Lawyers‟ perspectives on

Juvenile Justice in Cyprus MSc Child Forensic Studies: Psychology & Law

Student Number: 677330

Supervisor: Dr Lucy Akehurst

Year: 2013/2014

Depar tment o f Psychology

Univers i ty o f Portsmouth

King Henry I S tree t

Portsmouth

Hampshire

PO1 2DY

1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I need to give my sincere thanks to all of the people who

have participated in this research study. Without them, i t would have

been impossible to complete this piece of work.

Of course, I would like to thank the project supervisor , Dr Lucy

Akehurst (PhD, BSc Psychology), for her patience and invaluable

directions, as well as for all of her helpful and encouraging comments

throughout this research.

I cannot fail to reference the significant contributions offered by Mrs.

Maria Middleton (B.A., Greek Classical Studies and Philosophy; M.A.,

Ancient Greek Drama) and Mr Roberto Bortolotto (B.Sc., Psychology;

M.A., School Psychology). Maria graciously operated as a second coder

during the content analysis and provided useful judgments from the side

of linguistics . Roberto suggested all the necessary content and text

corrections for the publication of the final work.

Finally, I would like to extent my warmest thanks to my family and my

friends who supported me during this course , tolerated my absences and

awaited my returns, whenever I wholly dedicated myself to my world of

research.

2

PROJECT DECLARATION

I declare that the project described in this report is my own work, and

that this manuscript is an original manuscript. All data reported are

original and were collected as specified in the study methodology.

Where exceptions exist to this declaration, these have been

appropriately acknowledged in the report.

I declare that this work was approved by the Department of Psychology

Ethics Committee prior to the conduct of the study.

I declare that the total word count is: 10.618 words.

Student Number: 677330

Date: 01/09/2014

3

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .....................................................................................................1

PROJECT DECLARATION ....................................................................................................2

CONTENTS .........................................................................................................................3

ABSTRACT .........................................................................................................................4

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................5-15

METHOD

i. Design ...........................................................................................................16

ii. Participants ..............................................................................................16-17

iii. Materials .......................................................................................................17

iv. Procedure ......................................................................................................17

v. Ethical Issues ...........................................................................................17-18

vi. Analysis ...................................................................................................18-24

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION........................................................................................24-38

i. Juvenile delinquency in Cyprus ..............................................................24-32

ii. The judicial treatment of the juvenile offenders .....................................32-38

CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................38-40

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................41-49

APPENDICES .........................................................................................................50-61

i. Appendix A: Recruitment email ....................................................................50

ii. Appendix B: Information for potential participants .................................51-52

iii. Appendix C: The questionnaire ................................................................53-58

iv. Appendix D: Reversed table .....................................................................59-61

4

ABSTRACT

The poli tico-social backstage in Cyprus is in unrest with reference to

the reformation of the juvenile justice system . Given that the European

Commission has issued a Proposal for the Directive on Procedural

Safeguards for Children suspected or accused in Criminal proceedings ,

researching the perspectives of the litigation lawyers in Cyprus about

juvenile delinquency and justice would serve to give these lawyers a

voice at both the domestic and European levels . This issue is amongst

the concerns of Psychology, which gives a scientific bas is to the legal

presumption that children are “vulnerable” because they are children .

These concerns also focus on whether the domestic and European

reformations are sharing the same mindset about juvenile offending and

whether the legal practitioners maintain a socio-moral standing that is

relevant to the content of the proposed reformations. This study was set

out to research the perceptions of Cypriot litigation lawyers about

juvenile delinquency and justice in Cyprus. A written interview was

conducted with 14 voluntary participants and their answers were

analysed by inductive content analysis. For the analysis , seven main

thematic units were used to cover both juvenile deli nquency and

juvenile justice. These themes concerned the level of juvenile

delinquency in Cyprus, its problematic dimensions and the

infrastructure for prevention . Furthermore, the thematic units covered

the issues of effectiveness of the current justice system when dealing

with juvenile offenders and the recommended changes , as well as the

necessity for separation of the juvenile justice system and judicial

intervention. The implications of this study are important in

understanding the distance between the perceptions of the legal

profession and the recorded crime, as well as their psychological

distance in relation to juvenile delinquency. Further, their perceptions

of juvenile justice were considered in order to ensure the readiness of

them to adopt the proposed reformations.

5

LAWYERS’ PERSPECTIVES

ON JUVENILE JUSTICE IN CYPRUS

INTRODUCTION

On 12/09/2013, the Commissioner for the Protection of Child Rights , in

Cyprus, handed the Annual Report of her Office for 2012 to the

President of the Republic of Cyprus (Office of the Commissioner for

the Protection of Child Rights, 201 2; Press and Information Office,

September 12, 2013) and announced that the Commissioner‟s Office

was preparing a legislative framework for the introduction of a “child -

appropriate” juvenile justice system in Cyprus. The proposed

legislative framework would include alternatives to court for juvenile

offenders and the introduction of some prevent ative programmes. By

June 2014, when the Commissioner submitted the next Commissioner‟s

Office Annual Report for 2013 to the President of the Republic of

Cyprus (Office of the Commissioner for the Protection of Child Rights,

2013; Press and Information Office, June 5, 2014 ), nothing had

changed.

What exactly should be included in the proposed reformation of the

juvenile justice system seems to be unclearly delineated. It l ies at the

heart of the democratic structure of each society to ensure that a

proposed legislative reformation will not drift far away from public and

professional opinions (Wood, 2009). It was thought that knowing what

people, especially experts in the field, believe about juvenile justice

would highlight a road for minimising the discrepancy between the

proposed legislative framework and legal practice (Roberts & Hough,

2005; Hough & Roberts, 2004). Therefore, the current research aimed

to explore the views of legal professionals working in Cyprus in the

litigation field with regard to the treatment of juvenile offenders by the

current justice system, as well as to the necessity and the content of a

reformation.

6

The issue behind this project was also highlighted during the internal

discussions of the European Criminal Bar Association (ECBA), which

took place on the 16t h

of March 2013 in London. Here, the project for

Measure E - Special Safeguards for Suspects or Accused Persons who

are Vulnerable (thereinafter “the Measure E”) was discussed. Measure

E was designed as part of the Roadmap for strengthening the procedural

rights of suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings endorsed

by the Resolution of the Council of the European Union dated

30/11/2009 (The Council of Europe, 2009) . ECBA consists of legal

practitioners from many European countries, who are (in their majority)

experienced criminal defence lawyers. During these discussions for

Measure E, it was observed that children were easily categori sed as

“vulnerable” by the lawyers only because they were children

(Middleton, 2013). With the same assumption that children are

“vulnerable” , the European Parliament and the Council issued, on

27/11/2013, a Proposal for a Directive on procedural safeguards for

children suspected or accused in criminal proceedings (thereinafter “the

Proposal”) (Council of the European Union, 2014) .

Safeguarding the procedural rights of children under the Measure E or

the Proposal seemed to be a part of a movement to set the minimum

standards of a pan-European juvenile justice system, even though each

member state may respond to the matter of juvenile delinquency

differently (Goldson & Muncie, 2012). In the context of this discussion,

it was thought that feedback was needed from each member state,

describing the levels of juvenile delinquency, the already established

ways of responding to the phenomenon of juvenile delinquency and the

social trends towards juvenile justice. In Cyprus, this feedback is weak,

since the social and legal modernisation of the juvenile justice system

remains a pending issue (Kapardis, 2013; Liatsos, 2009; Serghides,

2003). Therefore, the current research was also a timely intervention to

begin the process of feedback from legal professionals in Cyprus.

As obtaining feedback from legal practitioners in Cyprus became

essential for all the above reasons, one could reasonably ask why this

7

issue concerns the psychological sciences. Firstly, the proposed

reformations of the legislative frameworks of juvenile justice in Cyprus

and Europe provide an excellent opportunity to research whether the

archaic legal presumptions about juvenile offenders could be put under

the light of the findings of psychological science. Since ancient times,

children were considered less “mature” and less “capable” in moral

decision-making than adults concerning the criminal acts that they

commit (Crofts, 2003). Their presumed incapability to understand the

criminality of their acts led to the setting of the minimum age lines of

criminal responsibili ty, and the common law principle of doli incapax

(incapable of criminal intention or malice ) (Anand, 1998). The

principle of doli incapax was introduced informally to the law in the

1300s–1600s (Dalton, 1619; Blackstone, 1769) without any

scientifically-based knowledge of the developmental characteristics of

the ages selected to set the line for criminal responsibili ty ( 7 to 10

years old). Anand (1998) expressed the view that this principle might

be derived from the infantia rule of the Ancient Romans, which had

also prohibited the prosecution of children under the age of 7 (Anand,

1998; Reid, 2011), but it could also be a circumstantial selection, due

to the socially observed infrequency of the commission of crimes below

that age.

In the contemporary era of increased procedural formality and evolution

of procedural rights of the suspects and accused , the more commonly

used legal presumption is that children who are caught up in the legal

system are “vulnerable”. They are “vulnerable” because of their

“immature” age, and thus they should be treated differently

(procedurally) from adults (Rothman, 1980; Quinn, 2012). It is ,

therefore, presumed that children have underdeveloped intellectual,

emotional and social capacities, which affect their competence to

understand and follow procedures and exercise their rights during

arrest, custody, interrogation, trial or detention (Council of the

European Union, 2014) . Furthermore, it is presumed that children are

still developing and are more likely to change and correct the ir

behaviour through the therapeutic approach, which should be prioriti sed

8

instead of punishment (Scott & Grisso, 1998; Jensen & Rojek, 1998;

Krisberg & Austin, 1993) . Therefore, the juvenile court should play the

role of parens patriai (Ferdinand, 1991; Feld, 1993) , and the juvenile

justice system should focus on their long-term welfare.

In Psychology, the exact link between age and criminali ty remains

robust (Blonigen, 2010; Delmage, 2013) concerning the principle of

doli incapax , particularly for the younger ages . However, Piaget (1932;

1950) confirmed that increasing age is positively correlated with more

mature moral judgments . The changes are attributed to the increase of

peers‟ cooperation, the decrease of adults‟ constraints and the

improvement of the intellectual abilit ies of children (Piaget, 1932;

1950). Children at around the ages of 10-11 regard rules fixed and

absolute as given by adults; they think about moral dilemmas one -way,

based on consequences. Therefore, a child at the age of 10 might

consider that A, who broke 1 cup to steal cookies , made less damage

and is in a better situation than B, who broke 15 cups trying to do

something good. An older child would be more relativistic and he/she

could make a moral judgment based on the intentions or motives of A

and B (Piaget, 1932). Kohlberg (1958; 1963; 1984) went beyond

Piaget‟s formulations and suggested six stages of moral development

until adolescence, focusing on the reasoning behind judgment

(Kohlberg's, 1958; 1963; 1984). The subsequent research also supported

the existence of an association between the developmentally-delayed

moral judgments and juvenile delinquency (Stams, Brugman, Dekovic,

Rosmalen, Laan & Gibbs, 2006). The term of psychosocial maturity was

determined by the individual‟s level of adaptive functioning and socio -

emotional competence (Galambos & Costigan, 2003; Galambos,

MacDonald, Naphtali, Cohen & de Frias, 2005). Responsibility,

temperance and perspective were also included in the notion of

psychosocial maturity (Cauffman & Steinberg, 2000) .

It is also known, in Psychology, that adolescents at the age of around

16 may have cognitive abilities comparable with those of adults, but

they cannot make “mature” judgments, particularly under stressed

9

conditions (such an interrogation), where they become more risk -taking

(Johnson, Dariotis & Wang, 2012). Their immaturity is a result of their

perceptions about risks (which impose on them feelings of

invulnerability and immortality), their appreciation about the long -term

consequences of the ir actions and their capacity for self -management

and autonomy. They usually a re not able to control the timing for their

gratification or to manipulate their reactions and focus on a strategic

task; they act more impulsively (Furby & Beyth-Marom, 1992; Scott,

Reppucci & Woolard, 1995; Morse, 1997; Scott & Grisso, 1998;

Steinberg & Scott , 2003).

However, “vulnerability” , as psychological term, is general . There are

children who are more “vulnerable” than other s, since children mature

at different rates (Foster, Flanagan, Osgood & Ruth, 2005). The ways in

which psychology interacts with the law for the definition of

“vulnerability” of children is a very new issue (Schauer & Schauer,

2012; Sullivan, 2012); as are the limits between children‟s autonomy

and vulnerability (Henning, 2012). Importantly, i t is scientifically

known that a significant percentage of justice -involved children have

been exposed to one or more potential traumatic psychological

experiences, according to the criteria for PTSD in the DSM-IV-TR (4th

ed., text rev.; DSM–IV–TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000 ) .

Their delinquency may be an expressed aspect of their victimi sation

(Costello, Erkanli, Fairbank & Angold, 2002; Abram, Teplin, Charles,

Longworth, McClelland & Dulcan, 2004; Ford, Grasso, Hawke &

Chapman, 2013) . A smaller percentage of them may have serious mental

health problems (Cocozza & Skowyra, 2000; Shufelt & Cocozza, 2006),

or behavioral and other needs (Grisso & Barnum, 2001; Grigorenko,

2012). A correlation has also been found between mental illnesses and

involvement in the correctional system (Cauffman, 2004). Even though

it is not safe to state that the issue of juvenile justice, in practice,

concerns only the “vulnerable children” , i t could be said, at the very

least, that “vulnerability” is a condition highly individualised, even for

children.

10

The importance of psychology is to not make broad brush suggestions

for all children fitting particular age ranges , in order to enable legal

practitioners to avoid the predictable dangers (i.e. false confessions)

and to adapt the procedural rules to more juvenile-appropriate levels

(Feld, 2014). The participation of Psychology in a reformed juvenile

justice system is necessary, but not playing the role of the

knowledgeable servant in the back room; it could be a very serious

legal challenge to allow Psychology be a procedural safeguard itself .

For instance, the formal introduction of the use of criminogenic risks

and needs assessments in the juvenile justice procedures could assist

the legal decision-making process and activate targeted procedural

safeguards and treatment interventions case-by-case (Vincent, Perrault ,

Guy, & Gershenson, 2012) .

Keeping that psychology is important for juvenile justice firstly as an

additional procedural tool , it should be noted that there is also a second

aspect of psychological interest . The necessity of harmonising the

procedural details of criminal processing of juveniles in EU countries

imposes a challenge, because the way in which each country responds

to the phenomenon of juvenile delinquency, th rough justice or out -of-

court, may reflect the socio-moral stand from which each society views

children (Ajzenstadt & Khoury-Kassabri, 2013; Ainsworth, 1994).

Therefore, the socio-legal question becomes whether the proposed

reformation in Cyprus takes into account the parallel initiatives of the

Proposal and the psychological question ; whether both the proposed

reformations are sharing the same mentali ty or socio-moral stand.

Furthermore, i t must be asked whether their mentali ty can be justified

given the empirical findings of psychological science or whether i t still

carries the abstract qualit ies of the old legal presumptions (i.e. children

are vulnerable because they are children) . This project aimed to

investigate these issues by examining the reasoning that the legal

practitioners used to justify their answers .

It has been explained why the feedback from legal practi tioners is

needed and why the issue concerns Psychology. Starting from the

11

statement that the law may (and must) reflect the mentality and socio-

moral stand of people with relation to juvenile justice , it is important to

see how the current justice system deals with juvenile delinquents, and

what it reflects . Therefore, it is vital to note that (although the Proposal

does not intend to affect the minimum age of criminal responsibility of

each member state) the principle of doli incapax became indifferent in

Cyprus law during the last 6 years. According to Section 14 of the

Cyprus‟ Criminal Code (Cap. 154), any person under the age of 14 is

not criminally responsible for any action or omission. The abolition of

doli incapax was achieved by the Law 18(I)/2006, which has amended

Section 14. The previous version of this Section was totally different

and closer to English law. The old Section 14 had provided that any

person under the age of 10 is not responsible for any criminal action or

omission and for any person under the age of 12, there was a rebuttable

presumption of non-responsibility (conditional responsibility). Any

child between the ages 10 and 12 could be found criminally culpable, if

the prosecution proved that at the time of committing the criminal

action or omission , the child had had the ability to know his/her

wrongdoing. A presumption also existed in favour of boys under the age

of 12 and their inabil ity for any sexual intercourse.

The new section 14, by providing an absolute legal bar to any criminal

responsibility under the age of 14, precluded any complex

psychological discussion about the capabilities of children to

understand their wrongdoings or any debate about the relationship

between absolute immunity and conditional responsibility. However, in

the Juvenile Crime Statistics of Cyprus Police (2006; 2009; 2011a;

2011b; 2012; 2013), there are records for juvenile offenders at the ages

of 7-13. Observing this, one could suppose that these juvenile offenders

are not safely treated by the authorit ies at all stages, from the time of

being reported to the police for alleged crimes. The change that the Law

18(I)/2006 brought was not simply legal; the cultural and societal

approaches should automatically be placed at a different level, without

the need to ask about the personal views of people or professionals

concerning juvenile delinquency and justice. For instance, there were

12

police officers who expressed the view that the minimum age of

criminal responsibil ity should return to the age of 12 (Simerini, 11

November 2011).

Beyond the variabil ity that is observed in the professional opinions

concerning the substantive issue of the minimum age of criminal

responsibility, concerning the level of procedural safeguards, the

Cyprus law generally recognises the need to treat juvenile offenders

differently (Liatsos, 2009). Therefore, a level of minimum procedural

protection exists through the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus ,

the Criminal Procedure Law and scatter legal provisions found in other

legislative pieces (i .e. Children Law, Cap 352; Arrest and Detention

Law 163(Ι)/2005 ; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

(Amendment) Act of 2002; The Probation and other Ways of Treatment

of Offenders Law 46 (1)/1996; and others). Cyprus also ratified the

Convention on the Rights of the Child with the Law 243/90. There is

also the Juvenile Offenders Law (Cap. 157), which was issued in 1946,

during the British colony (lastly modified in 1972) and provided some

special procedural tools for children and young persons. However, apart

from this minimum procedural protection, many procedural aspects are

considered as “phantom law” and in no way could the existing

legislative framework be considered as sufficient for the procedural

protection of juvenile offenders.

In the above instance , the old Juvenile Offenders Law refer s to the

establishment and operation of “reform schools” . However, Lambousa

School (Reformatory) was the only “reform school” ever established in

Cyprus (in 1943) and it operated until 1986 (Municipali ty of Lapithos,

August 23, 2014; Liatsos, 2009). The old law refers to “Juvenile

Courts” in a strange way and referred to any member of a District Court

sitting (in a different building or room or on different days or at

different times) to hear charges against children or young persons ,

other than charges against a child or young person jointly with an adult .

By avoiding further expansion to any legal details or determinations , it

should be generally stressed that , in Cyprus, when a child or a young

13

person (14-18) is involved in the judicial system, as a suspect or

accused, he or she is judged by an adult criminal judge and he or she is

treated either with wide judicial discretion based on Cap.157 or like an

adult. The young age (even above the age of 20) is generally considered

by the Courts as a mitigating factor in sentencing hearings. However,

the operation of the adult criminal judge as a juvenile judge does not

mean that there is either a juvenile court or a juvenile justice system.

Furthermore, the unknown judicial sensitivity, the wide judicial

discretion of the common judge and the uncontrolled application of

police regulations cannot be compared to a system of standard

procedural protection which would cover all the stages of pre-trial , t rial

and meta-trial procedures (Ross, 1995).

Keeping that there is a variety of professional opinions concern ing the

minimum age of criminal responsibility and that there is not a separate

juvenile justice system in Cyprus, the following brief case study

highlights the psychological impact of crime committed by young

offenders upon a young victim and the ensuing reaction from both legal

professionals and the general public. On 25t h

of September 2013, in the

city of Limassol , in Cyprus, it was publicised that a 13-year-old girl

had been repeatedly sexually and emotionally abused for a period of

three months by four students, known to her. The suspects, who were

between the ages of 14 and 17 years old, video-recorded their sexual

crimes with their mobile phones and they were threatening the victim

that they would publish the video on the internet if she told anyone

what was going on . The victim finally talked to her teacher, who

accompanied her to the Police to report the crime s. In a procedure

behind closed courtroom doors, the District Court of Limassol issued a

two-day remand order against th ree of the boys (aged 14 – 17), to

facili tate police investigations. The “defence” of the boys was that the

girl consented to the sexual intercourse. For the same case, a 13-year-

old boy was also arrested, interrogated by the police and then released

without charge (Philenews, September 25, 2013).

14

The issue of appropriateness in responding to youth delinquency was

raised in this high profile case . Some people commented that an

“exemplary punishment” should be provided for the young offenders

and their parents; other people focused on the social l iabilit ies and on

the negative effect of the publicity on the rights of the a ccused persons.

Therefore, a variabil ity of the att itudes towards culpability and justice

for young offenders is observed through the comments regarding this

case (Philenews, September 26, 2013a).

The case of the 13-year-old girl gave a stronger tone to the political

colour of the issue of juvenile justice in Cyprus . The Minister of

Justice on 26t h

of September 2013, based on the facts of this case,

characterised the legal system as “anachronistic” concerning the

treatment of young offenders and he highlighted, again, the problems

inherent in the lack of a juvenile justice system in Cyprus (Philenews,

September 26, 2013b). The Minister of Justice expressed the thought

that this gap may be linked to the phenomenon of recidivism ,

emphasising the urgent need to reconsider the appropriateness of the

existing social and judicial responses to youth delinquency. On 12t h

of

May 2014, the Ministry of Justice explained his thesis that children

need procedural safeguards and announced that a new legislation

framework is in the works; expected to be submitted to Parliament

during the next year (Sigmalive, May 12, 2014) .

Focusing on the above expressed media -affected variability, p rior

literature from different countries also indicates that th e att itudes of

people may be conflicted and confused concern ing youth culpability

and appropriate intervention (Ghetti & Redlich, 2001; Varma, 2006;

Meyer & Reppucci, 2007) . Previous research on a different kind of

population also showed that the perceptions of the public about youth

crime might be affected by media coverage and political preoccupation s

(Roberts & Hough, 2005; Hough & Roberts, 2004). They could also be

affected by the way in which the law and justice system themselves

selected to approach the phenomenon of juvenile offending (Waiton,

2001; Ennals, 2003; Bateman, 2006; Mooney & Young, 2006). Even

15

though the research findings about the perceptions of barristers and

other legal practit ioners on juvenile offending and crime are limited

(Zimring, 2009), it was interesting to see whether the opinion of legal

practitioners was characterised by a measure of stability and could

differ from the trends of the broader public opinion.

To summarise, there is a polit ico-legal unrest in Cyprus for the

reformation of the juvenile justice system. At the same time, new

European law is expected with reference to the procedural safeguards

for children who are suspected or accused. Investigating the

perspectives of Cypriot legal practitioners about juvenile delinquency

and justice in Cyprus could fairly direct the domestic reformations and

give feedback to Europe. The issue concerns Psychology from two

different perspectives. Firstly, as a scientific base to the old legal

presumptions and theories of “vulnerability” and a prospective

procedural safeguard itself. Secondly, as a scientific tool for

researching and interpret ing the mentality and socio-moral stand of

people with reference to the proposed reformations and establishing

their readiness to accept them.

Following these observations, it became interesting to initiate research

in Cyprus and to investigate whether Cypriot litigation lawyers, who

supposedly are at the “heart” of the justice system, support the

existence of a separate juvenile justice system or not and why.

Furthermore, i t is critical to observe whether they are punitive towards

young delinquents or whether they believe in the ideals of the

rehabilitation of juvenile offenders away from court . This was a

qualitative, cross -sectional study to explore Cypriot lawyers‟

perspectives on juvenile justice in Cyprus. The main aim was to

investigate what a sample of Cypriot lawyers with relat ed experience in

litigation and court proceedings view as appropriate ways of responding

to juvenile delinquency. Further, what they think about the possibility

of establishing a separate juvenile just ice system and how they think a

“child-appropriate” juvenile justice system should look like.

16

Although this study was exploratory in nature it was expected that even

the lawyers‟ views would vary among punitive and rehabili tative

measures. Further, i t was expected that few of them would be able to

give specific details about the context of a suggested juvenile justice

system and that their responses would reflect their views towards the

larger justice system.

METHOD

Design

The lawyers‟ perspectives on juvenile justice were researched through a

web-based questionnaire. The questionnaire is not among the most

prominent methods in quali tat ive research, but it was preferred for the

prescriptions of the current study because (a) it was more cost -effective

than interviews (b) the responses were needed in a limited time -period

(c) litigation lawyers are usually busy people who are unlikely to be

able to spare time for an interview during working hours. To

compensate for using a questionnaire format, al l ques tions were open

and there were no forced choices for responses. Participants gave free

text responses to each question.

Part icipants

The survey l ink was sent to lawyers who were contacted via their

professional e-mails , as provided in the directory of the Cyprus Bar

Association (where the practicing lawyers are obligatorily registered)

(See Appendix A for the recruitment email ). The participation criteria

(practice in the litigation field and at least 3 years experience) filtered

the sample, and ensured that the sample‟s experience with the court

proceedings permit ted them to give well -informed responses based on

real world experience in the legal system in Cyprus.

A total of 14 participants took part in the study. Of these, nine were

female, four were male and one did not indicate gender. A total of five

17

participants were within the age range <29 years. The majority (seven)

of the participants were within the age range of 30-39 years, while two

of the participants were within the age range of 40-49 years.

Materials

An information sheet was prepared for potential participants to give an

idea of what would be expected from the researcher (see Appendix B).

A questionnaire was used for collecting data from participants , which

comprised open-ended questions in the form of a written interview. In

the second section of the questionnaire, the participants were asked to

provide limited demographic information which would support the

analysis (see Appendix C).

Procedure

The informed consent form, questionnaire and debriefing form were

translated into Greek and uploaded to https://students.sgizmo.com. The

link to the web-based questionnaire was sent via email to the members

of Cyprus Bar Association, with a kind request to answer the question s

only if they were legal practitioners in l itigation and court proceedings

for at least a period of 3 years. The questionna ire was available for one

month and was accompanied by an extensive

“Information for participants” document. After this time period , the

questionnaire was closed and the open -ended responses of the

participants were analysed.

Ethical issues

Ethical approval was obtained from the Department of Psychology,

University of Portsmouth Ethics Committee . The study was conducted

in accordance with the approved protocol, the British Psychological

Society‟s Code of Ethics and Conduct (BPS, 2009), Code of Human

Research Ethics (BPS, 2011) and the Ethics Guidelines for Internet -

mediated Research (BPS, 2013). The anonymity of the participants,

18

confidentiality of the data and voluntary nature of the participations

were all confirmed. The consent of the participants w as sought after

explaining to them the purpose of the study, the procedure and their

rights. The participants were also informed about their option to contact

the researchers for further clarifications before participating. Due to the

anonymity of the submissions, they were not able to withdraw their

participations after the submission of their questionnaires. They could

also save their answers without submitting their questionnaires and

continue with their part icipation later. There was a debriefing no te

where the participants were given useful information about the research

topic.

Analysis

The responses of the participants were analysed via inductive

qualitative content analysis (Mayring, 2000; Hsieh and Shannon, 2005;

Kohlbacher, 2006; Zhang & Wildemuth, 2009; Middleton, 2011).

Preparation: The transcripts of the 14 participants were extracted from

the web-base and saved in a secured folder named “Responses” as

separate PDF fi les. The PDF files were named with the numbers from 1

to 14. These numbers were considered to be the IDs of the participants.

The IDs of the participants were reported in any later text with colours

in accordance with the gender of the participants ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,

9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14). Therefore, the IDs of the female participants

were reported with red colour, the IDs of male participants were

reported with blue colour, and the ID of a participant with unknown

gender was reported with green colour. Colouring of the I Ds was very

useful during the analysis in orde r to easily check whether there were

tendencies related to the gender of part icipants .

The seven questions on the questionnaire became seven thematic units

(upper-level categories) which were labelled and reported with their

labels.

19

(i) LEV = Level of Juvenile Delinquency;

(ii) PRO = Problematic Dimensions of Juvenile Delinquency;

(iii) INF = Infrastructure for prevention;

(iv) CUR = Current Judicial System – Sufficiency;

(v) RC = Recommended Changes;

(vi) JUV = Juvenile Justice System – Separation;

(vii) JUD = Judicial Intervention – Necessity.

Then, the analysis process began, compris ing four phases.

Phase 1 – Extraction and grouping: The responses of the participants

were read all together from their original transcripts (raw data)

repeatedly in order to obtain the overall sense. The upper-level

categories, which were the research objectives, were noted in a sheet

named “RESPONSES - 1S T

TAXONOMY” . Then, words and phrases from the

responses of the participants which answered each question were

extracted from their transcripts and listed in headings into RESPONSES -

1S T

TAXONOMY under each upper-level category . The rest of the text

responses deemed not relevant to the research objectives or that could

not be assigned to any category were used for interpretative purposes.

For example, in the upper-level category with the label LEV (see

above) and the question “What is your opinion of the levels of juvenile

delinquency in Cyprus today?”, the participants wrote the words “high”

(“ψηλό”) or “ increased” (“αυξημένο”). These responses were listed in

RESPONSES - 1S T

TAXONOMY under LEV. The IDs of the participants

were placed next of their responses, so as to create a quick link to their

original transcripts . When more participants used exactly the same

word or phrase, this word or phrase was written down once and their

IDs were placed next to it .

In Figure 1, there is an excerpt of the RESPONSES - 1S T

TAXONOMY

sheet.

20

Figure 1: Excerpt of RESPONSES - 1S T

TAXONOMY sheet

After the extraction and listing of the responses in headings under each

upper-level category into RESPONSES - 1S T

TAXONOMY , the headings (as

showed in the Figure 1) were read in comparison with each other and

were grouped. The comparison was a procedure which facilitated the

combination and grouping of similar (in their meaning) headings into

specific categories and sub-categories. Using LEV as an example, it

was discussed with the second coder and agreed that the participants

who said that LEV is “high” or “very high” or “particularly high” or

“increased” or “ increased and extended” all said that LEV is high or

that the theme “high” operated as a commonality in the meaning of all

these responses. Therefore, a lower-level category was formed with the

theme “high” and other lower-level categories for the theme “normal”

or “ low” . While the draft categories and sub-categories were noted on

RESPONSES - 1S T

TAXONOMY , the formation of the categories took place

during the next phases.

Phase 2 – Creation of categories : During the second phase, we had the

raw data from the transcripts and the RESPONSES - 1S T

TAXONOMY sheet .

We started making some inductive thoughts and wrote them down on a

different sheet named “EXPLANATORY STATEMENT” (see Figure 2 for an

excerpt) . In the extended EXPLANATORY STATEMENT, the full quotes of

the participants were extracted, with some notes and comparisons, and

they were discussed in detail with the second coder .

21

Figure 2: Excerpt of EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

The lower-lever (content) categories and sub-categories derived directly

from the responses of the participants. This EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

was a completed base for the procedure of categori sation and operated

as a summary form of the responses.

Phase 3 – Revision and refinement of category system : After the first

construction of the EXPLANATORY STATEMENT , we returned to the

original transcripts and checked the raw data again to confirm that all

of the quotes of the participants were extracted correctly. From the

repeated reading of the EXPLANATORY STATEMENT , a table of all lower-

level categories was drafted and named, “TABLE OF CATEGORIES” (see

Figure 3 for an excerpt). These categories were labelled in order to

facili tate the discussion. In this instance, the following lower-level

categories and sub-categories were formed for LEV: LEV-High (label:

LEV-H); LEV-High and Increase (label: LEV-H-I); LEV-High-Increase

and Extended (label: LEV-H-I+E); LEV-Normal (label: LEV-N); LEV-

Low (label: LEV-L); and LEV-unknown/not answered (label: LEV-U).

The labels of the lower-level categories and sub-categories were used

as codes and sub-codes, which were placed back into the text of the

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT (as showed in Figure 2) .

22

Figure 3: Excerpt of the Table of Categories

After repeated reading and discussion of the EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

and TABLE OF CATEGORIES, some of the categories were combined or

linked. We became familiari sed with the system of categories so that

the labels/codes were naturally used in the discussion between the

coders.

Phase 4 – Reversed Table and creating a reporting system : After

finalising the EXPLANATORY STATEMENT and TABLE OF CATEGORIES

and checking that our categories system worked, we made a reporting

system in the following way: As the codes and sub-codes were already

placed back on the EXPLANATORY STATEMENT, we based our work on

these codes and put the IDs of the participants on the TABLE OF

CATEGORIES. Using as an example what we see in the excerpt of the

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT in Figure 2 (above), we took the ID of

Participant 2 (2) and we placed it on the TABLE OF CATEGORIES under

the category LEV-H and the sub-category LEV-H-I (as showed in

Figure 3). This procedure was called “reversed” (Middleton, 2011) , as

we did not only post the codes on the EXPLANATORY STATEMENT (or on

the transcripts), but we also posted the transcripts ( through their IDs)

on the TABLE OF CATEGORIES . The “REVERSED TABLE” , which actually

is the TABLE OF CATEGORIES with the IDs of the participants on it , is

provided in Appendix D.

23

The REVERSED TABLE facilitated the verification of the categories and

coding system, but it also became the mirror of the analysis and the

skeleton of the study. It did not only have a confirmatory role, but also

enabled the systematic observation and reporting. The REVERSED TABLE

was also checked several times in direct comparison with the original

transcripts, to ensure that all of the IDs belonged to a category and that

there were no conflicts to the assignment of the IDs to the formed

categories. In the Figure 4, there is the LEV excerpt of the REVERSED

TABLE which is employed in order to explain how it works

Figure 4: Excerpt of the REVERSED TABLE

Looking at the REVERSED TABLE, we were able to see that 10 of the

participants answered that the level of juvenile delinquency is high.

Only 1 of them was male. Seven of them answered that the level of

juvenile delinquency has increased and 2 of them answered that i t has

not only increased, but also extended to more serious crimes. Then ,

using the IDs of the participants , we could go directly to the

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT or even to their transcripts to see the details

of their responses and all of their demographic data.

Furthermore, having the REVERSED TABLE, we could quickly observe all

of the assignments of each participant and know that , for example , P 2

is a LEV-H-I , PRO-POS-FTR-SOC, INF-NEG-SOC, CUR-NEG-U, RC-TR-JC/ -

META-JCP, JUV-POS-JUS-OF/-DES-U, JUD-POS-DET participant and know

what it means in order to report i t . These codes were also writ ten on the

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT for P 2 and could be referred to when

considering her transcript . The additional usefulness of the REVERSED

24

TABLE was that the researcher could report the results while avoiding

the texts. It also permitted more observations and considerations . For

instance, we could see that P 2 gave two –SOC answers (so we could

think that there might be a tendency to the social approach of the

phenomenon of juvenile delinquency). She also gave two –U answers.

Namely, she did not explain why the current justice system does not

deal effectively with juvenile offenders, even though she recommended

some changes to the current justice system concerning the

establishment of juvenile justice courts and juvenile correctional

places. Furthermore, she did not explain how a separate juveni le justice

system should be fashioned, even though she supported the necessity of

its existence for reasons related to juvenile offenders. The REVERSED

TABLE could help to immediately see which other participants gave

such CUR-NEG-U or JUV-POS-DES-U answers and to compare their theses

to these of the P 2.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Juvenile delinquency in Cyprus

The participants were asked what they believe about the level of

juvenile delinquency in Cyprus. It was an interesting finding that a

majority of the 10 participants had the perception that the level of

juvenile delinquency (LEV) is high (LEV -H), while only 2 participants

had the perception that LEV is normal or low. A majority of the LEV-H

participants (seven) believed that the level of juvenile delinquency is

not just high, but also that it had increased in relation to the past (LEV -

H-I). Furthermore, 2 participants answered that LEV has increased and

extended (LEV-H-I+E) to more serious crimes than in the past .

In this instance, P 7 said the following:

“The levels of juvenile delinquency are clearly increased in

the last two years and they have been extended to fields that

they did not concern in the past , like thefts and drugs ”

25

Many of the participants used adjectives or superlatives to characterise

the height of LEV by saying that LEV is “particularly high” (P 1) or

“very high” (P 9). They also did so in LEV-H-I answers by saying, for

example, that LEV has “dangerously increased” (P 2). The LEV-H-I+E

answers were given by two female part icipants from the age group 30-

39 years (P 7 and P 10) who had more than 10 years of experience in

litigation. Only two male participants answered that LEV is normal

(LEV-N) or low (LEV-L). Lovbakke and Moley (2007) also found that

women were more likely to view the levels of crime as greatly

increased over the last two years (Lovbakke & Moley, 2007) . Even

though 9 of the 10 LEV-H participants were females in the present

study and one of them (P 7) referred expressively to the period of the

last two years, the sample was small enough to confirm this

demographic finding.

However, according to the Cyprus Police‟s statistics, there has not been

any alarming increase in the levels of juvenile crime in recent years. It

seems that the total amount of the juvenile delinquency cases which

were reported, for serious crimes as well as for minor offences, in 2013

(222 cases) were fewer than in 2012 (266 cases) and 2011 (242 cases).

The cases for minor thefts (up to the amoun t of €1.000) decreased.

Burglaries for 2013, which are the most commonly reported offences in

Cyprus, were almost at the same level as in 2012, with a slight

decrease, but were increased compared to 2011. The drug cases did,

indeed, increase (Cyprus Police, 2013). Of course, the Cyprus Police‟s

statistics are based on reported crime, since there may be offences

which are never reported to the Police . It was also thought that the

participants might answer the question having in mind a specific nature

of crimes which, indeed, increased instead of all the crimes committed

by juvenile offenders. In this instance, i t could not be conclusively said

that the perceptions of the majority of participant lawyers that juvenile

delinquency in Cyprus is on the rise was “false” . However, overcoming

the generosity of the question and the answers given, the perception of

the majority of the participants that the level of juvenile delinquency is

26

high, increased or extended reflected a discrepancy in relation to the

existed statistics .

This discrepancy is viewed as multi-levelled, as it concerned both the

level of juvenile delinquency and, less sensibly, the nature and

seriousness of present juvenile crimes. Attempting to interpret this

discrepancy, it might be a serious indication that the perceptions of the

participant lawyers were sensationalised by peripheral factors, such as

the media coverage or the newspaper readership or even the attempts

for legal reformations themselves , as provided through the media

(O‟Connell, 1999; Estrada, 2001) . This indication was emphasised by

the response of P 4 who answered the next question about the

problematic dimensions of juvenile delinquency explicitly based on the

information obtained through the media:

“…frequent incidences that I hear /see on TV” (P 4)

The P 13 also argued that the juvenile delinquency is a problem in

Cyprus:

“…as more and more incidences of juvenile delinquency are

revealed” (P 13)

The answers of other participants (P 1, P 12) also indicated that the

views of lawyers about juvenile delinquency may be affected by the

picture that they are receiving about the timeliness of juvenile crime

(Hough & Roberts, 2004). The only available sources about juvenile

crime timeliness are the media and the police statistics. Therefore,

taking into account the observed discrepancy between perceptions and

statistics, the thought was that the existence of a strong media effect is

very possible. Moreover, it cannot be ignored that the collection of the

data took place after the publication of a high profile case by the media

concerning the repeated sexual abuse of a girl by two adolescents

(Philenews, September 25, 2013). This might mean that the duration of

27

this media-effect and its strength to the affect of other factors (such as

information about the specific issue) are unknown.

Although juvenile delinquency cannot be measured in a totally accurate

way, the tendency of lay people to perceive that juvenile delinquency is

a growing problem and to overestimate the scales of juvenile

delinquency is well-known in the global literature (John Howard

Society of Alberta, 1998; Hough & Roberts, 2004; Roberts & Hough,

2005; Avdela, 2013). There is a lack of research focusing on litigation

lawyers‟ opinions towards the trends of juvenile crime (Zimring, 2009) ,

whether the same misconceiving tendency exists and whether the

exposure of the lit igation lawyers to the criminal justice system

activates different psychological mechanisms in understanding juvenile

offenders or crime (Salerno, Najdowski, Stevenson, Wiley, Bottoms,

Vaca & Pimentel , 2010). However, it is known that the media coverage

and the political preoccupation are strong enough and they could affect

people‟s perceptions, irrespective of their personal experiences or how

they have lived (Anderson, Bromley, & Given, 2005). The refore, it is

believed that the tendency of popularising or stereotyping exists, even

in the cases of legal practitioners , who lack expertise about a specific

kind of crime (Sanghara & Wilson, 2006).

In this study, the indications were that the perceptions of the majority

of the litigation lawyers about the level of juvenile delinquency might

be affected by the same factors that usually affect public opinion, such

as media and political unrest about juvenile crime . As the collection of

the data took place after the publication of a high profile case by the

media, the duration of the observed effect and its strength on

influencing other intervening factors (such as scientific information

about juvenile offending) are unknown. The tendency of popularising

and stereotyping existed and became more evident when examining the

reasoning that it was used for the justification of the answers.

A total of 12 participants believed that juvenile delinquency is a

problem in Cyprus (PRO-POS), while only 2 of the participants

28

believed the opposite (PRO-NEG). There was a variety of explanations

given by the participants who viewed juvenile delinquency as a

problem. Half of them linked the problematic dimensions of juvenile

delinquency to a future consequence (PRO-POS-FTR) concerning the

offenders, society or both . In this instance, P 6 said that juvenile

delinquency is a problem in Cyprus:

“Because young people beg in their life having the weight of

the previous convictions”

P 2 said that:

“Because youths are the future of Cyprus”

The other half of the participants who viewed juvenile delinquency as a

problem explained their answers with reference to the causes of

juvenile delinquency today (PRO-POS-PRS). In this instance, P 7 said

that juvenile delinquency is a problem in Cyprus:

“Due to the lack of effective treatment methods”

P 12 said that the juvenile delinquency is a problem in Cyprus:

“Due to the economical crisis, the economical problems, but

also the technological developments (i.e. internet, tv)

children are exposed without supervision to situations that

they cannot adminis ter or understand”

The half of the participants who viewed juvenile delinquency as a

problem focused on the underlying causative factors that make juvenile

delinquency a problem today (means-focused) (PRO-POS-PRS). The

other half of the participants focused on the future consequences for

which juvenile delinquency is a negative phenomenon (end -focused)

(PRO-POS-FTR). This difference in the focus of the participants can

often happen when a question is an open question (i .e. “ Why is juvenile

29

delinquency a problem?”) (Weiner, 1985), but it may also reflect the

psychological distance that the participants keep from juvenile

delinquency, as explained in the construal level theory (CLT) of Trope

and Liberman (2010). While the consequences depend on the cause s,

the causes do not depend on the consequences . It was stressed that

causes may be more central and functional to the meaning of the event s

(Suppes, 1970). Therefore, people who focus more on the causes of the

events than on their consequences usually keep greater psychological

distance from an event (Rim, Trope, & Hansen, 2013), so that they can

approach the entire context methodically.

It was thought that , in this research study, the participants were

experienced lawyers who might be trained in a kind of causative

thinking, independent of their personal involvement, distance or

proximity in relation to an event. Beyond the external equality to the

percentages of PRO-POS-PRS and PRO-POS-FTR, it was determinative

to the considerations that four of the participants who supported the

idea that juvenile delinquency is a problem because of some present

factors (PRO-POS-PRS) understood the problematic dimension of

juvenile delinquency in a numerical way, instead of being prone to

causative thinking.

Namely, P 1, P 4, P 13 and P 12 gave a justification which had to do

with numbers and it was relevant, either to the juvenile offenders , to

delinquency incidences or to both of them. Their numerical

observations were abstractly comparative, given that these participants

did not refer to any specifically-known and reported number of

offenders or incidences in the past (even though there were participants

who tried to give a more persuasive context to such comparisons, such

as P 12 who compared the present situation to the situation of five

years ago). As the answers of these participants (PRO -POS-PRS-NUM)

were just descriptive and related to the observed discrepancy between

the perceptions about the level of juvenile delinquency and the exist ing

statistics, as discussed above, the observation was that, finally, that

only a few participants were prone to causative thinking in

30

understanding the problematic dimensions of juvenile delinquency.

Therefore, only a few participants kept psychological distance from the

phenomenon of juvenile delinquency. The absence of psychological

distance together with the observed discrepancy in relation to the

recorded juvenile crime emphasi sed the belief in the existence of a

strong media-effect in the majority of the participants‟ percep tions.

On the other hand, the participants who supported that juvenile

delinquency is not a problem (PRO-NEG) answered that something or

somebody else is l iable for juvenile delinquency or that juvenile

delinquency is the consequence of something else (such as adults,

social poverty and others), instead of a problem itself. The limited

PRO-NEG responses had some similarities with the PRO-POS-FTR

responses, in that both of the participant groups perceived juvenile

delinquency as a phenomenon. The PRO-NEG participants d id not say

that this phenomenon is positive in nature. While PRO -NEG

participants viewed juvenile delinquency as an expected consequence of

some other problems, the PRO-POS-FTR participants recognised

juvenile delinquency as a problem in itself, with its own future

consequences. The difference was in the stand of each group and it

seemed to concern the amount of autonomy that both the groups were

placing on the phenomenon of juvenile delinquency.

Further, i t could be said that the differenc e in the views of PRO-NEG

and some of the PRO-POS-PRS participants was in the direction of the

causative thinking, which was employed in both PRO-NEG and PRO-

POS-PRS groups. Therefore, it was observed that even though PRO-

NEG participants viewed juvenile delinquency as a consequence of

other problems, this did not mean that they did not recognise that this

consequence is negative in nature . They just did not give to juvenile

delinquency the dimensions of an autonomous problem. The different

characterisation of juvenile delinquency (problem v. consequence of a

problem) may be, up to a point , technical; having to do with the

construction of the questionnaire, but it may also be indicative of the

31

psychological distance that people keep from juvenile delinquency, in

line with Trope and Liberman‟s theory (Trope & Liberman, 2010) .

Focusing on all of the answers of the participants about the problematic

dimensions of juvenile delinquency, an interesting theoretical schema

could be constructed from how the litigation lawyers viewed juvenile

delinquency in three different ways: As a negative phenomenon with

future consequences; as a present social problem; and as a consequence

of other problems.

Finally, the participants were asked whether they believe th at there is

an infrastructure for the prevention of juvenile delinquency (INF) and

to explain their answers. A total of 5 participants answered that such

infrastructure is existent (INF-POS) and 9 of the participants answered

the opposite (INF-NEG).

The 5 participants who gave INF-POS answers indicated multiple

islands of infrastructure, instead of directing their answer to one

aspect, but all of the indicated islands of infrastructure were social in

nature. Thus, the institution of family, the educative system, the church

and the operation of social groups were indicated as such existent

islands of infrastructure . A majority of the other 9 participants who

gave INF-NEG answers commented about the way in which the existent

social institutions (family, education, etc) operate in society,

highlighting that it is not enough to have some islands of infrastructure

in order to support that there is an infrastructure for prevention of

juvenile delinquency in Cyprus. What is important is to look at whether

these islands of infrastructure have the substantive ability to operate in

a preventive way. These participants focused on the content or the

operative quality of infrastructure for prevention.

There was not any internal or subjective variety in the responses of the

participants about INF. The externally observed variety of the answers

of the participants about the existence of infrastructure for prevention

of juvenile delinquency was further attributable to their understanding

32

about the meaning of infrastructure and the amount of their focus on the

quality.

The judicial treatment of the juvenile offenders

Normally, the widespread perception that the level of juvenile

delinquency is high is accompanied by a widespread perception that the

appropriate juvenile justice policies can lower the juvenile crime rates

(Bernard & Kurlyckek, 2010). Importantly, all the participant lawyers

answered that the current justice system does not deal effectively with

the juvenile justice system (CUR-NEG). The majority of these

participants (N=13) believed that a separation of the juvenile justice

system is necessary in Cyprus (JUV-POS).

The sizeable majority of the participants who argued that the current

justice system does not deal effectively with juvenile delinquency and

suggested the separation of the juvenile justice system (CUR-NEG /

JUV-POS) focused on the lack of special juvenile courts and expert

judges and the absence of juvenile correctional places. However, the

broadness, alternativeness and multiplici ty of the justifications given

were strong characteristics in these thematic units.

In this instance, P 3 said for the legal system generally that:

“It does not resolve problems, but it only punishes, imprisons

and imposes f ines”.

P 4 also said that:

“It would be effective if it was also a deterrent”

P 11 said that:

“They pay and leave”

33

A total of 8 participants referred to the necessity to change the whole

spiri t and culture of the juvenile justice system (they referred generally

to the juvenile justice systems of other countries, such as Greece,

Germany, France, other European countries and Canada), or to

introduce new statutory provisions and amendments. Particular

emphasis was put on the chapter on penalties and alternative penalties ,

and to the regulation of the penalties which includes a deprivation of

liberty for juvenile offenders.

The 10 of the 13 participants who supported the separation of the

juvenile justice system justified their answers by providing, among

others, reasons related to the offenders .

For instance, P 2 answered that this separation is necessary for

juveniles:

“to be treated as children and not as adults”.

P 6 said that:

“The offences committed by juveniles should be treated

somehow dif ferently”.

P 8 also said that:

“The reason is self -evident to every sane man who

understands that a juvenile has an absolutely different

psychological construction from an adult”.

P 9 said that:

“Of course, because of the idiosyncrasy the juvenile offenders

and the emphasis which should be put on their age”

34

It was an interesting finding that a l though the majority of the

participants seemed to understand the rehabilitative goals of a separate

juvenile justice system, when the y were asked whether and why they

consider that judicial intervention is necessary for juvenile offenders ,

they tended to express some punitive beliefs and refrained from

referencing the rehabilitative goals of a juvenile court .

Namely, while the majority of the participants (N=11) accepted that the

courts shall be involved in delivering justice for juvenile offenders

(JUD-POS) (therefore, they viewed the Court an essential part of a

juvenile justice system), only 2 of the participants considered the

service for its rehabilitation purposes through judicial intervention

(JUD-POS-REH). In the instance, the P 13 supported that:

“The judicial intervention is necessary. But in no case it shall

be the same like this of adult delinquents. Separate judges

shall be available with addit ional special knowledge of

psychology, so that the treatment of the juveniles to be right

and appropriate and the juveniles to accept right education”.

and P 14 answered that:

“The procedure for rehabilitation of the delinquents shall be

followed accordingly”

Half of the participants showed a tendency to support the necessity of

judicial intervention for deterrence purposes (JUS-POS-DET), either

for specific deterrence , for general deterrence (“to make the example

for others”, P 2, or to manage the impressions given to others in

different ways, P 6) or for both of them. There was not enough

information for further sub-categorisation concerning the kind of

deterrence that the participants supported and such sub-categorisation

might give to the report a criminological character.

35

It was thought that this could be considered a contradiction (JUV-POS-

OF + JUD-POS-DET), which reflects the deeper „unreadiness ‟ of the

participants to express perceptions in the language of rehabili tative

justice. The answer of P 1, which was finally categorised as JUS-POS-

DET, might be a characteristic example of the observed stand, which

hovered between deterrence and rehabilita tion. The P 1 said that:

“Particularly for the frequent offenders, I believe that the

punishment is necessary”

P 1 referred to “punishment” , “particularly” for the frequent offenders,

but she did not seem to support punishment for the purposes of

selective incapacitation. In her whole transcript, she always referred to

the contribution of psychologists, and, at the same time, to punishment,

not so firmly for al l the juvenile offenders, but particularly (and not

only) for frequent offenders. The repetit ion of delinquent behavior is

viewed as recidivism, but it could not be said that P 1 clearly views

recidivism as an exceptional case where the p unishment should be

applied. The answer of P 1 was interpreted as that which best serves the

purposes of deterrence, even with the contribution of psychologists

within the reformatories, since the element of rehabili tation was not so

evident in comparison to the answer of P 14.

The P 11 gave a clearer deterrence supportive answer, by saying:

(for the juvenile offenders) “they absolutely run wild because

they know that they will not have problems with the justice;

this beyond the fact that they may think they need guts to

appear before a judge”

The P 4, who also supported the existence of a deterrent legal system ,

said that:

“The punishment must come from a responsible authority; the

lack of punishment is not a solution”

36

Further, the answer of P 10 was clearly deterrence supportive by

stressing that judicial intervention is necessary:

“Because they must know that there are laws and that we

cannot breach them. Primarily because there are victims.

Because some deterrent punishments must be imposed on

them”.

Interest also focuses on the 3 participants who answered that the

judicial intervention is not necessary. Two of them expressed not

absolute theses, even though they answered a yes/no question. For

instance, the P 3 supported that:

“Sometimes it is completely unnecessary and with few right

words from an educated police officer or social worker would

lead to no more incidences.”

The P 5 said that:

“…as I said above , they could be specialised judges or

something like psychologists, in order to help instead of

punish.”

Finally, the P 9 said that:

“I answered no to the above question, but this is not absolute.

There are young offenders that they need penitentiary in

order to return to the legal road. However, in many instances

with the contribution of the responsible authorities of the

social welfare, their sending before the courts could be

avoided”

Moak and Wallace (2000), who addressed the attitudes of 3 ,947

juvenile justice practitioners in Louisiana towards rehabili tation , also

37

observed that al though the sample did not abandon the concept of

rehabilitation, it supported punishment as a viable option for the

treatment of juvenile offenders (Moak & Wallace, 2000; Cullen, Golden

& Cullen, 1983; McCarthy, 2011). In the present study, when the

participants were asked “why” juvenile delinquents should be treated by

a separate juvenile justice system, they, indeed, considered the

rehabilitative ideal s, even in a very general way, focusing on the

properties of the young age of the offenders. When they were asked

“why” judicial intervention is necessary, the majority supported the

goals of deterrence through punishment . Even though the punit ive

beliefs were not totally excluded from the scenes of the juvenile justice

system, as it was imagined by the participants (Payne, Gainey, Triplett

& Danner, 2004), there was no domination by them. What was more

evident through the responses of the participants was the lack of

awareness, understanding or acquaintance to the image of a judge who

delivers justice for purposes other than punishment .

Trying to see behind the blurriness that was left by the participants,

when they were called to explain the role of the (previously supported)

juvenile court within the juvenile justice system, it was thought that the

participants were asked about a juvenile justice system which does not

exist yet . The role of a juvenile court within the juvenile justice system

is not well -defined, even in legal societies where a juvenile court

historically exists (Pena, 1978). Considering the easiness with which

the participants supported that the current justice system does not deal

effectively with juvenile offenders, the richness of their imagination

about the recommended changes and the narrowness of their focus on

the punishing role of a juvenile judge , it was thought that their answers

might be affected by their negative feelings (i.e. disappointment) about

the larger justice system. The generosity and evasiveness in referencing

any procedural details or providing a clearer structure of an appropriate

juvenile justice system was also an intens e characteristic which

highlighted the same impression. Among other possible explanations , it

was stressed that the amount of criminological education itself might

also instigate a trend to more punitive atti tudes (Shelley, Waid &

38

Dobbs, 2011). However, further research should focus on this tendency

of parallel support for rehabilitative goals of juvenile justice and the

necessity of punishing the juvenile offenders.

CONCLUSIONS

This was a qualitative study to examine the perceptions of litigation

lawyers in Cyprus about juvenile delinquency and justice in Cyprus.

This feedback is necessary for the proposed reformations of juvenile

justice systems at a domestic and European level. It is also in the

interests of Psychology, which tries to give a scientif ic base to the old

legal presumption that children are “immature” and “vulnerable”

because they are children and to investigate the factors which affect the

mentality and socio-moral standing of people behind their expressed

perceptions about juvenile offenders and justice. The participants were

asked open-ended questions about juvenile delinquency and juvenile

justice covering seven thematic units and their answers were analysed

via inductive qualitative content analysis.

Analysing the responses of the 14 legal practitioners , it was found that

the majority of participants believed that juvenile delinquency is on the

rise and extended to more serious crimes (John Howard Society of

Alberta, 1998; Hough & Roberts, 2004; Roberts & Hough, 2005;

Avdela, 2013). There was a multi -levelled discrepancy between the

perceptions of the majority and recorded juvenile crime, given by the

Cyprus Police statistics . This discrepancy was accompanied by a

tendency of populism in reasoning, which was spread into all the

thematic units. The participants viewed juvenile delinquency in three

different ways: As a phenomenon which will have negative

consequences in the future; as an exist ing social problem caused by

some present factors; and as a consequence of another problem instead

of an autonomous problem. Even though the majority of the participants

answered that juvenile delinquency is a problem in Cyprus, few of them

were prone to causative thinking of the problematic dimensions of

juvenile delinquency, which was interpreted as few participants keeping

39

psychological distance from the phenomenon of juvenile delinquency

(Trope & Liberman, 2010; Rim, Trope & Hansen, 2013). The observed

discrepancy and the lack of psychological distance led to the conclusion

that there were peripheral factors, such as the media coverage or the

newspaper readership or even the attempts for legal reformations

themselves as provided through the media , which affected the legal

practitioners‟ perceptions about juvenile delinquency (Hough &

Roberts, 2004). However, the duration of this media effect and its

strength to the affection of other intervening factors (such as providing

scientific information about the issue of juvenile offending) are

unknown. The externally observed variety of the answers of the

participants about the existence of infrastructure for prevention of

juvenile delinquency was further attributable to their understanding

about the meaning of infrastructure and the amount of their focus on the

quality.

All the participants condemned the current justice system for the

treatment of juvenile delinquents and many of them were firmly

supportive of the establishment of a separate juvenile justice system,

consisting of a juvenile court, expert judges and special juvenile

correctional places. However, their expressed perceptions about the

goals and means of juvenile justice floundered through rehabili tation

and punishment (Cullen, Golden & Cullen, 1983), while their

justifications were characterised by broadness, alternativeness and

multiplicity. These findings were interpreted as confusions about the

role of a juvenile court within the juvenile justice system. Possible

explanations were offered about the tendency of the participants to

support at the same time the rehabili tat ive goals of juvenile justice and

the punishment of juvenile offenders. However, as the same tendency

was observed in previous studies (Moak & Wallace, 2000; Cullen,

Golden & Cullen, 1983), further research should focus on the reasons

behind it.

This piece of research is timely important, as it reflects the amount of

readiness of legal professionals to accept the governmental initiative of

40

the legislative reformation and the European culture of juvenile justice.

Concluding this research, it should be suggested that an

interdisciplinary research and education strategy are needed with

relation to the proposed juvenile justice system, which would reduce

the potential of implementing a legislative framework based on

misconceptions and false beliefs about juvenile offenders and crime

(such as the belief that juvenile delinquency is a growing problem)

(Tizcinski & Allen, 2011; Shaw & Woodworth, 2013 ; Avdela, 2013).

The necessity to cultivate a legal and social culture of juvenile justice

with clear content and tasks is a step which should be priori tised within

an implementation of a new juvenile justice legislative framework.

Clearly, i t is a limitation of this research that the s ample was very

limited and would have benefitted from a larger sample size in order to

permit a clearer picture and a deeper analysis of the research

objectives. The small size of the sample may be due to the lack of

knowledge, interest or enthusiasm about the research topic, the one-

month duration of the data collection in combination with the busy

lives of lawyers and the directed approach via their professional e-

mails. It could also be due to the methodology that was employed,

particularly the use of a web-based questionnaire and open-ended

questions. Therefore, the opinions of lawyers of older ages were

sensibly absent from this research study. This methodology was viewed

as appropriate for the purposes of this research. However, it seems that

having some findings and indications collected, the employment of a

different methodology is now needed in order to confirm them. Further

limitation may be created by the use of the term “delinquency” without

explanation of the meaning in which it was used and the reasons of its

use. The detailing of these concerns offers fertile ground for future

research efforts in this important and emerging field of enquiry.

41

REFERENCES

Abram, K. M., Teplin, L. A., Charles, D. R., Longworth, S. L., McClelland, G. M.,

& Dulcan, M. K. (2004). Posttraumatic stress disorder and trauma in youth in

juvenile detention. Archives of General Psychiatry, 61, 403 – 410.

Ainsworth, J. E. (1994). Youth justice in a unified court: Response to critics of

juvenile court abolition. Boston College Law Review, 36, 927-952.

Ajzenstadt, M. & Khoury-Kassabri, M. (2013). The cultural context of juvenile,

justice policy in Israel. Journal of Social Policy, 42, 111 – 128.

American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of

Mental Disorders, 4th ed., text rev. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric

Association.

Anand, S. S. (1998). Catalyst for change: The history of Canadian Juvenile Justice

reform. Queen‟s Law Journal, 24, 515-560.

Anderson, S., Bromley, C., & Given, L. (2005). Public attitudes towards young

people and youth crime in Scotland: Findings from the 2004 Scottish social attitudes

survey. Edinburgh: Scottish.

Retrieved from:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/55971/0015628.pdf

Avdela, E. (2013). “Youth in danger”. Discipline, reform and youth justice after the

war. Athens: Polis Publication. (In Greek)

Bateman, T. (2006). Youth crime and justice: Statistical „evidence‟, recent trends

and responses. London: Sage.

Bernard, T. J., & Kurlychek, M. C. (2010). The cycle of juvenile justice. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Blackstone, W. (1769). Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book 4 (1769), 23.

Blonigen, D. M. (2010). Explaining the relationship between age and crime:

contributions from the developmental literature on personality. Clinical Psychology

Review, 30, 83-100.

British Psychological Society (2009). Code of Ethics and Conduct. Leicester.

Retrieved from:

http://www.bps.org.uk/system/files/documents/code_of_ethics_and_conduct.pdf

British Psychological Society (2011). Code of Human Research Ethics. Leicester.

Retrieved from:

http://www.bps.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/code_of_human_research_ethics

.pdf

42

British Psychological Society (2013). Ethics Guidelines for Internet-mediated

Research. Leicester.

Retrieved from:

http://www.bps.org.uk/system/files/Public%20files/inf206-guidelines-for-internet-

mediated-research.pdf

Cauffman, E. & Steinberg, L. (2000). (Im)maturity of judgement in adolescence:

Why adolescents may be less culpable than adults. Behavioural Sciences and the

Law,18, 741–760.

Cauffman, E. (2004). A statewide screening of mental health symptoms among

juvenile offenders in detention. Journal of the American Academy of Child and

Adolescent Psychiatry, 43, 430 - 439.

Cocozza, J. J. & Skowyra, K. R. (2000). Youth with mental health disorders: Issues

and emerging responses. Juvenile Justice, 7, 3 - 13.

Costello, E. J., Erkanli, A., Fairbank, J. A., & Angold, A. (2002). The prevalence of

potentially traumatic events in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Traumatic

Stress, 15, 99–112.

Council of the European Union (2014). Proposal for a Directive of the European

Parliament and of the Council on procedural safeguards for children suspected or

accused in criminal proceedings - General approach.

Retrieved from:

http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%2010065%202014%20INI

T

Crofts, T. (2003). Doli Incapax: Why Children Deserve Its Protection. Murdoch

Electronic Journal of Law, 10(3).

Cullen, F. T., Golden, K. M., & Cullen, J. B. (1983). Is child saving dead? Attitudes

toward juvenile rehabilitation in Illinois. Journal of Criminal Justice, 11(1), 1-13.

Cyprus Police (2006). Criminality statistic data - Juveniles - Juveniles involved in

the Commission of offences (serious and minor) (from 2000 to 2005).

Retrieved from:

http://www.police.gov.cy/police/police.nsf/All/8279C6FBBEE63A89C22578A9002

6FD69/$file/Juveniles.pdf

Cyprus Police (2009). Criminality statistic data - Juveniles - Juveniles involved in

the Commission of Offences (Serious and Minor) (from 2006 to 2008).

Retrieved from:

http://www.police.gov.cy/police/police.nsf/All/48F5A3E23A9AA060C22578A9002

724A0/$file/juveniles.pdf

(a) Cyprus Police (2011). Criminality statistic data - Juveniles - Juveniles

involved in the Commission of Offences (Serious and Minor) (from 2008 to 2010).

Retrieved from:

http://www.police.gov.cy/police/police.nsf/All/F2284A6261FDE585C22579BF003E

5BDD/$file/juveniles.pdf

43

(b) Cyprus Police (2011). Criminality statistic data - Juveniles - Juveniles

involved in the Commission of Offences (Serious and Minor) (from 2008 to 2010).

Retrieved from:

http://www.police.gov.cy/police/police.nsf/All/C33C03852DD321B3C22578A9002

73382/$file/juveniles.pdf

Cyprus Police (2012). Criminality Statistic Data - Juveniles - Juveniles involved in

the Commission of Offences (Serious and Minor) (from 2009 to 2011).

Retrieved from:

http://www.police.gov.cy/police/police.nsf/All/5310A2CE7E9E55F5C22579EA002

DE979/$file/juveniles.pdf

Cyprus Police (2013). Criminality Statistic Data - Juveniles - Juveniles involved in

the Commission of Offences (Serious and Minor) (from 2011 to 2013).

Dalton, M. (1619). Countrey Justice (1619), 223-224.

Delmage, E. (2013). The minimum age of criminal responsibility: A medico-legal

perspective. Youth Justice, 13, 102-110.

Ennals, P. (2003). We are not criminals. Community Care, 1493, 40-41.

Estrada, F. (2001). Juvenile violence as a social problem: Trends, media attention,

and societal response. British Journal of Criminology, 41, 639-655.

Feld, B. C. (1993). Criminalizing the American Juvenile Court. Crime and Justice,

17, 197-280.

Feld, B. C. (2014). Juveniles‟ competence and procedural rights in Juvenile Court.

In: W. T Church, II, D. W. Springer, & A. R. Roberts (Eds), Juvenile Justice

Sourcebook, Second Edition (pp. 167-192) USA: Oxford University Press.

Ferdinand, T. N. (1991). History Overtakes the Juvenile Justice System. Crime &

Delinquency, 37, 204-224.

Ford, J. D., Grasso, D. J., Hawke, J., & Chapman, J. F. (2013). Poly-victimization

among juvenile justice-involved youths. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37, 788-800.

Foster, E. M., Flanagan, C., Osgood, D. W., & Ruth, G. R. (2005). The transition to

adulthood for vulnerable youth and families: Common themes and future directions.

In G. R. Ruth (Ed.), On your own without a net: The transition to adulthood for

vulnerable populations (pp. 375–390). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Retrieved from:

http://search.ebscohost.com.libproxy.smith.edu:2048/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ps

yh&AN=2005-14222-000&site=ehost-live

Furby, L. & Beyth-Marom, R. (1992). Risk taking in adolescence: a decision-making

perspective. Developmental Review, 12(1), 1–44.

Galambos, N. L. & Costigan, C. L. (2003). Emotional and personality development

in adolescence. In: R. M. Lerner, M. A. Easterbrooks, & J. Mistry (Eds). Handbook

44

of Psychology. Volume 6. Developmental Psychology (pp.351-366). New Jersey:

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Galambos, N. L., MacDonald, S. W. S., Naphtali, C., Cohen, A., & de Frias, C. M.

(2005). Cognitive performance differentiates selected aspects of psychosocial

maturity in adolescence. Developmental Neuropsychology, 28, 473-492.

Ghetti, S. & Redlich, A. D. (2001). Reactions to youth crime: Perceptions of

accountability and competency. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19, 33 – 52.

Goldson, B. & Muncie, J. (2012). Towards a global „child friendly‟ juvenile justice?

International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 40, 47 – 64.

Grigorenko, E. L. (2012). Handbook of Juvenile Forensic Psychology and

Psychiatry. New York: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.

Retrieved from:

http://www.pitt.edu/ppcl/Publications/Trentacosts%20book%20chapter%20for%20G

rigorenko%20entire%20book%20jan%202012.pdf#page=33

Grisso, T. & Barnum, R. (2001). The Massachusetts youth screening instrument:

Second version (MAYSI-2). Worcester, Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts

Medical School.

Henning, K. (2012). Juvenile justice after Graham v. Florida: Keeping due process,

autonomy, and paternalism in balance. Washington University Journal of Law and

Policy, 38, 17 – 52.

Hsieh, HF. & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content

analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277 – 1288.

Hough, M. & Roberts, J. V. (2004). Confidence in justice: An international review.

Home Office. Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.

Jensen, G. F. & Rojek, D. G. (1998). Delinquency and Youth Crime, Third Edition.

USA: Waveland Press, Inc.

John Howard Society of Alberta. (1998). Youth crime in Canada: Public perception

vs. statistical information.

Retrieved from:

http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/pub/C16.htm

Johnson, S. B., Dariotis, J. K., & Wang, C. (2012). Adolescent risk-taking under

stressed and non-stressed conditions: Conservative, calculating and impulsive types.

Journal of Adolescent Health, 51, 34–40.

Kapardis, A. (2013). Juvenile delinquency and victimization in Cyprus. European

Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 19, 171 – 182.

Kohlbacher, F. (2006). The use of qualitative content analysis in case study research.

Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, 7 (1) Art.21.

Retrieved from:

http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0601211

45

Kohlberg, L. (1958). The development of modes of thinking and choices in years 10

to 16 [doctoral dissertation]. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

Kohlberg, L. (1963). The development of children‟s orientations toward a moral

order. Vita Humana 6, 11-33.

Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on moral development. Vol. 2, The psychology of moral

development: the nature and validity of moral stages. Harper & Row.

Krisberg, B. & Austin, J. (1993). Reinventing juvenile justice. USA: Sage

Publications.

Liatsos, A. R. (2009). Juveniles, criminality, and criminal justice. The legal

framework in Cyprus. Juvenile offenders – sanctioning: Practice-Problems-

Suggestions.

Retrieved from:

http://old.asomatos.eu/index.php?view=article&catid=50%3A2010-09-13-20-15-

03&id=116%3A2010-09-13-20-22-

26&format=pdf&option=com_content&Itemid=111

Lovbakke, J. & Moley, S. (2007). Perceptions of crime and criminal justice: the

relationship with lifestyle and socio-demographic factors. In: Jansson, K., Budd,

S.,Lovbekke, J., Moley, S., & Thorpe, K. (Eds). Attitudes, Perceptions and Risks of

Crime: Supplementary Volume 1 to Crime in England and Wales 2006/07 (Home

Office Statistical Bulletin 19/07). London: Home Office.

Retrieved from:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb1907.pdf

Mayring, F. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum Qualitative

Sozialforschung, 1 (2) Art.20.

Retrieved from:

http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089/2385

McCarthy, S. (2011). Perceptions of restorative justice in Ireland: The challenges of

the way forward. Irish Probation Journal, 8, 185-199.

Meyer, J. R. & Reppucci, N. D. (2007). Police practices and perceptions regarding

juvenile interrogation and interrogative suggestibility. Behavioral Sciences and the

Law, 25, 757 – 780.

Middleton, C. (2011). Attitudes towards stalking: A sample from South Cyprus.

Dissertation thesis: The University of Leicester.

Middleton, C. (2013). Theories of “vulnerable” and “vulnerabilities”. Part I.

Derived from:

http://psychonomika.info/2013/03/17/theories-of-vulnerable-and-vulnerability/

Moak, S. C. & Wallace, L. H. (2000). Attitudes of Louisiana practitioners toward

rehabilitation of juvenile offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 271 –

285.

46

Mooney, J. & Young, J. (2006). The decline in crime and the rise of anti-social

behaviour. Probation Journal, 53, 397-407.

Morse, S. J. (1997). Immaturity and responsibility. The Journal of Criminal Law and

Criminology, 88, 15-67.

Municipality of Lapithos, August 23, 2014. The Lambousa School (Reformatory).

Retrieved from:

http://www.lapithos.org.cy/default.aspx?articleID=2923&language=1

O‟Connell, M. (1999). Is Irish public opinion towards crime distorted by media bias?

European Journal of Communication, 14, 191-212.

Office of the Commissioner for Children‟s Rights. (2012). Annual Report. Cyprus

Country Report.

Retrieved from:

http://www.childcom.org.cy/ccr/ccr.nsf/All/D9BEF805408999AAC2257BE4001D9

57B?OpenDocument

Office of the Commissioner for Children‟s Rights. (2013). Annual Report. Cyprus

Country Report.

Retrieved from:

http://www.childcom.org.cy/ccr/ccr.nsf/All/DC93EAB854C6E105C2257CEE0026F

2D2?OpenDocument

Payne, B. K., Gainey, R. R., Triplett, R. A., & Danner, M. J. E. (2004). What drives

punitive beliefs? : Demographic characteristics and justification for sentencing.

Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 195-206.

Pena, E. H. (1978). Introduction: The role of the Juvenile Court - Social or legal

institution? Pepperdine Law Review, 5, 633-639.

Philenews, September 25, 2013. Public shock: 4 students in police custody for the

rape of a 13-years-old girl. (in Greek)

Retrieved from:

http://www.philenews.com/el-gr/koinonia-eidiseis/160/163548/tesseris-mathites-

ypo-kratisi-gia-to-viasmo-tis-13chronis

Philenews, September 26, 2013. Raped by her same-aged boys: The shocking drama

of the 13-years-old student. (in Greek)

Retrieved from:

http://www.philenews.com/el-gr/koinonia-eidiseis/160/163701/sygklonismos-apo-

to-drama-tis-13chronis-mathitrias

Philenews, September 26, 2013. Anachronistic system of treating the juvenile

delinquents, says the Minister of Justice. (in Greek)

Retrieved from:

http://www.philenews.com/el-gr/koinonia-eidiseis/160/163811/anachronistiko-to-

systima-antimetopisis-anilikon-paravaton-leei-o-ypdikaiosynis

Piaget, J. (1932). The Moral Judgment of the Child. London: Routledge & Kegan

Paul.

47

Piaget, J. (1950). The Psychology of Intelligence. London: Routledge & Kegal Paul.

Press and Information Office, September 12, 2013. The Commissioner for the

Protection of Child Rights handed her annual report to the President of the

Republic. (in Greek)

Retrieved from:

http://www.cyprus.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.nsf/All/A962A680E4578A02C2257BE40039

EF97?Opendocument

Press and Information Office, June 5, 2014. The Commissioner for the Protection of

Child Rights handed her annual report to the President of the Republic. (in Greek)

Retrieved from:

http://www.pio.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.nsf/All/6C6575546AC9DB5CC2257CEE002F51

FD?Opendocument

Quinn, M. C. (2012). Introduction: Evolving standards in juvenile justice from Gault

to Graham and beyond. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, 38 (1), 1 –

16.

Reid, S. (2011). Age of responsibility. In: W. J. Chambliss (Ed.), Juvenile Crime and

Justice (pp. 1-11). USA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Rim, S. Y., Trope, Y. & Hansen, J. (2013). What happens why? Psychological

distance and focusing on causes versus consequences of events. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 457– 472.

Roberts, J. V. & Hough, M. (2005). Understanding Public Attitudes to Criminal

Justice. Berkshire: Open University Press.

Ross, C. J. (1995). Disposition in a discretionary regime: Punishment and

rehabilitation in the juvenile justice system. Boston College Law Review, 36, 1037 –

1059.

Rothman, D. J. (1980). Conscience and convenience: The asylum and its alternatives

in progressive America. Boston: Little, Brown.

Salerno, J. M., Najdowski, C. J., Stevenson, M. C., Wiley, T. R. A., Bottoms, B. L.,

Vaca, R., & Pimentel, P. S. (2010). Psychological mechanisms underlying support

for juvenile sex offender registry laws: prototypes, moral outrage, and perceived

threat. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28, 58-73.

Sanghara, K. K. & Wilson, J. C. (2006). Stereotypes and attitudes about child sexual

abusers: A comparison of experienced and inexperienced professionals in sex

offender treatment. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11, 229-244.

Serghides, G. A. (2003). Reflections on juvenile delinquency with special regards to

Cyprus. Cyprus Law Tribune, 2, 38 – 48.

Retrieved from:

48

http://www.iccnow.org/documents/Addendum_to_CICC_Judicial_Questionnaire_-

_George_A_Serghides.pdf

Schauer, E. J. & Schauer, I. J. (2013). Juvenile justice and psychology: The efficacy

of psychological theory and research to support the juvenile justice discipline.

Archivos de Criminología, Criminalística y Seguridad Privada, 10, 1- 6.

Scott, E. S. & Grisso, T. (1998). The evolution of adolescence: A developmental

perspective on juvenile justice reform. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology,

88,137–189.

Scott, E. S., Reppucci, N. D., & Woolard, J. S. (1995). Evaluating adolescent

decision-making in legal contexts. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 221–244.

Shaw, J. & Woodworth, M. (2013). Are the misinformed more punitive? Beliefs and

misconceptions in forensic psychology. Psychology, Crime & Law, 19, 687-706.

Shelley, T. O., Waid, C. A., & Dobbs, R. R. (2011). The influence of

criminal justice major on punitive attitudes. Journal of Criminal Justice Education,

22, 526-545.

Shufelt, J. L. & Cocozza, J. J. (2006, June). Youth with mental health disorders in

the juvenile justice system: Results from a multi-state prevalence study (Research

and Program Brief, pp. 1-6).

Retrieved from:

http://www.ncmhjj.com/pdfs/publications/PrevalenceRPB.pdf

Sigmalive, May 12, 2014. I.Nicolaou: The children need special safeguards. (in

Greek)

Retrieved from:

http://www.sigmalive.com/news/law/125613

Simerini, November 11, 2011. She unleashed her fire against the Police. (in Greek)

Retrieved from:

http://www.sigmalive.com/simerini/news/police+and+courts/436680

Stams, G. J., Brugman, D., Dekovic, M., Rosmalen, L., Laan, P., & Gibbs, J. C.

(2006). The moral judgment of juvenile delinquents: A meta-analysis. Journal of

Abnormal Child Psychology, 34, 693-308.

Steinberg, L. & Scott, E. S. (2003). Less guilty by reason of adolescence:

Developmental immaturity, diminished responsibility, and the juvenile death

penalty. American Psychologist, 58, 1009-1018.

Sullivan, C. J. (2012). Developmental research and juvenile justice. Victims &

Offenders: An International Journal of Evidence-based Research, Policy, and

Practice, 7, 361 – 363.

Suppes, P. (1970). A probabilistic theory of causality. Amsterdam, the Netherland:

North Holland.

49

The Council of the European Union (2009). Resolution of the Council of 30

November 2009 on a Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or

accused persons in criminal proceedings. Official Journal of the European Union,

04/12/2009, C125/1.

Retrieved from:

http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2009:295:0001:0003:en:PDF

Tizcinski, E. & Allen, T. (2011). Justice towards youth: Investigating the mismatch

between current policy and public opinion. Children and Youth Services Review, 34,

27-34.

Trope, Y. & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance.

Psychological Review, 117, 440-463.

Varma, K. N. (2006). Face-ing the offender: Examining public attitudes towards

young offenders. Contemporary Justice Review, 9, 175 – 187.

Vincent, G. M., Perrault, R. T., Guy, L. S., & Gershenson, B. G. (2012).

Developmental issues in risk assessment: Implications for juvenile justice. Victims &

Offenders: An International Journal of Evidence-based Research, Policy, and

Practice, 7, 364 - 384.

Waiton, S. (2001). Scared of the Kids? Curfews, crime and the regulation of young

people. Leicester: Perpetuity Press.

Weiner, B. (1985). “Spontaneous” causal thinking. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 74 –

84.

Wood, J. (2009). Why public opinion of the criminal justice system is important. In:

J. Wood & T. Gannon (Eds), Public Opinion and Criminal Justice (pp.33-48).

Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

Wildemuth, B. M. & Zhang, Y. (2009). Qualitative analysis of content.

Retrieved from:

http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~yanz/Content_analysis.pdf

Zimring, F. E. (2009). An American Travesty: Legal responses to adolescent sexual

offending. London: The University of Chicago Press Ltd.

50

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Recruitment letter

I am ****, a postgraduate student, in the Department of Psychology at the University of Portsmouth,

UK. I am working towards an MSc in Child Forensic Studies: Psychology and Law. I am conducting

a research study (under the supervision of Dr Lucy Akehurst) about Lawyers‟ perspectives on youth

justice in Cyprus. The study was designed for lawyers who are registered members of the Cyprus Bar

Association and who have litigation and court proceedings experience of at least 3 years. If you fulfill

the participation criteria, you can find some free time, and you are interested in participating, please

have a look at the information sheet attached to this email and then visit the web-based written

interview using the following link. Please, note that you will need no more than 20 minutes to type

your responses and your participation will be greatly appreciated! Do not hesitate to contact me

(UP677330@myport.ac.uk ) if you need more information about my research study. Thanks in

advance.

Link: ..........................................

51

APPENDIX B: Information for potential participants

Lawyers‟ perspectives on juvenile justice in Cyprus

Information Sheet

You are being invited to take part in some research. Before you decide, it is important for you to understand

why the research is being conducted and what it will involve. Please take time to read the following

information carefully and discuss it with others, if you wish. Ask us if there is anything that is not clear or if

you would like more information. Take time to decide whether or not you wish to take part. Thank you for

reading this.

What is the purpose of the study?

The purpose of our study is to record the perceptions of lawyers, with experience in litigation and court

proceedings in Cyprus, regarding appropriate ways of responding to youth delinquency and regarding the juvenile

justice system in Cyprus. It is anticipated that the results from the study will contribute to our understanding of the

procedures and processes that the proposed juvenile justice legislative reforms should take into account.

Why have I been chosen?

You are being invited to participate because you are a registered lawyer based in Cyprus.

Do I have to take part?

It is entirely up to you to decide whether or not to take part, provided that you fulfil the participation criteria that

we have decided upon. According to these criteria you can participate in our study if:

(a) You are a registered lawyer member of the Cyprus Bar Association

(b) You have at least 3 years experience in litigation and court proceedings in Cyprus

If you are going to take part in our study, you are still free to withdraw your participation at any time before the

online submission of the questionnaire, and without giving a reason.

What will happen to me if I take part?

You will be asked to answer some open-ended questions relating to the current system of Youth Justice in

Cyprus, your perceptions of it and your views regarding possible change. You will also be asked to provide

demographic information including your gender, age range and years of legal experience. You will not need more

than 20 minutes. Our study is „qualitative‟, which means that you will not be asked many questions, but instead be

invited to express your thoughts in a free way in response to open questions.

What are the possible benefits and disadvantages of taking part?

You may value the opportunity to reflect on your thoughts and you will give us important feedback that will be

used to improve our knowledge about the juvenile justice in Cyprus, in order to concentrate our reformation

suggestions in the right direction.

Will my taking part in this study be kept confidential?

All information that is collected about you during the course of this research will be kept strictly confidential.

Any information about you will have your name, address and IP address removed, so that you cannot be

recognised from it. Your comments will be kept confidential. Your responses will be destroyed five years after the

end of the project.

What will happen to the results of the research study?

Department of Psychology

King Henry Building

King Henry I Street

Portsmouth P01 2DY

52

The research team will view all the responses and themes will be identified. These themes will be described in a

research report. Some quotes from the responses will be used to illustrate these themes, but no quote will be used

which could identify an individual. The results may also be published in other sources after 2014 (e.g. journal

articles), but you will not be identifiable in any such publication. You can ask for a copy of any publication

related to this project to be sent to you.

Who is organising and funding the research?

The University of Portsmouth is organising the research in the course of a postgraduate program of studies. The

research is not funded by any organisation, and it is considered to be independent. The European Criminal Bar

Association has expressed an interest in the results of the study.

Who has reviewed the study?

The University of Portsmouth, Department of Psychology‟s Ethics Committee has reviewed the study and judged

it to be ethically acceptable.

For further information:

Please do not hesitate to contact:

Academic e-mail: up677330@myport.ac.uk

Personal e-mail: ****

Professional e-mail (in working hours): ****

*******************

Or

Dr Lucy Akehurst, Academic e-mail: lucy.akehurst@port.ac.uk

King Henry Building, King Henry I Street, Portsmouth, Hants.

PO1 2DY, United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0)23 9284 6337

Thank you for your interest in the research. If you are happy to take part in the online interview please click on

the link in the email.

53

APPENDIX C: The questionnaire

Study Title: LAWYERS’ PERSPECTIVES ON YOUTH JUSTICE IN CYPRUS.

Name of Researcher(s ) *********, DR LUCY AKEHURST

Please initial box

Informed consent is routinely required from participants in psychological studies.

Please read the following information and decide whether or not to participate in this study.

Study Description:

This will be a qualitative study to explore your perspectives on juvenile offending and the juvenile justice system in

Cyprus. If you are a registered member (lawyer) of the Cyprus Bar Association, and have at least 3 years experience in

litigation and court proceedings in Cyprus, then you can participate in the study and your participation will be extremely

helpful. You will be asked to answer few open-ended questions covering two thematic units via a written questionnaire,

and to provide some demographic information. You will need no more than 20 minutes.

YOU CAN:

Withdraw your participation any time before the submission of the questionnaire by using the “exit” button

(then all your data will be removed from our database).

Be sure that your responses will be 100% anonymous and the given data will not be traced to your identity.

Be sure that your data are to be held 100% confidentially and only **** and Dr Lucy Akehurst will have

access to them.

Be sure that your data will be kept in a secured electronic folder for a period of at least five years after the

appearance of any associated publications and will be used only for research, academic or teaching purposes by

competent researchers and professionals.

Be given general information about the results after the completion of the research study (approximately at the

end of 2014) by contacting us using the provided contact details.

Contact us now if you need further information about this research study and your participation.

Contact **** using the provided contact details, if you or another person known to you (willing to participate)

cannot fill in the web-based questionnaire due to disability or technical reasons and you would like to take part

in a face to face interview with the researcher.

! If you are Greek-Cypriot, you have your main residence in Cyprus for the last 5 years, and you are older

than 18, then you can participate in my study and your participation will be extremely helpful! So if you

54

By pressing the ΝΕΧΤ button at the bottom of this page, I confirm that I understand the

procedures which have been outlined above, I have had the opportunity to consider the

information, ask questions and have had these answered satisfactorily. Further, I understand

that my participation is voluntary, and that I am free to withdraw at any time before the online

submission, without giving any reason. I understand that only the researchers noted above will

have access to my data. I am a lawyer registered member of Cyprus Bar Association and have

at least 3 years experience in litigation and court proceedings in Cyprus.

ΝΕΧΤ

Questionnaire

SECTION A

This is a written interview for you. Please give us your opinion about the issues below. This section

is designed to take you around 20 minutes, but if you need to give more detail or take longer, feel

free to do so.

Note: You can use the lower right edges of the text boxes to enlarge them.

What is your opinion of the levels of juvenile delinquency in Cyprus today?

Do you think that the juvenile delinquency is a problem in Cyprus?

YES No

… Why so?

In your view, is there an infrastructure in place in Cyprus that facilitates the prevention of juvenile

delinquency?

YES No

… please explain your answer.

Does the current justice system in Cyprus deal effectively with juvenile offenders?

55

YES No

… Why?

… if you had the chance to make changes, what would you select to change?

… if you had the chance to make changes, what would you select to change?

… Do you think that we need a separate criminal justice system for juveniles in Cyprus?

YES No

… Why your answer?

...If you do believe we need a separate juvenile justice system in Cyprus, can you describe how this

should look?

Do you think that for the criminal offenders who are below the age of 18 a judicial intervention is

necessary?

YES No

...Why?

56

Thank you, we appreciate your help and your views. Section B will take you only one minute. Please click on

the NEXT button to proceed to the Section B.

BACK NEXT

SECTION B:

We need some more information. Please select the most appropriate answer(s) for you.

1) My gender

Male

Female

Not willing to say

2) My age

- 29

30 – 39

40 – 49

50 – 59

57

60 – 69

70 +

What is your current job title?

_______________________________________

For how long have you been a qualified legal professional in Cyprus?

________________________________________________________

Thank you for answering these questions. We appreciate your help. Please click on the NEXT button to

proceed to the final page of the questionnaire.

BACK NEXT

This is the end of the questionnaire!

Please click on the SUBMIT button to complete and submit your participation.

BACK SUBMIT

DEFRIEFING NOTE

Title: Lawyers’ perspectives on youth justice in Cyprus

Researchers: **** / Supervisor: Dr Lucy Akehurst

Email: up677330@myport.ac.uk

We very much appreciate the time you devoted to participating in this study. Your participation is

valuable for the purposes of this research.

The researcher became interested in this topic during the internal discussions of the European Criminal Bar

Association (ECBA) when working on a proposal for Measure E - Special Safeguards for Suspects or Accused

Persons who are Vulnerable (London, March 2013). Measure E is a part of the Roadmap for strengthening the

procedural rights of suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings (thereinafter “the Roadmap”)

endorsed by the Resolution of the Council of the European Union dated 30/11/2009. ECBA consists of legal

practitioners from many European countries, who are in their majority experienced criminal defense lawyers.

58

During the discussions for Measure E children were easily categorized as “vulnerable”. Safeguarding the

procedural rights of children under the Measure E seems to be a part of a movement to set minimum standards

of a pan-European juvenile justice system, even though each member state may respond to the matter of youth

delinquency differently. In the context of this discussion, feedback is needed from each member state,

describing the levels of youth delinquency, the already established ways of responding to the phenomenon of

youth delinquency, and the social trends towards juvenile justice.

Cyprus is traditionally a child-centered and strongly family-focused society. The youth delinquency statistics

show steadily high scores for a broad range of offences, especially for male adolescents. However, few of these

young offenders are led to the courts. Recently, the minimum age of criminal culpability was increased to the

age of 14 from 12. The involvement of children in the criminal justice system is problematic at all the stages of

a procedure, and there is not a separate juvenile justice system in Cyprus. Beyond the procedural safeguards

that are common for all the suspects and accused persons (adults and children) through the Constitution and the

Criminal Procedure Law, the Juvenile Offenders Law, Cap. 157, which was issued on 1946 during the British

colony (modified on 1972) and provides special procedural tools for children, is a “phantom law”. For

instance, even though the old law provided the establishment and operation of juvenile courts, there are not

juvenile courts in Cyprus. When a child (14-18 years) is involved in the judicial system, as a suspect, s/he is

judged by the adult criminal court, where s/he is treated either with wide judicial discretion based on Cap.157

or like an adult. With regard to “rehabilitative justice” and “out-of-court treatment”, even though these were

theoretically supported there are not actually any rehabilitative programs in Cyprus.

The Commissioner for the Protection of Child Rights in Cyprus recently announced that the Commissioner‟s

Office is preparing a legislation framework for the introduction of a “childlike justice system” in Cyprus. She

also stated that this framework will include alternative stages before the necessity for young offenders to be led

to a court of justice. The Commissioner also emphasised the importance of the prevention of youth

delinquency and the introduction of some preventative programs. The Minister of Justice, after the publicity of

the incidence of the repeated rapes of a 13-year-old girl by four students between the ages of 14 and 17 years,

in Limassol, characterised the juvenile justice system in Cyprus as “anachronistic”. What should be included in

this proposed reformation of juvenile justice system is not an issue of theoretical perfection; knowing what

people and namely what expert people believe about juvenile justice in Cyprus is a very important starting

point. The lawyers‟ perspective, gained via this research project, will be analysed cross-referred to the existing

law and statistics, as well as to the broader literature. The results of our study will reflect this picture, which

will indicate where we stand, and, inter alia, the work which must be done in order for Cyprus to be able to

accept either specific suggested reformations of the domestic law or the application of Measure E (the part

which will concern the children).

If you would like more information about this study, or if there are any experiences that you would like to

share for the purposes of the study, please feel free to contact **** and discuss with her. If you have any

questions or concerns, you may contact **** using the contact details above.

Thank you again for your participation!

59

APPENDIX D: The “Reversed Table”

A. JUVENILE DELINQENCY

CODE

LEV LEVEL OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY

CODE

H HIGH 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

CODE

I INCREASED 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13

I+E INCREASED & EXTENDED 7, 10

N NORMAL 8

L LOW 14

U UNKNOWN 3, 4

PRO PROBLEMATIC DIMENSION OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY

CODE

POS POSITIVE 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

CODE

PRS PRESENT FACTORS 1, 4, 7, 11, 12, 13

CODE

NUM NUMERICAL OBSERVATION 1, 4, 12, 13

CODE

OF OFFENDERS 1

INC INCIDENCES 4, 13

LEV LEVEL OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY 12

FTR FUTURE CONSEQUENCES 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14

CODE

OF OFFENDERS 6, 14

SOC SOCIETY 2, 5

OF+ SOC JUVENILES & SOCIETY 9, 10

NEG NEGATIVE 3, 8

INF INFRASTRUCTURE FOR PREVENTION

CODE

POS POSITIVE 3, 5, 6, 11, 12

END

CODE

Fam FAMILY 5, 6, 11

Ed EDUCATION 3, 5, 6, 12

Ch CHURCH 5

Sg SOCIAL GROUPS 6

NEG NEGATIVE 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14

CODE

LEG LEGAL REASONS 13

SOC SOCIAL REASONS 1, 2, 7, 9, 10

L+S LEGAL AND SOCIAL REASONS 8

U UKNOWN 4, 14

CODE

B. JUVENILE JUSTICE

CUR SUFFICIENCY OF CURRENT JUDICIAL SYSTEM

CODE

POS POSITIVE xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

NEG NEGATIVE 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

CODE

PRE PRE-TRIAL 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 12

CODE

LEG LEGAL 3, 4, 8, 11, 12

CODE

ST STATUTORY 12

SYS SYSTEMIC 3, 4, 8, 11

SOC SOCIAL 8, 10

TR TRIAL 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13

CODE

JC JUVENILE COURTS / EXPERT JUDGES 7, 9, 12, 13

APL APPLICATION OF THE EXISTENT LAW 3

DEL DELAYED DELIVERY OF JUSTICE 6, 10

60

RC RECOMMENDED CHANGES

CODE

PRE PRE-TRIAL 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12

CODE

LEG 3, 7, 12

SOC SOCIAL 3, 7, 8, 9, 10

End

CODE

Gp GENERAL PREVENTION 3, 9

Fam FAMILY 3, 10

Ed EDUCATION 10

Spr SPORTS 10

Psy PSYCHOLOGY 7

Rpv REDUCING POVERTY 8

TR TRIAL 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13

CODE

JC JUVENILE COURTS / EXPERT JUDGES

2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13

PER PERSONNEL ISSUES

6

APL APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW 3

META META-TRIAL 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

JCP JUVENILES’ CORRECTIONAL PLACES

1, 2, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

CODE

U UNKNOWN 4

JUV JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM

CODE

POS POSITIVE 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

CODE

JUS JUSTIFICATION

CODE

OF REASONS RELATED TO OFFENDERS

2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14

OTH OTHERS

1, 5, 11

CODE

DES DESCRIPTION

CODE

PRE PRE-TRIAL 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14

CODE

LEG LEGAL 1, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14

CODE

ST STATUTORY 1, 7, 11, 12

SYS SYSTEMIC 6, 8, 13, 14

SOC SOCIAL 9

TR TRIAL 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

META META-TRIAL 1, 5, 7, 10, 12

CODE

JCP JUVENILES’ CORRECTIONAL PLACES

1, 5, 10

SUP SUPERVISION / SUPPORT

7, 10, 12

RGR PROGRAMS / HELP FOR REINTEGRATION

7, 12

U UNKNOWN 2, 4

NEG NEGATIVE 3

JUD NECESSITY OF JUDICIAL INTERVENTION

CODE

POS POSITIVE 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

CODE

META META-TRIAL 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14

CODE

JCP JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL PLACES

5, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14

APL/CTRL 1, 3,

U UNKNOWN 2

61

REH REHABILITATION 13, 14

DET DETERRENCE 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11

CODE

U UNKNOWN 8, 12

NEG NEGATIVE 3, 5, 9