Submitted to the Faculty of Arts in fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Mater of Arts in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Zululand, South Africa, 1993. / This investigation examined certain problems and dilemmas in the juvenile court. Three problem areas were included: The accusatorial - inquisitorial view as the main approach in the juvenile justice system. The rehabilitative - retributive approach and its application to juvenile offenders. (Magistrates' sentencing objectives and their application to juvenile offenders.) The possibility of the application of the pre-trial judicial investigation in the juvenile court. In addition, a number of items were simultaneously included in the investigation and, where applicable, are included in this report The research questionnaires were delivered by hand to a number of magistrates in the Eastern Cape, Orange Free State and Transvaal. After a few weeks the questionnaires were collected and unstructured interviews were conducted with some of the magistrates. A total of 39 questionnaires were collected and use was made of the descriptive statistical technique to summarize and condense the data to measurable units. Because of the explorative-descriptive nature of the investigation the results can only be generalized to Eastern Cape, Orange Free State and Transvaal The following are the more significant findings: 1. Adjudication of Juvenile Offenders • 10,3% of magistrates accepted the accusatorial, 25,6% the inquisitorial, 33,3% the accusatorial - inquisitorial, and 30,8% the inquisitorial - accusatorial approaches. • 82,1% of magistrates agreed that in no country would one find a system which is purely accusatorial or inquisitorial. • a substantial record of previous convictions is to 74,4% of magistrates on aggravating circumstances. • The majority 89,7% of magistrates would feel justified in making allowance for mitigating circumstances if they had a particular sentencing objective in mind. • 89,7% of magistrates would regard mitigating circumstances as a juvenile's right to have sentence reduced. 2. Sentencing of Juvenile Offenders • 74,3% of magistrates rated reformation as a sentencing objective for juvenile offenders, as Very important'. • 743% of magistrates rated the need to expose the juvenile offender to treatment • 64,1% of magistrates rated the sentencing principle of protecting society from juvenile crime and helping the juvenile offender's development as complementary. • The most important factor which influences magistrates in reaching a sentence of community service is where the offender will benefit, 84,6%. • 61,5% of magistrates kept punishment in mind for assault on police. The results demonstrate that the rehabilitative - treatment objective and the retributive - punishment objective are the main objectives of sentencing in the juvenile court. 3. Pre-trial judicial investigation in juvenile courts • Approximately 74,4% of magistrates were in favour of pre-trial judicial investigation. • 71,8% of magistrates agreed that probation officers, and 71,8% agreed that criminologists can be helpful in the juvenile court. • Finally, one can accept that the majority of magistrates in this investigation support the implementation of a pre-trial judicial investigation in the juvenile justice system.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Hong Kong, 2007. / Title proper from title frame. Also available in printed format.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Washington State University, December 2007. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 206-225).

Thesis (LL. M.)--Judge Advocate General's School, 1954. / "30 April 1954." Typescript. Includes bibliographical references. Also issued in microfiche.

Thesis (LL. M.)--Judge Advocate General's School, United States Army, 1975. / "April 1975." Typescript. Includes bibliographical references. Also issued in microfiche.

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Central Florida, 2008. / Adviser: Peter Larson. Includes bibliographical references (p. 85-89).

Thesis (M. Div.)--Grace Theological Seminary, 1986. / Abstract. Bibliography: leaves 49-51.

This dissertation is an empirical study of the actors and organizations working in criminal and drug courts. Specifically, the dissertation examines the structure (as defined by the interactions and relationships of players) of a criminal court and a drug court operating under a state trial court system in the United States. Recent reforms to trial courts indicate that the organizational structure of a typical trial court has changed in many states. Separately, specialty courts which help coordinate treatment for offenders like drug users and mental patients in many jurisdictions have changed the structure, process, and the nature of trial courts.The study is an inductive study using a case method research strategy to build new theory from past findings of organizational studies of criminal courts and from the little we know about drug courts as organizations. The method of inquiry in the study is a triangular research strategy that incorporates both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis. The qualitative data collection methods include primarily participant observations of drug team meetings and court proceedings, and semi-structured interviews with actors representing organizations participating in both criminal and drug courtrooms. The study uses network analysis as the primary method for analyzing quantitative data. The research site is the Arizona Superior Court in Pima County, located in Tucson, Arizona.I found that the most important central actors across all phases of the criminal court case disposition process are judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, and that measuring core workgroup actors across all phases give a more accurate picture of the criminal court case disposition process. I also found that defense attorneys may be less familiar with other court actors than prosecutors because they may enter the criminal justice system from many different sponsoring organizations. As for the drug court case disposition process, the study shows that the most central player is not always the judge. In addition, the study reveals that drug courts, as court reforms, have little overall connection to overall criminal court organization. Important policy implications and theory inferences, as well as recommendations for future court studies, are discussed.

Thesis (LL. M.)--Judge Advocate General's School, U.S. Army, 1961. / "April 1961." Typescript. Includes bibliographical references. Also issued in microfiche.

Thesis (LL. M.)--Judge Advocate General's School, United States Army, 1974. / "April 1974." Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves [157]-161). Also issued in microfiche.