This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Polk, K. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Juvenile Diversion: A Look at the Record

A recent article by Binder and Geis (1984) observed that the negative response to diversion on the part of sociologists is at variance with the actual record of juvenile diversion, and concluded that this response results from disciplinary narrowness, distrust of police, and overidentification with the underdog. An alternative explanation is that sociologists are, in fact, responding precisely to the empirical record available regarding diversion. That record suggests that although some research reports positive effects of diversion, it is difficult to ignore the data which show that diversion programs may either have no effect or may possibly even be harmful. That record indicates that diversion may not be achieving its stated goal of diverting offenders away from the juvenile justice system, but instead may be a device for expanding both the size of the juvenile justice system and the forms of behavior that come under its control. An argument can be made grounded in data which suggests that diversion programs may be taking on particular functions with respect to girls, and thus may be leading to unanticipated forms of hidden sexism. In gathering data and in making these arguments, sociologists may not be engaged as much in some antidiversionist frenzy as they are expressing their concern for the drift of an important policy away from its intended course.

Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 30, No. 4, 648-659 (1984)
DOI: 10.1177/0011128784030004011


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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. J. Dick, D. J. Pence, R. M. Jones, and H. R. Geertsen The Need for Theory in Assessing Peer Courts American Behavioral Scientist, July 1, 2004; 47(11): 1448 - 1461. [Abstract] [PDF]