises her eyebrows,
looks at me and responds, “People were having sex all the time when I was in
middle school.” “It wasn’t me that was doin it but people were havin it.” They
were doin drugs and everything too. I respond, That’s true, people were having
sex when I was in middle school too. But the fact that he had anal sex with her,
that just doesn’t seem normal to me. Edmonds looks at me again and responds, “I
think that just shows that he just didn’t know where to put it.” (FN May 26th)
PO Edmonds’s believes that her boy is a “bad kid” based only on the severity and details of his
crime. She doesn’t refer to the boy’s priors, demeanor, grades, or family life at all. Edmonds tries
to convince us of the same by bringing up details that are meant to invoke an emotional response
as we listen to her, just as they must have done for Edmonds when she first read them in the
police report, “he pulled down her pants and did it by force.” At this point the contrast is well
established between the boy that Miller interviewed and the boy that Edmonds interviewed, in
one case its “consensual” and in the other it’s clearly “rape.”
Edmonds continues building her case to us by going over more of the shocking details in
the police report. “The boy put his hand over her mouth when he did it so she couldn’t scream.”
~ 23 ~
Azima
Here the crime is intricate; the boy knew that what he was doing was wrong and that’s why he
puts his hand over the victim’s mouth. “Then he put it in her butt.” Edmonds points a sick and
malicious detail, this was not “normal sex” between two consenting teenagers and thus she
establishes “that’s rape” and this justifies the fact that even though the boy was approved for
placement she is recommending an even harsher sentence, juvenile camp.
Edmonds’s account of the details and her recommendation are so clear cut that I can’t
help but bring up a possible mitigating circumstance: “A 14 year old doesn’t just rape his cousin
without having been raped himself or experienced some type of abuse right?” This is of course
based on my own biased assumptions. But Edmonds isn’t ready to hear this because if the boy
was abused himself then her moral judgment of him being a “bad kid” is incorrect. That’s why
Edmonds gets chagrinned and employees a red herring argument, “People were having sex all
the time when I was in middle school.” Meaning, “Kids don’t have to be abused to be sexually
active, the difference is my kid did it by force something that crosses the line and consequently
he deserves to be punished.” When I point out another hypothesis that challenges Edmonds’s
assessment, “But the fact that he had anal sex with her, that just doesn’t seem normal to me.”
Edmonds flatly states, “I think that just shows that he just didn’t know where to put it” because
once again I’m challenging the notion that he is a “bad kid.” By saying he doesn’t know where to
put it Edmonds establishes that: “he’s ignorant but that doesn’t preclude him from suffering his
rightful consequences for what he did.” Meaning her decision to recommend camp stands and
she’s not going to change or reconsider it.
In contrast with the aforementioned cases where a juvenile’s moral character is
established; POs can also make moral character judgments about a minor’s guardians that can
~ 24 ~
Azima
influence their sentencing recommendations in unexpected ways. In the following excerpt PO
Miller describes an unscrupulous parent who has all the wrong motivations.
PO Miller gives us example of a mother of a child who is in Juvy [Juvenile Hall]
right now. Miller describes the child. He is on seraquil; He’s bipolar. Miller
recounts how her interview went with the mom. “His mother says that, ‘I can’t
take him any more he’s 16 you take um’ she wants to put this kid in the system’s
hands for where she messed up, she wants me to recommend that they take him
out of the home.” […] Miller expresses some frustration with mom. How much
money does mom get out of the system? Is she even motivated to be a good mom?
She has developmentally disabled kids on SSI; she gets $750 per kid, then she
gets foods stamps, that’s another $250 and then even more. “What’s her
motivation to be a good parent?” You do the math, she gets like $2200 from the
state. Miller lowers her voice a little, And she doesn’t have a social security
number, she’s just taken advantage of the system. (FN April 28th)
Here the moral character of the mother is seen as more important than that of the juvenile. PO
Miller starts by mentioning that the juvenile is mentally ill, “He is on seraquil, He’s bipolar.” We
don’t know his crime because to Miller that’s not important. When a PO describes minor’s
mitigating circumstances first and then doesn’t focus on crime it generally means that they feel
they’re dealing with a “good kid.” Next Miller starts establishing the type of person the mother
is. Miller believes mom is a deadbeat and consequently anything she says will be to benefit
herself and not her child. After describing all the varying forms of social welfare income the
mother gets, Miller drops the last clue as to why the mother would behave in this way, she [the
mom] doesn’t have a social security number. Miller is insinuating that the mother is an illegal
immigrant who is living of the system and neglecting her children. Mom is not to be trusted or
believed and no matter what incriminating evidence she may give about her son during the intake
interview, Miller won’t let anything she has to say influence her because now mom has been
morally established as a “bad parent.”
~ 25 ~
Azima
There are a wide variety of outcomes and possibilities when POs in the investigations
department conduct their intake interviews and consequently establish a juvenile’s “moral
character.” In the first four examples there is a consistent pattern; “good kids” deserve lighter
sentences in order to reform and “bad kids” deserve the opposite because they’re incorrigible.
Deciding what makes a good or bad can include: judging the severity of his crime, his demeanor
during the interview, reports by parents or guardians, grades, prior criminal record and a whole
host of possible factors. What probation officers are then willing to do in order to influence case
outcomes and downstream decisions once they have established moral character raises serious
questions about the fairness and accuracy of the juvenile justice system. However we will
leaving that topic aside for the moment and continue analyzing the intake interview process.
Once character is established what else can POs do in order to facilitate juvenile reform and what
tools do POs use to get the information they need to establish moral character in the first place
when juveniles are understandably reserved, cautious and uncooperative during the intake
interview process?
PO TACTICS FOR GAINING COOPERATION AND INFLUENCING FUTURE BEHAVIOR
Guardians and juveniles aren’t always forthcoming with information and POs recognize
that a kid’s interest lies in denying or minimizing their wrongdoing even when he has good
“moral character.” In addition, sometimes probation officers feel that if they can make an
impression on a “good kid” he will change his behavior at home and no longer make bad
decisions. I propose that in these cases probation officers employee an arsenal of “tactics”
depending on the situation; sometimes the goal is to gain information from uncooperative
~ 26 ~
Azima
interviewees and other times it’s to teach the juvenile a lesson so they stop committing crimes in
the future.
Invoking a minor’s guilt is one of the tactics that probation officers use to get a “good
kid” to change his behavior at home. The following excerpt takes place between PO Miller and
Reggie, the boy who was caught with a knife on school grounds.
Reggie’s sister puts her head in her hands and starts crying. Miller frowns, glares
at Reggie and points at his sister, “Look at her, why is she crying?” “Look at her
Reggie!” PO Miller starts asking Reggie questions, Is there tooth paste in the
house when you go to the sink? Reggie responds, Yea. Miller raises her voice. I
don’t get “Yea” say “Yes” or “No.” Reggie looks down and responds, “Yes.” Did
you take a bath today before you came? You look clean. Was there soap?
Reggie keeps looking down and responds, “Yes.” PO Miller looks at Reggie strait
in the eyes, her eyes widen as she says, “Get some new friends.” (FN April 21)
PO Miller uses Reggie’s sister’s crying as a chance to invoke Reggie’s guilt. Miller wants
Reggie to pay attention to how much trouble and pain his sister is going through in taking care of
him. “Look at her, why is she crying?” “Look at her Reggie!” She believes that Reggie has the
capacity to change his behavior because he truly isn’t a “bad kid.” Miller continues to lay the
guilt trip on Reggie by pointing out everything his sister does for him that he must be taking for
granted. “Is there tooth paste in the house when you go to the sink?” “Did you take a bath today
before you came? Miller is trying to get Reggie to understand that his sister is truly is guardian
and that she is caring for him. The least that Reggie can do then is to obey her rules and to
change his behavior. Miller then points out the true cause of his bad behavior. This is why Miller
ends this part of the interview with “Get some new friends.” It implies that Reggie’s friends are
responsible for his bad behavior and the hurt that he is causing his sister. The only decent thing
for Reggie to do then is to start acting right and stop hanging around with these “bad influences.”
~ 27 ~
Azima
In addition to invoking guilt, probation officers can threaten punishment even though
they don’t legally have the power to do anything but make recommendations to the court. They
do this not only to get minors to change their behavior but also to gain their cooperation during
intake interviews. In the following excerpt PO Miller starts getting frustrated with Reggie’s
unresponsiveness late in his intake interview.
Miller squints her eyes and slightly cocks her head to one side. In an inquisitive tone she
asks Reggie, “What is your purpose in life?” Reggie doesn’t really respond or look at
Miller and he mumbles a reply I can’t make out. Miller says to Reggie, “You’re going to
have to speak up.” Miller makes a series of statements, “You lost your mother; you don’t
have a father; you need help Reggie.” The things that your doing are going to get you
locked up like your father and brother. Reggie doesn’t respond and Miller gets indignant.
I’m not going to have an hour to spend with you next time. “Don’t waste my time; I’ll
lock you up right now!”
Miller is asking for Reggie’s “purpose in life” because she is at the portion of the intake
questionnaire that has the probation officer probe for a juvenile’s “self-assessment” of his
“strengths”, “risks”, and what “plan” he has to change. Miller gets very frustrated at Reggie’s
unresponsiveness because she believes he is a “good kid” and wants him to receive a lighter
sentence. PO Miller knows that this portion of the intake interview is the only section where she
can include positive information about Reggie’s life and demeanor and instead of helping her
he’s making it more difficult. That is what prompts Miller to make several statements, the first
aim at making Randal understand the severity of his situation, “You lost your mother; you don’t
have a father.” Then Miller threatens Reggie, “Don’t waste my time; I’ll lock you up right now!”
Miller doesn’t have the power to “lock Reggie up” nor does she want to. She does this in the
hopes that Reggie will do two things: stop misbehaving at home and start cooperating and
answering all her questions during the intake interview.
~ 28 ~
Azima
Though probation officers at Ferguson don’t directly threaten minors with physical harm,
they do at times try to scare minors with indirect references to harm when lecturing minors or
threatening incarceration doesn’t seem like it’s going to change their behavior. In the following
excerpt PO Adams is interviewing a 16 year old black girl named Ashley and her stepmother.
Ashley has a repeat history of running away from home to stay with her boyfriend. This time she
was caught by the police for shoplifting and then brought back to her parents.
PO Adams asks the girl, Have you run away [recently]? Ashley, Umm (she
pauses) Yes. Mom looks at Ashley, “Umm is not an answer.” PO Adams reads
her criminal record, 9-02-08 the girl ran from home. Ashley offers an explanation,
“I was not in my right mind; I was mad at everybody; I didn’t want to be with my
mom and I wanted to go because I was mad at my father.” Adams asks, Why were
you mad at your father? She replies, “He wouldn’t let me go out.” Mom interjects,
She ran away to go stay with her boyfriend. Adams pauses and looks at Ashley,
“Look you can’t just run away cuz [sic] you don’t like someone; when you turn
18 and you don’t like your job you don’t just run away right?” Ashley
lethargically answers, “Yes.” PO Adams continues, “Also, you can run away and
get caught up in the wrong situation. He then recounts a tragic case. There was
this one girl who ran away from her home. While she was out on the streets
someone threw gasoline all over her. Adams shakes his head and looks down,
“They burned her body.” Adams then looks strait at Ashley and says, So you
never know what may happen, something terrible. (FN May 14th)
Here PO Adams knows that Ashley is a repeat but not “serious” offender. She has a history of
running away, she is reluctant to answer questions and she is quick to offer immature excuses for
her behavior. When Adams tries show Ashley that her behavior is immature she’s unresponsive,
“…when you turn 18 and you don’t like your job you don’t just run away right?” to which she
gives a half-hearted and apathetic “Yes.” Adams believes that this girl is on the borderline of
being a “bad kid” but not quite there yet so he tries another tactic to get her to change. PO
Adams brings up an example of a girl who, like Ashley ran away from home. This girl however
didn’t just get to go back home; she was brutally attacked, had gasoline poured on her and was
burned alive. Adams finishes the story with, “…you never know what may happen, something
~ 29 ~
Azima
terrible” because he wants to make Ashley fear for her own life because she’s obviously used to
being incarcerated by the police and doesn’t show any regard for the authority figures. To
Adams, this example should give Ashley a cold taste of reality and hopefully challenge her to
rethink her actions next time she gets mad at her parents and wants to run away from home.
In addition to using tactics that seek to influence behavior at home, probation officers
realize that kids have an interest in lying about or minimizing their wrongdoing and consequently
they have to be skilled at interrogating such minors. When the court feels that a minor is a risk to
the community, herself, or poses a flight risk she can be incarcerated in the lead up to her
arraignment and during her trial. The following excerpt takes place at juvenile hall between PO
Miller and one such minor. Marissa is a 15 year old Hispanic girl awaiting arraignment for an
outstanding warrant from last year for assaulting another girl on school grounds. Because Marisa
is currently incarcerated, PO Miller previously conducted an intake interview alone with her
mother at Ferguson. There she learned that Marissa has been staying with her boyfriend, a
member of the notorious 18th Street gang for the past year. Miller also learns other factors that
are pertinent to Marisa’s case from her mother.
Miller asks Marisa, how long did you run away from home? She replies, “Um like
about less than like a month.” Miller responds in a frenzy, “Stop bullshittin and
playin!” You know your momma told me you ran away for 4 months how you
goin [sic] to sit here and tell me [Miller mocks Marisa’s response] “umm um..
like one month?” I don’t play that! […] Miller asks Marissa if her boyfriend was
in a gang and if so, what the name of the gang is. Marissa responds, Um yeah, he
was with some people who were in a gang but I don’t really remember the name
of the gang. Miller goes off on Marissa again, Don’t give me that shit! How you
goin tell me you don’t know what gang he was in? Yo [sic] momma even knew it
was 18th street! […] Miller asks if Marissa has any tattoos [Marissa hesitates,
looks like she holds her breath and looks up] she responds, “Yes” and tells Miller
she has about 6 tattoos. One was barely noticeable and on her right eye, it was a
series of small dots. Miller asks Marissa what it means and she responds that it
means “crazy life.” Another tattoo was on her left wrist, “Spooky” which is the
name of her boyfriend, whom she says dated for 7 months. Another was a crown
~ 30 ~
Azima
on her right wrist. Miller asks Marissa what it means and she responds, It means
“royalty” because you know, I consider myself someone special. [Miller rolls her
eyes] What in the hell kind of royalty you think you is over here? […] (FN May
12th)
PO Miller has a “gut feeling” that Marissa will lie to her from the start, that’s why she asks a
serious of control questions that she already knows the answer to. When Miller catches Marissa
in a lie she becomes livid and calls her on it; Miller tells her to, “Stop bullshittin and playin!”
Even after she catches Marissa in the first lie Miller still doesn’t trust her so she gives Marissa
another control question, “Was your boyfriend in a gang and if so what gang was he in?” Even
Marissa’s mother reported that she knew the boy was in 18th Street so when Marissa lies again
Miller gets in her face and calls her on it again, “Don’t give me that shit!” Miller’s interrogation
skills end up working because eventually Marissa realizes that she’s not going to get one over on
Miller and she starts giving up more information. When Miller asks her the question about the
tattoos Marissa hesitates and almost gives another lie to avoid incriminating herself. Fearing
another reprisal from Miller, Marissa tells the truth and admits that she has six different tattoos.
This shows that harshly interrogating minors is a useful “tactic” that can lead to eliciting truthful
responses.
PO tactics during intake interviews aim to achieve both long-term behavior modification
in a minor and participation during the interview. A probation officer needs to be skilled when to
employee these tactics and she needs to use discretion especially in order that she doesn’t anger
or offend a minor’s parent. When deemed necessary: guilt trips, threatening punishment and
having a minor fear for their life are all useful tactics. Finally when a PO feels that a minor is
being deceitful, a rough “hostile” approach to interrogation also proves to be effective in gaining
a minors cooperation.
~ 31 ~
Azima
Conclusion
While the juvenile justice system is said to differ from adult court in that it has the
obligation to looking out for the interests of the “victim” and the “perpetrator” we have seen that
there are factors, some more influential than others, that greatly influence the decision making
process of critical actors. From the very start of the process when DAs review citations that come
in from the police a gestalt methodology is employed to determine whether or not a case is filed,
handled informally or dropped altogether. Once a case is filed the focus then becomes
ascertaining a juvenile’s “moral character.” We have also seen how this factor which is
established on “gut level” indications has serious ramifications. Moral character determinations
are what cause Investigations Unit probation officers to influence decisions made downstream in
the court process. The intake interview, which until now has largely been overlooked by
academia can be “make or break” for a juvenile.
The intake interview is a one on one conversation with a person who has her finger on the
pulse of the courtroom process and knows all the inns and outs of courtroom procedure. During
an interview we have seen how a juvenile can get lucky, make a good impression, and then get
the information he needs to be exonerated. Or he can be unlucky, rub a PO the wrong way, and
possibly get the book thrown at him. A juvenile can also be lectured, intimidated or praised by a
probation officer but the main issue this study raises lies in those first impressions he makes on
his PO. How fair is the juvenile justice system when being a “good kid” gets you special
treatment and being a “bad kid” gets you labeled by someone who then seeks to label you to
every other courtroom actor you encounter? The decisions that POs make on a routine and daily
basis during intake interviews can affect a child for the rest of their life and one never knows
~ 32 ~
Azima
how some obscure trait: a kid’s crime, family, grades, demeanor, or past behavior will determine
whether or not he has a criminal record for the rest of his life or if he is forcibly removed from
the home of his parents and placed by the court in a juvenile detention facility.
~ 33 ~
Azima
Works Cited
Emerson, Robert M. Judging Delinquents: Context and Process in Juvenile Court. Piscataway,
NJ.: Aldine Transaction, 2007. 101-140
Maynard, Douglas W. “Defendant Attributes in Plea Bargaining: Notes on the Modeling of
Sentencing Decisions.” Social Problems 29:4 (1982): 347-360 June 2009
~ 34 ~