Skip Navigation


British Journal of Criminology Advance Access originally published online on November 11, 2008
British Journal of Criminology 2009 49(2):220-242; doi:10.1093/bjc/azn078
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
49/2/220    most recent
azn078v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Weenink, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

The British Journal of Criminology 49:220-242 (2009)
© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (ISTD). All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Explaining Ethnic Inequality in the Juvenile Justice System

An Analysis of the Outcomes of Dutch Prosecutorial Decision Making1

Don Weenink*

* Department of Social Sciences, Rural Sociology Group, PO BOX 8130, 6700 EW Wageningen, The Netherlands; don.weenink{at}wur.nl.


  Abstract

Most studies of the treatment of minorities in criminal justice systems show that ethnic minorities are punished more harshly. This paper aims to explain ethnic inequality in prosecutorial decision making in the Dutch juvenile justice system. Based on statistical analyses of 409 case files, it emerged that ethnic minorities are more often summoned to juvenile court. The prevailing source of the ethnic unequal treatment lies in the reporting of troublesome encounters between judicial officials and suspects from ethnic minority descent. A qualitative analysis of 97 descriptions of such troublesome encounters showed that native Dutch suspects were more often regarded as defiant, while ethnic minorities were more often perceived as equivocating. Future research might focus on the ways in which judicial officials interpret the observed and reported behaviour of suspects, and the extent to which these stem from broader cultural stereotypes, ideologies and anxieties regarding ethnic minorities.

1 This article reports on a study that was part of the research programme ‘Ethnicity and Juvenile Justice’, funded by the Netherlands’ Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). The programme was developed, initiated and conducted by Mieke Komen, senior researcher at the Willem Pompe Institute for Criminal Law and Criminology. The author wishes to thank Frank Bovenkerk, professor of Criminology at the same institute, for his useful comments on a draft version of this paper.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.