THE JUVENILE PENALTY: A COMPARISON OF JUVENILE AND YOUNG ADULT SENTENCING OUTCOMES IN CRIMINAL COURT*

This study uses criminal court data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (PCS) to investigate the sentencing of juvenile offenders processed in adult criminal court by comparing their sentencing outcomes to those of young adult offenders in similar situations. Because the expanded juvenile exclusion and transfer policies of the 1990s have led to an increase in the number of juveniles convicted in adult courts, we argue that it is critical to better understand the judicial decision making processes involved. We introduce competitive hypotheses on the relative leniency or severity of sentencing outcomes for transferred juveniles and interpret our results with the focal concerns theoretical perspective on sentencing. Our findings indicate that juvenile offenders in adult court are sentenced more severely than their young adult counterparts. Moreover, findings suggest that juvenile status interacts with and conditions the effects of other important sentencing factors including offense type, offense severity and prior criminal record. We discuss these results as they relate to immediate outcomes for transferred juveniles, criminal court processes in general and the broader social implications for juvenile justice policy concerning the transfer of juveniles to criminal court.     

Recent Trends in Sentencing Policies in the Netherlands

This article considers sentencing in the Netherlands and in particular the changes that have been introduced since the 1980s, both in the adult and in the juvenile justice system. Several questions will be treated in the article. Sentencing in the Netherlands in the last two decades is analysed and some explanations for the changing trends are presented. Results indicate that the Netherlands is following a general pattern, prevalent in Europe and the US, of more punitive and repressive punishment. Also, the extent to which new sentencing options, such as community sanctions have made a difference to the upward trend in imprisonment, will be analysed. In an effort to reduce the costs of the system new policies are being developed, introducing both 'front door' and 'back door' varieties in sentencing. These will lead to some important and radical changes in the criminal justice system.     

Capital punishment preferences for special offender populations

The present study utilized the factorial survey design, a quasi-experimental approach, in an attempt to measure respondent's capital punishment preferences regarding juvenile, the mentally incompetent, and the mentally retarded offenders. The findings indicated that respondents were significantly less likely to prefer capital punishment over alternative sentencing options. Moreover, the influence aggravating and mitigating circumstances such as the offender's age, mental capacity, prior record, and death-eligibility were found to strongly affect the public's death penalty preferences. The substantive, methodological, and public policy implications of this study are discussed.     

Blended Sentencing Laws and the Punitive Turn in Juvenile Justice

In many states, young people today can receive a “blended” combination of both a juvenile sanction and an adult criminal sentence. We ask what accounts for the rise of blended sentencing in juvenile justice and whether this trend parallels crime control developments in the adult criminal justice system. We use event history analysis to model state adoption of blended sentencing laws from 1985 to 2008, examining the relative influence of social, political, administrative, and economic factors. We find that states with high unemployment, greater prosecutorial discretion, and disproportionate rates of African American incarceration are most likely to pass blended sentencing provisions. This suggests that the turn toward blended sentencing largely parallels the punitive turn in adult sentencing and corrections—and that theory and research on adult punishment productively extends to developments in juvenile justice.     

Same Crime,Different Time: Why we Need an Amended Guideline for Repeat Offenders to Minors

Currently there is a circuit split between the Second and Ninth Circuits in determining whether or not to apply previous juvenile sex offenses to the sentencing of an adult sex offender. The Second Circuit feels it is within the trial court's discretion to apply an enhancement of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines by applying either a juvenile adjudicated or unadjudicated sex offense to the sentencing of an adult offender. The Ninth Circuit sees that as improper and only adult sex offenses should be counted toward the sentencing of adult sex offenses. Due to the vague language of this enhancement, the determination of how to apply this is up to the court's discretion. This Note proposes that the U.S. Sentencing Commission amend section 4B1.5, and decide in favor of the Ninth Circuit due to the plain text reading of the statute, as well as the intent of the guideline itself alongside the “rule of lenity” as understood in the Ninth Circuit's reasoning of only applying adult offenses to the sentencing of that adult later on in life. The positive public policy of rehabilitation of juvenile offenders would be served greatly by this amendment to this guideline. By eliminating the possibility of having such an offense count against a juvenile in the future would allow and encourage those juveniles to take positive steps toward their future.     

Violent Youth in Juvenile and Adult Court: An Assessment of Sentencing Strategies in Texas

This paper examines the effectiveness of two sentencing strategies for managing serious and violent juvenile offenders: judicial waiver to adult court and determinate sentencing in juvenile court. Corrections data were analyzed and it was found that both groups consistently receive longer terms of incarceration than are available through normal juvenile justice processing. However, this finding changed when actual time served was taken into consideration. A discriminant analysis showed that juveniles determin-ately sentenced in juvenile court are more likely to be younger and receive and serve shorter sentences than juveniles waived to adult court and sentenced to prison.     

Putting kids to death: Specifying public support for juvenile capital punishment

Using a statewide sample of 539 Tennessee residents, we explored the extent to which the public supports the death penalty for juveniles. The analysis revealed that a majority of respondents favored juvenile capital punishment, often for young offenders. The respondents, however, were less supportive of juvenile than of adult execution. Most important, as an alternative to juvenile capital punishment, nearly two-thirds of the sample favored life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOP); four-fifths favored a life sentence with work and restitution requirements (LWOP+W/R). Notably, even among those who endorsed capital punishment for juveniles, a clear majority supported LWOP+W/R. Taken together, these findings reveal that although the public is willing to execute juveniles who commit first-degree murder, they prefer alternative sentencing options that avoid putting youths to death.     

Legal,Psychological, and Behavioral Outcomes

States have responded to the public's outrage at rising juvenile crime by revising their transfer statutes to make it easier to transfer juvenile offenders for trial and sentencing in criminal court and possible incarceration in adult prisons. These changing trends in juvenile justice raise three questions about what actually happens to juveniles once they are in the adult criminal justice system. To what extent does trial in adult court and/or incarceration in adult prisons promote or retard community protection, juvenile offenders' accountability, and the development of competencies in juvenile offenders? This article discusses state transfer laws and the legal consequences of criminal court prosecution, and analyzes current research on deterrence effects of transfer laws, conviction and sentencing in juvenile versus criminal court, recidivism rates in juvenile versus criminal court, and conditions and programming in juvenile versus adult correctional facilities. The research findings have two important implications for juvenile justice policy: the number of juvenile cases transferred to criminal court should be minimized, and imprisonment of juveniles in adult facilities should be avoided whenever possible. These implications are discussed, and directions for future research are identified.     

Do Criminal Court Outcomes Vary by Juvenile Transfer Mechanism? A Multi-Jurisdictional,Multilevel Analysis

In recent decades, the number of juvenile defendants transferred to criminal court has increased dramatically, in large measure due to an expansion of available transfer mechanisms. While transfer traditionally occurred by judicial waiver of jurisdiction, alternatives have emerged and eclipsed judicial waiver as the primary route to adult court. The present study examines whether the mechanism of waiver—judicial, prosecutorial, or legislative—affects sentencing outcomes for juvenile defendants transferred to adult court. Results from multilevel models that control for state-level variation indicate that sentencing outcomes are inextricably tied to method of transfer. Most notably, non-criminal outcomes are most likely for cases that arrive in criminal court by legislative waiver. This suggests that legislative waiver is an ineffective means of sending juvenile offenders to criminal court, and provides some empirical support for the notion that judicial waiver is the most appropriate method of transfer.     

A Proposed Determinate Sentencing Model In Virginia: An Empirical Evaluation

After a brief presentation of issues that preceded the current disillusionment with the indeterminate sentencing practices in juvenile justice, the authors describe a determinate sentencing model being proposed in Virginia. Then, data are discussed comparing length of sentence under the proposed model to incarceration periods under the present indeterminate structure according to offense history, age, gender, and race. Finally, some immediate implications of the proposed model of sentencing are discussed.     

Sentencing disparities for juvenile offenders sentenced to adult prisons: An individual and contextual analysis

While the punishment of juvenile offenders has increasingly become an issue of major concern to the public, there are few studies that test the government's coercive response to offending by this particular group. This study addresses this issue by examining the variation in sentence length for juvenile offenders adjudicated in the adult criminal courts for violent offenses. Results from the regression analyses consistently show that, while factors related to the specific offense are important contributors to the variation in sentence length, differences in the ideological climate of each state are a strong predictor of the variation in adult sanctions for minors. Specifically, the findings show that conservative citizen ideology and Republican control of state government are important contributors to the variation in sentencing of juveniles across U.S. states. Additional evidence shows that states where judges must run in an election to gain their seats proscribe more severe sanctions on juvenile offenders by sentencing more of them to adult prisons. Overall, the results suggest that the social and political climate of each state plays a very strong role in the sentencing of juvenile offenders to adult prisons.     

The effect of local policy on the sentencing patterns of state wards

A large number of studies have identified individual and offense characteristics that predict the severity of criminal justice system sanctions against juvenile delinquents. However, very few studies have examined the effect of local decision making procedures and funding practices on sentencing outcomes. As such local practices could have important effects on sentencing, the present study compared the sentencing of juvenile state wards in counties that differ markedly in local policies. The hypothesis was that the availability of state, as opposed to local, funding for institutional placement (called a “charge-back” policy) in one of the counties would result in a more severe sentencing decisions and that this county's use of board of decision makers instead of individual caseworkers would result in harsher treatment of youths differentiated by minority status, sex, or family status. This difference might be due to the board's insulation from review.     

论量刑信息的调查

确保量刑信息得到全面、准确的调查,是量刑程序改革所要解决的一项重大课题。中国迄今没有引进"量刑前报告"的可能性,也难以将少年司法中的"社会调查报告"推广到"成年人案件"的量刑程序之中。在量刑建议制度的推行中,一直存在着"重量刑结果、轻量刑信息"的问题,而律师在从事量刑辩护过程中也对量刑信息的搜集不予重视,也缺乏相应的制度保障。被害方对量刑程序的参与不仅具有必要性,而且也可以向法庭提供新的量刑信息。为实现量刑裁决的公正性,为了使法官在量刑上的自由裁量权受到有效的规范和制约,法院有必要对量刑信息的调查确立更为合理的程序。     

Potential Impact of Research on Adolescent Development on Juvenile Judge Decision‐making

This paper discusses how biological and psychological literature on the developmental differences between juveniles and adults may affect juvenile judges in their “dual role” as retributive and rehabilitative decision‐makers in juvenile cases, specifically focusing on sentencing. Particularly, it discusses potential influences of this research on adolescent development regarding four factors known to be integral in juvenile judge decision‐making: legal factors, characteristics of juvenile offenders, and individual structural and social contexts in which judges’ decisions are made. To conclude, implications and recommendations stemming from this discussion are considered.     

THE INTERACTION OF RACE, GENDER, AND AGE IN CRIMINAL SENTENCING: THE PUNISHMENT COST OF BEING YOUNG, BLACK, AND MALE

Prior theory and research on sentencing oversimplify the role of race, gender and age in judicial decision making. In this article we present a "focal concerns" theory of judicial decision making to frame hypotheses regarding the effects on sentencing of these social statuses, both singly and in combination. Analyzing statewide sentencing outcomes in Pennsylvania for 1989–1992, we find that, net of controls: (1) young black males are sentenced more harshly than any other group, (2) race is most influential in the sentencing of younger rather than older males, (3) the influence of offender's age on sentencing is greater among males than females, and (4) the main effects of race, gender, and age are more modest compared to the very large differences in sentencing outcomes across certain age-race-gender combinations. These findings demonstrate the importance of considering the joint effects of race, gender, and age on sentencing, and of using interactive rather than additive models.     

Assessing the Effectiveness of Juvenile Justice Reforms: A Closer Look at the Criteria and the Impacts on Diverse Stakeholders

Research to date has taken a relatively narrow view of the criteria by which the effectiveness of juvenile justice sentencing policies are to be assessed. This narrowness is particularly striking given the comprehensive "get tough" reforms that recently have been enacted in nearly every state. Drawing on previous research and an analysis of the potential effects of a recent juvenile justice sentencing reform in Texas, this paper argues for greater attention to conceptualizing and empirically assessing effectiveness broadly, including reference to intended and unintended effects, multiple goals and means, and diverse stakeholders. The argument is sustained first by outlining and discussing these key dimensions and then by empirically illustrating the potential importance of one of these dimensions – diverse stakeholders and their respective interests.     

Restorative Sentencing: Exploring the Views of the Public

Within the past decade, restorative justice has emerged as a truly global phenomenon. Although retributive justice has dominated the penal landscape, more recently, restorative principles at sentencing have attracted increased attention. Restorative sentencing emphasizes the importance of compensation and reconciliation between victims and offenders and pays less attention to establishing proportionality between the seriousness of the offense and the severity of the sentence imposed. Although voluminous (and proliferating), the scholarly literature on restorative justice has to date neglected one critical issue: public opinion with respect to this justice paradigm. Public opinion researchers too, have generally overlooked this topic. The goal of this paper is to determine which elements of the new paradigm generate public approval, and which features are likely to encounter or provoke public opposition, drawing upon related international research published in English over the past 20 years (1982–2002). The review reveals widespread support for restorative sentencing options, such as community service, compensation, and restitution, particularly when applied to young offenders. However, it also seems clear that public support for these alternatives to punitive sentencing options declines as the seriousness of the offence increases, suggesting strong public adherence to the retributive principle of proportionality in sentencing.     

Individualization,criminalization, or problem resolution: A factorial survey of juvenile court judges' decisions to incarcerate youthful felony offenders

Existing research on the criteria used by juvenile court judges in choosing dispositions is limited in two respects. First, the predictor variables included in most investigations have been limited either in number or in the quality of their measurement. Second, research has not focused on sentencing decisions for serious offenders. Using a factorial survey of juvenile court judges, the present study seeks to determine what factors shape disposition decisions for juvenile felony offenders. The results suggest that judges focus primarily on offense characteristics, and are influenced only marginally by the offender's social characteristics. These findings are more consistent with the view that juvenile courts are becoming “criminalized” than with the view that individualized treatment is the goal. An alternative interpretation—that judges may be problem solvers, trying to dispose of cases efficiently—also is proposed.     

未成年犯社区矫正分析

社区矫正在预防和控制未成年人犯罪方面具有十分重要的地位和作用,符合未成年犯的心理特征,有利于克服监禁刑的弊端,有利于和发达国家的刑罚模式接轨。我国社会主义的刑事政策、社会主义的法律体系以及日趋完善的社区和健全的司法行政体系资源为未成年犯罪人适用社区矫正提供了现实可能性。针对我国未成年犯社区矫正工作中存在的问题,笔者认为,更新行刑观念、对社区矫正进行科学定位、建立专门的社区矫正机构、配备专业的矫正人员、建立适合未成年人特点的社区矫正项目以及建立未成年犯社区矫正制度的评估体系是对未成年犯社区矫正制度完善的重要举措。     

Taking the Law Into Our Own Hands: Structured Sentencing, Fear of Violence, and Citizen Initiatives in Washington State

This paper examines the impact of citizen initiatives on Washington State's system of structured sentencing. Criminal justice sentencing guidelines were implemented in Washington's juvenile court system in 1978 and in its adult felony courts in 1984. In the twenty years since, both systems have experienced significant changes, many of which impact judicial and administrative discretion. Early modifications to the guidelines were driven by legislative and administrative concerns (budgeting, prison population management). More recent changes have been driven by citizen initiatives fostered as a response to public fear of crime and violence. Increasingly, the public has rejected the advice and management of adult sentencing guidelines by criminal justice professionals, and taken a direct hand through the initiative process in setting the limits of judicial and administrative discretion. As a result, structured sentencing has become more complicated and less internally consistent. It remains unclear whether this is the inevitable price of growth in single issue politics and more direct public involvement in the determination of sentencing policy