ILNews

ICJI awards grant for study of juvenile courts

Rebecca Berfanger
November 15, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Two Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs professors at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis have received a $200,000 grant from the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute to study the records of juvenile delinquents in Indiana to determine if juvenile court personnel treated defendants differently based on race, the school announced today.

IUPUI professors Crystal A. Garcia and Roger Jarjoura will examine decisions by juvenile court personnel on delinquency cases from 2005 through 2009 in all 91 Indiana county courts (Dearborn and Ohio counties share a court). They will review how juveniles were treated at various points in the system.

Jarjoura and Garcia plan to have their preliminary findings ready as early as April 2011, Garcia said, according to a statement from the school.

“We want to answer the question: Are kids of color dealt with differently? In other words, are court actors treating kids fairly?” Garcia said in a statement.

“This is important work that benefits the state of Indiana, and that’s what we're all about. And no one is more qualified to do this work than Crystal and Roger,” said Terry Baumer, executive associate dean of SPEA, in a statement.

This issue was one of the concerns addressed by participants in the Summit on Racial Disparities in the Juvenile Justice System that the Indiana State Bar Association helped organize in August 2009. In September 2010, the ISBA published a report based on the findings of the summit’s participants. Indiana Lawyer reported on the findings in the Sept. 29 – Oct. 12, 2010, edition.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • bias evident already
    I wonder if it will be a foregone conclusion that non-whites are discriminated against. The way the question is phrased it sounds like they aren't even entertaining the possibility that white kids actually might get worse treatment than nonwhites. Kind of like hate crime enhancements; only applied against whites, never to protect them.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT