RESUMO
Prior research has yet to address how criminal legal system actors take parenthood into account when imposing and enforcing LFOs. Drawing on evidence from 205 semi-structured interviews conducted across four states, this study explores the relationship between monetary punishment and parenthood from the perspectives of court and community corrections professionals. Engaging Kathleen Daly's framework of familial paternalism (1987a, 1987b, 1989a, 1989b), we find that system actors obtain and interpret information about defendant circumstances to (1) consider family complexity, (2) construct deservingness and (3) curb spill-over punishment. Ultimately, we find that system actors consider parental status in relation to LFOs and defendants' ability to pay, though their decisions also hinge on gender and the nature of parental involvement.
RESUMO
Previous research has established the deleterious long-term effects of juvenile legal system involvement such as increased risk of criminal legal system involvement as adults. This paper examines retrospective accounts of how that process occurs by exploring the following research question: how does one's involvement in the juvenile legal system, which includes monetary sanctions, shape peoples' views of law and legal institutions and with what consequences? Based on 19 interviews with adults who have legal debt from both juvenile and criminal legal systems, the paper focuses on four aspects of the long-reaching effects of juvenile legal involvement and juvenile monetary sanctions: legal socialization, adultification, legal cynicism, and future aspirations. In all these aspects, we show the organizational constraints that shape individuals' perspectives about the law and the impact of monetary sanctions on their lives. In doing so, the paper shows how monetary sanctions associated with juvenile cases add to the cumulative disadvantage of legal system involvement.
