institutional decision by taking out a delinquency complaint, the complainant runs an inherent risk that
it will be turned down. This in turn threatens the complainant's authority ... by "going along" with the proposed course of action, the court both supports the authority of the agent who initiated it, and validates the judgements and norms underlying and justifying the proposal.
6.4 Disposition
In the disposition of female delinquency the magistrates adhere to the social welfare principle of individualized
treatment, and it is current policy that a welfare report is requested in all cases referred to the court to provide
information additional to that contained in the police report. Although emphasizing their personal responsibility in
disposition decisions, the magistrates note how they tend usually to adopt the welfare workers' recommendations as the most appropriate and effective court orders.
Thus, in their handling of female delinquency cases the magistrates face the demands of the policewomen and the
welfare workers in their recommendations to the court, and also indirectly the demands of parents, as these are
incorporated in those recommendations (e.g., conditions of probation). The magistrates note that, although there are many instances when police and welfare workers present similar recommendations to the court, the police tend to take a
"harder view", and are likely, for example, to see the necessity for institutionalization in cases where the welfare worker
recommends "something less", such as probation. In their preference for the welfare recommendation the magistrates therefore do not consider the role of the court as a back-up institution for police disposition demands. At the same time,
the magistrates, in emphasizing their autonomy in disposition decisions, note a few instances when they are not prepared to accept the welfare workers' recommendations, and hence their demands for disposition decisions. In particular, some
magistrates comment how their own views on institutionalization can conflict with those of the welfare workers, despite a
consensus in general ideological orientation:
They [welfare] too, only use institutionalization as a recommendation of a "last resort". But there are times when their last resort and my last resort are different. And I say, let's give this further thought and see if we can't find a way to leave this person in the community if we possibly can.
However, in usually accepting the welfare workers'
recommendation as the most appropriate and effective treatment measure for cases of female delinquency, it is then the welfare workers' response to the deviance of the girl which becomes a major determinant in court disposition decisions. The
magistrates' ideology of female delinquency and its control is significant, not so much in their actual decision-making, as in the justifications given for such decisions between
treatment alternatives.
With respect to female criminal delinquency, in particular shoplifting, the magistrates see the court decision between the alternatives of admonish and discharge and probation as one which is made on the basis of two factors; the moral character of the girl, and an evaluation of her family background. A
court order for admonish and discharge is considered appropriate when the girl is considered of "good" character, for example, by her display of remorse and penitence, or when the act is considered to be a "spur of the moment" or "spontaneous" one, and thus completely "out of character". An evaluation of a
6.18
a justification for leniency. Some form of welfare
intervention in the form of official or unofficial probation is thought to be necessary in particular when the "home life appears lacking", or the "family is not well integrated".
In dealing with female non-criminal delinquency the
magistrates evaluate probation as the most desirable treatment alternative if the situation is such that there is any
indication that the girl can be rehabilitated within the community. Committal to a state corrective institution is viewed as the least desirable alternative, for it affords little chance of reforming the girl. However, when some form of custodial measure is considered necessary, then the
magistrates mitigate their anti-institutionalization viewpoint if such custody can be arranged within a non-state institution^" which they conceive as a viable treatment alternative. Such a
placement can be justified as being in the interests of the girl in accord with a general social welfare ideology.
Furthermore, the magistrates note that such a placement can be made without giving the girl a record of institutional
commitment, since alternate court orders exist (e.g., committal to the care of an approved person), whereby the girl can be placed in the custody of the person responsible for the establishment.
The selection of delinquent girls for these treatment measures is justified by the magistrates on three principal
1. This can only be done if the girl is acceptable to the authorities of the institution. A prior record of
institutionalization is, for example, a factor v/hich can define the girl as unacceptable.
grounds. Firstly, the magistrates believe that when the girl is a "persistent and wilful offender" then a court order for institutionalization becomes necessary. This justification is thus based on the legalistic criteria of prior record. It is defended as necessary since the girl has demonstrated by her recidivism that she needs a more restrictive environment than her present one, where it is apparent that parents and welfare support have been unsuccessful in rehabilitation. The
implication is that the girl herself is responsible for her actions in failing to conform to the standards which have been set for her.2
Secondly, the justification for institutionalization, even for a first "offense", is based on a negative assessment of parental sponsorship. When parents reject or appear to be completely disinterested, or are assessed as unable to control the girl, then the magistrates consider that the girl needs to be removed from her home environment for any form of
rehabilitation to be effective. Institutionalization becomes necessary when alternative custody is not available as, for example, with an interested and responsible relative.
Thirdly, institutionalization for a first offense where the girl is sexually promiscuous is also seen as necessary for the protection of the girl. One magistrate comments on the apparent discrepancy in the juvenile court system whereby the 2. This justification for institutionalization can also be
considered as within a social welfare ideology of determinism, since the sick role is one which is
6.20