Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T21:44:54.524Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors Considered by Ohio Juvenile Court Judges in Judicial Bypass Judgments: A Policy-Capturing Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Christine Cregan Sensibaugh  and
Elizabeth Rice Allgeier
Christine Cregan Sensibaugh
Affiliation:
Bowling Green State University, USA
Elizabeth Rice Allgeier
Affiliation:
Bowling Green State University, USA
Get access

Abstract

Judicial bypass is a procedure by which a minor can bypass notification of her parents to obtain an abortion if a judge finds her to be sufficiently mature. We examined the factors used by juvenile court judges in judicial bypass. Nine Ohio juvenile court judges indicated the likelihood of granting judicial bypass for 48 fictitious adolescents based on six factors relevant to each minor's maturity. Individual policies were calculated according to how each factor was weighed. The policies indicated that age, coercion of the minor's decision, and assessment of risk were more heavily weighed than were grade point average, extracurricular activities, and past work experience. Although the judges used the same factors, there were large differences in how those factors were used and in the total cases judged mature. The results indicated that the judges had little insight into their own judgment policies.

Type
Abortion and Judicial Bypass
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 1996 , pp. 35 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

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

Adler, N.E., David, H.P., Major, B.N., Roth, S.H., Russo, N.F., and Wyatt, G.E. (1992). “Psychological Factors in Abortion.” American Psychologist 47:1194–1204.Google Scholar
Ambuel, B. (1995). “Adolescents, Unintended Pregnancy, and Abortion: The Struggle for a Compassionate Social Policy.” Current Directions 4:1–5.Google Scholar
Amendments to the Rules of Superintendence for Courts of Appeals and Courts of Common Pleas (1990). Rule 3: Procedure on appeals under sections 2151.85 and 2505.073 of the Revised Code. p. A-2.Google Scholar
Arkkelin, D., Oakley, T., and Mynatt, C. (1979). “Effects of Controllable versus Uncontrollable Factors on Responsibility Attributions: A Single-Subject Approach.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37:110–15.Google Scholar
Bellotti v. Baird (1979). 443 U.S. 622.Google Scholar
Blum, R., Resnick, M., and Stark, T. (1987). “The Impact of a Parental Notification Law on Adolescent Abortion Decision Making.” American Journal of Public Health 77:619–27.Google Scholar
Blum, R., Resnick, M., and Stark, T. (1990). “Factors Associated with the Use of Court Bypass by Minors to Obtain Abortions.” Family Planning Perspectives 22:158–60.Google Scholar
Brehmer, A. and Brehmer, B. (1988). “What Have We Learned about Human Judgment from Thirty Years of Policy Capturing.” In Brehmer, B. and Joyce, C.R.B. (eds.), Human Judgment: The SJT View. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Brehmer, B. and Joyce, C.R.B. (1988). Human Judgment: The SJT View. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Brunswik, E. (1952). The Conceptual Framework of Psychology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Candisky, C. (1993). “Law Fuzzy on Teens' Abortion.” The Columbus Dispatch (January 13):2B.Google Scholar
Cartoof, V. and Klerman, L. (1986). “Parental Consent for Abortion: Impact of the Massachusetts Law.” American Journal of Public Health 76:397–421.Google Scholar
Clary, F. (1982). “Minor Women Obtaining Abortions: A Study of Parental Notification in a Metropolitan Area.” American Journal of Public Health 72:283–90.Google Scholar
Cleveland Surgi-Center et al. v. City of Cleveland Heights (1992). U.S. Court of Appeals: Sixth Circuit, No. 92-4371.Google Scholar
Darlington, R.B. (1968). “Multiple Regression in Psychological Research and Practice.” Psychological Bulletin 69:161–82.Google Scholar
Ebbesen, E.B. and Konecni, V.J. (1981). “The Process of Sentencing Adult Felons.” In Sales, B.D. (ed.), The Trial Process. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Galligan, D.J. (1981). “Guidelines and Just Desserts: A Critique of Recent Trends in Sentencing Reform.” Criminal Law Review:297–311.Google Scholar
Goldberg, L.R. (1968). “Simple Models or Simple Processes? Some Research on Clinical Judgments.” American Psychologist 23:483–96.Google Scholar
Gorman, C.D., Clover, W.H., and Doherty, M.E. (1978). “Can We Learn Anything about Interviewing Real People from ‘Interviews’ of Paper People? Two Studies of the External Validity of a Paradigm.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 22:165–92.Google Scholar
Hallowell, E. (1993). “How Do You Judge Maturity?” The Akron Beacon Journal, 12:18.Google Scholar
H.L. v. Matheson (1981). 450 U.S. 398.Google Scholar
Hodgson v. Minnesota (1990). 3-81 Civ 538 (D. Minn.).Google Scholar
In Re Jane Doe I. (1991). 57 Ohio St. 3d 135.Google Scholar
Interdivisional Committee on Adolescent Abortion (1987). “Adolescent Abortion: Psychological and Legal Issues.” American Psychologist 42:73–78.Google Scholar
Koff, S. (1993). “Judges Set Own Abortion Consent Rules: Some Girls Try Court-Shopping.” The Cleveland Plain Dealer (January 18):1B, 4B.Google Scholar
Konecni, V.J. and Ebbesen, E.B. (1981). “A Critique of Theory and Method in Social-Psychological Approaches to Legal Issues.” In Sales, B.D. (ed.), The Trial Process. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Lovegrove, A. (1986). “Judges, Sentencing, and Experimental Psychology.” Journal of Community Psychology 14:253–66.Google Scholar
Melton, G.B. (1987). “Legal Regulation of Adolescent Abortion: Unintended Effects.” American Psychologist 42:79–83.Google Scholar
Melton, G.B. and Russo, N.F. (1987). “Adolescent Abortion: Psychological Perspectives on Public Policy.” American Psychologist 42:69–72.Google Scholar
Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health (1990). 497 US, [111 L Ed 2d 405] 110 SCt.Google Scholar
Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth (1976). 462 U.S. 416.Google Scholar
Pliner, A.J. and Yates, S. (1992). “Psychological and Legal Issues in Minors' Rights to Abortion.” Journal of Social Issues 48(3): 203–16.Google Scholar
Reilly, B.A. and Doherty, M.E. (1989). “A Note on the Assessment of Self-Insight in Judgment Research.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 44:123–31.Google Scholar
Reilly, B.A. and Doherty, M.E. (1992). “The Assessment of Self-Insight in Judgment Policies.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 53:285–309.Google Scholar
Roose, J.E. and Doherty, M.E. (1976). “Judgement Theory Applied to the Selection of Life Insurance Salesmen.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16:231–49.Google Scholar
Schoenberg, N. (1992). “Ohio's Abortion Law Interpreted Unevenly.” The Toledo Blade (January 19):1.Google Scholar
Slovic, P. and Lichtenstein, S. (1971). “Comparison of Bayesian and Regression Approaches to the Study of Information Processing in Judgment.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 6:649–744.Google Scholar
Supreme Court of Ohio Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (1989). Opinion 89-33.Google Scholar