Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T06:10:06.211Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Youthful Offenders in Israel

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2009

Gideon Fishman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates the legal status and treatment of the youthful offender in Israel. Due to a legal provision, in the case of the youthful offender, the court is required to receive a pre-sentencing report from a probation officer; however, there is no institutionalized indication as to how or to what degree the judges should follow the report. Our findings reveal that both judges and probation officers adhere to high professional standards and make their decisions according to the specific case brought in front of them, and that they are not affected by social class or ethnic stereotypes. In spite of a considerable correspondence between the recommendations made by the probation officers and the decisions made by the judges, one cannot avoid noticing also some discrepancy. This is attributed to the strong therapeutic values which characterize the probation officers' training and which are less evident among the judges. The consequences of this discrepancy are analysed and discussed and a few steps to narrow the gap are suggested.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , January 1978 , pp. 57 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Knudten, R. D., Crime in a Complex Society, Dorsey Press, Homewood, Illinois, 1970, pp. 402–3.Google Scholar

2 The age limit was changed in October 1975 from sixteen to seventeen and is expected to rise to eighteen. Our study refers to data prior to October 1975 and thus refers to a sixteen to twenty-one age group.

3 In 1970 a further option was introduced, namely, suspension of sentence together with probation; however, such cases were eliminated from our sample, since this did not apply during the previous years.

4 See Wald, P. M., ‘Poverty and Criminal Justice’, Appendix C in Task Force Report: Courts, President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1967, pp. 139–51Google Scholar; Martin, J. J., Toward a Political Definition of Delinquency, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1970Google Scholar; and Schur, E., Radical Non-intervention, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1973.Google Scholar

5 One should realize that this resembles the general population structure of the country, where almost 60 per cent of the people are of oriental origin.

6 It must be noted that Israel is a welfare state, where the state sponsors low-income families on a regular basis.

7 See for example Martin, op. cit.; Chamblis, W. J. and Seidman, R. B., Law, Order and Power, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1971Google Scholar; and Schur, op. cit.

8 See Cohen, L. E., Juvenile Disposition: Social and Legal Factors Related to the Processing of Denver Delinquency Cases, U.S. Department of Justice, LEAA, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1975, p. 22.Google Scholar

9 See Reckless, W. C., The Crime Problem, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, 1967, pp. 111–12.Google Scholar

10 For example Bedau, H. A., ‘Death Sentencing in New Jersey’, Rutgers Law Review, 19 (1964), 1–5Google Scholar; Bedau, H. A., ‘Capital Punishment in Oregon 1903–64’, Oregon Law Review, 45 (1965), 1–37Google Scholar; Judson, C. J., Pandell, J. J., Owens, J. B., Mclntosh, J. L. and Matschullat, D. L., ‘A Study of the California Penalty Jury in First Degree Murder Cases’, Stanford Law Review, 21 (1969), 1, 297–431Google Scholar; Nagel, S. S., The Legal Process from a Behavioral Perspective, Dorsey Press, Homewood, Illinois, 1969Google Scholar; and Thornberry, T. P., ‘Race, Socioeconomic Status and Sentencing in the Juvenile Justice System’, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 64 (1973), 90–8.Google Scholar

11 See Terry, R. M., ‘Discrimination in the Handling of Juvenile Offenders by Social Control Agencies’, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 4 (1967), 218–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Cohen, op. cit.

13 Chiricos, T. G. and Waldo, G. P., ‘Socioeconomic Status and Criminal Sentencing’, American Sociological Review, 40 (1975), 753–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 See Carter, R. M. and Wilkins, L. T., ‘Some Factors in Sentencing Policy’, Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 584 (1967), 503–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar