he Seems Like a Good Kid Lessons in Informal Social Control from a Midwestern Peer Court Program
2014
- 305Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage305
- Downloads250
- Abstract Views55
Thesis / Dissertation Description
This study examines how peer court jurors make meaning out of the sanctioning trials of youth offenders. In particular, it focuses on how peer court jurors understand juvenile delinquency, deterrence and punishment. Data was collected utilizing ethnographic field observation methods while attending a Midwestern County's peer court program between the end of the 2011-2012 school year and the 2012-2013 school year. Thirteen interviews were conducted after the sessions with willing peer court jurors in order to supplement the field work data.During the peer court sessions the youth jurors tried to understand the nature of the offenses and how to deter future delinquent behaviors. The observations and interview data illustrates how the youth jurors were working together in the deliberation room to give sanctions, which they hoped would provide the informal social control needed to prevent recidivism. Through questioning both offenders and their accompanying parent, we see that these youth were looking to provide sanctions that acted as the missing informal social control agents in the offender's life. When the youth jurors saw the parents of the offender as being lax on the punishment or rules at home, the jurors provided sanctions that would do this for them. Alternatively, when parents of the offender or even the youth themselves were seen as providing adequate punishments the youth jurors went lighter on the sanctioning. Peer jurors also understood some of the reasoning behind youth crime from their own perspective as a teen and drew upon these experiences when trying to understand the nature of the offense and punishment. Since they are also youth, they understand that some behavior drew from boredom or peer influence and in these cases the youth jurors provide sanctions that fit the missing informal social control in their lives. Sanctions such as curfews, community service, no association with particular peers, mandatory participation in an after school activity and attendance in a future peer court session, were all utilized as informal social control agents for offending youth. Lastly, youth jurors understood impression management and had the tough job making sure the self-presentations of the offenders were authentic when deciding upon sanctions. In all, these youth jurors took their roles seriously and really provided a space where the offender was not seen as a delinquent teen, but instead "a good kid," who like many teenagers, failed to think through their offense or see the consequences involved prior to committing their act or acts.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know