The Impact of Juvenile Court Judge Ethical Orientation on Decision Making

ABSTRACT

This exploratory study examines the ethical ideologies of a sample of 76 juvenile court judges attending a conference using an Ethical Position Questionnaire. Potential effects of ethical orientation on judicial decision making are identified and discussed. The findings indicate a relatively even distribution of judges across ethical ideologies. The connection between ethical ideology and the prevailing juvenile justice philosophy across jurisdictions, and the importance and complexity of judicial education and training in juvenile justice, are discussed.

How do juvenile court judges make their decisions? Do they, to the extent possible, follow the parens patriae role as the good parent? Do they take an approach from Sgt. Joe Friday on the television show Dragnet, “just following the law, ma'am”? Or, do judges take a different approach or some combination of approaches? More important, how should juvenile judges decide as they try to meet the goals of the juvenile court and local statutes?

The centennial anniversary of the juvenile court in the United States (1899-1999) was accompanied by national reflection about the philosophical shifts in juvenile justice over time and the impact on juvenile justice professionals and young people (Shepherd, 1999). Ongoing discussion in the juvenile justice literature about the state of the juvenile court focuses on politically based shifts from the ideal of individualized justice and care to the “adultification” of what are described as “second class criminal courts” (Shepherd, 1999). Reaction among officials and scholars against the increasing criminalization of youth is based in part on recognition that such shifts not only run counter to data and theorizing about delinquency, but also place officials and youth in systems that continue to be characterized by contradictory, competing philosophies and missions.

Scholars have noted that the larger political context informing the criminalization of delinquency impacts courtroom workgroup processes, the interactions and negotiations occurring between prosecutors, judges, defense attornies, and the accused. “The social and political environment of the court and local communities both ‘contour’ the culture in which decisions are made and ‘craft’ the knowledge of how justice is performed” (Harris, 2007, p. 3). While both legal and social case-specific, individual factors such as charge seriousness and perception of dangerousness have been found to impact juvenile judge decisions (Jones & Cauffman, 2008), these scholars emphasize the significance of a judge's political orientation and philosophy of punishment in both the specific jurisdictional and larger national political climates (Mears, 2001).

As local jurisdictions negotiate the pressures and filters of their social and political environments, the way individual judges make decisions varies based also on both pre-existing attitudes (Wrightsman, 1999) and personal theories of juvenile justice. The interaction of the political context of a judge's jurisdiction and his or her individual orientation in juvenile justice may be better understood as a continuum ranging from a strict belief in individualized justice through an emphasis on strict application of increasingly determinate sentencing statutes. Harris (2007) discusses “Literalist” justices as those who “strictly applied legal criteria” versus “Rehabilitative” justices who “evaluated legal criteria with more individualized interpretations of the offender, not just the details of the offense” (p. 8). In Harris' typology, these decision makers also varied in the extent to which they focused on the substantive implications of their decisions with only “Rehabilitative” judges expressing “concern about the consequences of their decision making in young people's lives (2007, p. 8).

In this article, we explore the intersections of socio-political context and individual orientation among juvenile court judges using an ethical orientation approach not yet broadly applied to juvenile justice decision makers. We examine the individual ethical orientations of a sample of juvenile court judges from across the United States and discuss the implications for their decision making in court, particularly when it comes to detention. In addition, we discuss the philosophical and socio-political context in which each type of orientation is likely to thrive, adding to the literature about philosophical shifts in juvenile justice and their implications for decision making about the lives of young people.

MEASURING ETHICAL ORIENTATION: THE ETHICAL POSITION QUESTIONNAIRE (EPQ)

EPQ Development

A first step in exploring the intersections of socio-political context and individual orientation among juvenile court judges potentially leading to a better understanding of the “Literalist” as opposed to a “Rehabilitative” bench officer is to find a systematic way to identify and assess the ethical orientations of juvenile court judges. Two major challenges confront researchers conducting empirical research to identify personal ethical orientations. The first challenge is to identify a theoretical framework based on accepted ethical philosophies and the second is to clearly define that theoretical framework so we can measure it. In an attempt to address these challenges, Forsyth and Schlenker proposed that the current major schools of ethical thought could be better understood when defined in terms of two major scales (Forsyth, 1980; Schlenker & Forsyth, 1977). The first scale draws on the two ethical philosophies of ethical absolutism and ethical relativism. The second scale focuses on ethical idealism.

The first scale is based on the proposition that in making judgments, some people draw on universal ethical rules while others reject ethical absolutes. Ethical absolutism suggests that “objective standards of moral truth exist independently of us” (Harris, 1997, p. 103), and that there “exists an eternal and unchanging moral code that transcends the physical world and is the same for all people at all times and places” (Holmes, 1998, p. 165). Ethical relativism, on the other hand, holds that universal ethical truths do not exist independent of time, place, and circumstance and that ethical dimensions of right and wrong vary from person to person and culture to culture (Holmes, 1998; Polloch, 2007; Rachels, 1999).

The second scale focuses on idealism in judgments. At one extreme, ethical idealists assume that “right” action will result in desirable consequences. At the other extreme is the belief that “right” action does not always result in desirable consequences (Forsyth, 1980).

To clearly define and measure this theoretical framework, Forsyth (1980) conducted research to develop a valid, reliable, and easily administered instrument capable of discriminating personal ethical orientations across individuals. His goal was to develop and validate an Ethical Position Questionnaire (EPQ) that would facilitate the classification of individuals according to ethical orientation (Forsyth, 1980, p. 177). Forsyth's (1980) work resulted in the development of the EPQ consisting of twenty statements. Ten statements concern idealism and ten concern relativism. A Likert-type response scale consisting of nine points (from completely disagrees to completely agrees) is used for each item. Individuals are classified as to ethical orientation by calculating their mean scores on the relativism items and the mean scores on the idealism items. Tests of concurrent and discriminate validity as well as predictive validity were conducted. Forsyth proposed that ethical judgments can be found to lie on two major dimensions, ethical idealism and ethical relativism. The resulting taxonomy of ethical orientations is presented in Table 1.

Table 1.  Taxonomy of Ethical Orientations

	High Relativism	Low Relativism
Adapted from Forsyth (1980).
High Idealism	Situationist	Absolutist
	Rejects ethical absolutes; Advocates individualistic analysis of each act in each situation; relativistic	Assumes that the best possible outcome can always be achieved by following universal ethical rules; Absolutist
Low Idealism	Subjectivist	Exceptionist
	Appraisals are based on personal values and perspective rather than universal ethical principles; relativistic; Ethical Egoist	Ethical absolutes guide judgments but pragmatically open to exceptions to these standards; Utilitarian

EPQ Research Outside of Criminal Justice Professions

Subsequent to its development, the EPQ has been used and validated in ethics research among numerous professional disciplines including accounting (Chan & Leung, 2006; Ziegenfuss & Martinson, 2002); education (Deering, 1998), medicine (Eastman, Eastman, & Tolson, 2001; Forsyth, Nye, & Kelly, 2001; Furham & Olfstein, 1997; Ganzini, Fenn, Lee, Heintz, & Bloom, 1996); psychology (Hadjistavropoulos, Malloy, Sharpe, & Fuchs-Lacelle, 2003); business and management (Bass, Barnett, & Brown, 1999; Davis, Andersen & Curtis, 2001); criminal justice education (Byers & Powers, 1997a, 1997b); advertising (Treise, Weigold, Conna, & Garrison, 1994); marketing and market research (Vitell, Lumpkin, & Rawwas, 1991); animal research (Wuensch & Poteat, 1998); and information technology (Winter, Stylianou, & Giacalone, 2004).

EPQ Research in Criminal Justice Professions

Some studies have used the EPQ in the law enforcement setting. Catlin and Maupin (2002) studied the ethical orientations of a state police recruit class using the Ethical Position Questionnaire and compared that class to a group of state police officers with one year of experience. They found a statistically significant difference in ethical orientations between the two groups. New recruits were more oriented to ethical idealism, and one-year experienced officers were more oriented to ethical relativism.

Also using the EPQ, Catlin and Maupin (2004) examined the ethical orientations of two cohorts of state police officers. The first cohort was administered the EPQ during the recruit academy and again after one year of experience. The second cohort took the EPQ when they had one year of experience and again after two years. Cohort one showed a significant shift of orientation from the idealism scale to the relativism scale. The biggest shift in ethical orientation was from an absolutist orientation to the subjectivist orientation. Cohort two showed a similar but non-significant result. From year one to year two, there was a shift from idealistic orientations to the subjectivist ethical position. At year two, 41% of all officers occupied the subjectivist orientation.

Maupin, Bond-Maupin, and Catlin (2006) used the EPQ to measure the ethical orientations of local police recruits at the beginning of recruit training and again at the end of the training academy. They found a similar downward trend in the idealism scale and an increase in the relativism scale.

METHOD

Exploratory in nature, this study begins the process of understanding the ethical orientation of juvenile judges, searching for correlates of particular orientations, and identifying potential effects of ethical orientation on judicial decision making. A small group of 76 juvenile judges from across the country attending a training workshop completed the Ethical Position Questionnaire in 2008 that was developed by Forsyth (1980) and used successfully in subsequent studies (Forsyth, 1981, 1985, 1990, 1992; Powers, 1993; Singhapakdi & Vitell, 1991; Treise et al., 1994). The results of this study do not yield generalizable information, but the study does serve as a starting point for building knowledge about potential tendencies in the ethical orientation of juvenile judges and possible impacts on judicial decision making.

Table 2 displays characteristics of the judges completing the EPQ. The respondents in this study are mostly male, Anglo, and possess a law degree. The average age was 48.81 years, and the average length of service was 5.45 years. Eight (10.5%) were female and 68 (89.5%) were male. Anglo judges comprised 81.6% (N = 62) of the respondents, and non-Anglos represented 18.4% (N = 14). The highest level of education of three judges was a high school degree (3.9%); 73 (96.1%) possessed a law degree.

Table 2.  Respondent Characteristics

Number	76
Average Age	48.81
Years of Service	5.45
Males	68
Females	8
Anglos	62
Non-Anglos	14
Other Ethnicity	6
High School Degree	3
Law Degree	73
Idealist Mean	57.83
Idealist Median	60.00
Relativist Mean	39.89
Relativist Median	39.50

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

The Ethical Position Questionnaire was split into the two halves measuring the primary ethical dimensions of idealism and relativism. Table 2 displays the descriptive statistics of our analysis of these two ethical dimensions. The mean Idealist score was 57.83 (median = 60) and the mean Relativist score was 39.89 (median = 39.5). As with prior research (Catlin & Maupin, 2002, 2004; Forsyth, 1980; Maupin, Bond-Maupin, & Catlin, 2006), there was no statistically significant correlation between the scores on these two dimensions.

Next, we adapted the technique of others (Byers & Powers, 1997a; Forsyth, 1980, 1981, 1985, 1990, 1992; Treise et al., 1994) to distribute the respondents across the four ethical position categories. We used the actual as opposed to the theoretical midpoint of the Likert response options to place the respondents into the four ethical position categories. Table 3 displays the distribution of respondents across the four ethical position categories. None of the measures of association identified any statistically significant relationships within the categories. In general, there is very little difference across the ethical positions except for a slightly higher percentage classified as Absolutist. Six of the eight females were classified as Absolutist. It is important not to attribute significant emphasis on this finding given the very small number of female respondents. The Situationist category contained the highest percentage of the Non-Anglo judges, but numerically there was only one more Situationist than Absolutist classification. As with the female judges, the potential effect of this finding is constrained by the small number of Non-Anglo respondents. Finally, the male Anglo judges and all those with a law degree are fairly evenly distributed across the ethical positions. This finding implies that several different ethical orientations are in play relative to judicial decision making.

Table 3.  Comparison Across Ethical Positions

	Situationist	Absolutist	Subjectivist	Exceptionist
All	19	23	19	15
(%)	(25.3%)	(30.7%)	(25.3%)	(19.7%)
Female	1	6	1	0
(%)	(12.5%)	(75.0%)	(12.5%)	(00.0%)
Male	18	17	19	14
(%)	(26.5%)	(25.0%)	(27.9%)	(20.6%)
Anglo	13	18	17	14
(%)	(21.0%)	(29.0%)	(27.4%)	(22.6%)
Non-Anglo	6	5	3	0
(%)	(42.9%)	(35.7%)	(21.4%)	(00.0%)
High School Degree	0	1	2	0
(%)	(00.0%)	(33.3%)	(66.7%)	(00.0%)
Law Degree	19	22	18	14
(%)	(26.0%)	(30.1%)	(24.7%)	(19.2%)

IMPLICATIONS

The fact that the scores are distributed fairly evenly across the four ethical position categories may reflect, in part, the variation in juvenile justice philosophies across jurisdictions. Judges are influenced by, and attracted to, certain approaches to juvenile justice on the continuum of care and punishment/control. The scores also stress the importance and complexities of judicial education and training in juvenile justice.

The juvenile justice system was founded on the ideal of individualized justice for young people from a good father—parens patriae. This ideal is based on an ethic of “caring” for the individual and the unique set of needs and issues and strengths of the young person. Decision making from this ideal would be based on an assessment of the best ways to meet a young person's needs to help transform the youngster into a productive adult. If a judge is making decisions in a jurisdiction that still focuses on individualized justice and “care,” then one might expect to find that jurisdiction's judges to score as situationists and exceptionists. The juvenile justice process in these jurisdictions would involve more careful and individual assessment of need and risk and the development of care plans and goals with periodic reviews of progress toward “goals.” The overarching values of agape (situationists) or the “best interests of the child” in the “least restrictive environment” (exceptionists) would guide the judges, but they would also have permission and support to treat each case uniquely and focus on producing the best outcome for a child.

For a variety of reasons, many U.S. jurisdictions have moved away from the ideal of individualized justice toward a more offense-driven, determinate system. If the penalty for an offense is determined by law to supersede the needs of the child, then the due process model of the adult criminal justice system, rather than the traditional individualized justice approach, will prevail. Jurisdictions where the due process model prevails tend to be busier and have greater social stratification and economic disparity. The jurisdictions have large dockets, overcrowded detention facilities, and may be overwhelmed with the complexity of problems the children face that have to be addressed. In these jurisdictions, one may be more likely to find more subjectivists who are furthering their careers and managing their dockets through harsh responses to juvenile offenders based on judgments and justifications of youth as basically “good” or essentially “bad” (youth as political currency).

A great deal of value is placed on individual, professional judgment and assessment by juvenile justice professionals. The research literature indicates that juvenile probation officers resist standardization of risk and needs assessment as an infringment on the opportunity to apply their judgment in each situation (Bond-Maupin & Maupin, 1998, 2002; Bond-Maupin, Maupin & Liesenring, 2002; Maupin, 1993a, 1993b). This resistance has been supported by the ideal and traditional value of individualized justice even though individualized justice has also resulted in profound abuses. The abuses have also contributed to a stronger constitutionalist and due process approach in some jurisdictions.

The ethical orientation and broader juvenile justice philodophy of the judge has the potential to affect decision making of all the juvenile justice professionals within a given jurisdiction. With the youth as the focus, Situationists and Exceptionists will thrive. Where the offense and due process are the focus, Subjectivists and Absolutists will also thrive—but for very different reasons. A punitive model will serve Subjectivists' self-interest, while Absolutists will be able to justify their decisions because it is fair and uniform and based on the assumption that due, just process will create a just outcome.

In jurisdictions marked by a mismatch between the ethical orientation of the probation officer and the philosophy of the jurisdiction, one will see things like high rates of overriding standardized decision making tools like risk and needs assessments, and less discernable logic to decision making. The implication is that there needs to be careful examination of the values and guiding philosophy of a jurisdiction. Hiring and training might include the assessment of ethical orientation in order to maximize consistency between personal approach to juvenile justice work and the overarching approach to justice in a given jurisdiction. Abuses of the process, the disproportionate confinement of youth of color, and inconsistencies in the treatment of youth may partially be understood as a conflict between the ethical orientation of a juvenile justice professional and the guiding values and philosophy of the jurisdiction.

Additional research should include analysis of the philosophy of the jurisdiction as an independent variable from a broader sample of juvenile justice workers within and across jurisdictions using qualitative and quantitative data in addition to the EPQ analysis as the next step in developing a systematic understanding of the intersections of socio-political context and individual orientation and the impact on juvenile justice decision making.