Role Conflict Among Juvenile Defenders in an Expressed Interests Jurisdiction: An Empirical Study

• In Event: Juvenile Court Outcomes and Experiences of Incarcerated Youth: Race, Gender, Offense Severity, and Role Conflict

Abstract

The juvenile defense attorney role has been greatly debated since juveniles’ right to counsel was first established in In re Gault, 1967. The legal literature refers to the existence of role confusion and conflict for juvenile defenders. Juvenile defenders have been observed as experiencing confusion about their role and their role tends to be constrained by other courtroom actors. There has been little focused and systematic investigation into how juvenile defenders view their role, how they experience and respond to role conflict, and how it affects the quality of their representation. The present study examined the role of counsel in the juvenile courts more deeply than any prior empirical analysis. Its findings demonstrate the presence of role confusion even among juvenile defenders in a jurisdiction that clearly defines their role. Findings also support the conclusion that role conflict is very much a part of the juvenile defender experience in the examined jurisdictions. Analysis revealed contextual and other factors that contribute to role conflict, and identified role conflict’s impact as well as defender coping responses. Understanding the nature, extent, and impact of the role conflict experienced by juvenile defenders has important implications for juvenile justice system stakeholders, processes, and policy.

Author

• Anne Marie Corbin, Norwich University