Effects of jurors’ gender and attitudes toward intellectual disability on judgments in cases involving disabled juvenile defendants

Because many juvenile offenders are intellectually disabled and have their cases tried by jurors in adult criminal court, it is important to understand factors that influence jurors’ judgments in such cases. Using a mock trial methodology, we explored the relations among jurors’ gender, attitudes toward intellectual disability, and judgments in a criminal case involving an intellectually disabled 15-year-old girl accused of murder. Men mock jurors’ judgments were not influenced by their preexisting biases, but women's were: the more women favored special treatment for disabled offenders, the less likely they were to suspect the disabled juvenile was guilty and the less likely they were to convict her. Implications for actual cases involving disabled juvenile defendants are discussed.     

Trial venue decisions in juvenile cases: Mitigating and extralegal factors matter

Purpose . This study assessed whether the characteristics of juvenile offenders and their victims affected respondents' decisions regarding whether a juvenile offender should be transferred to the adult criminal justice system. Method . Participants (N = 758) read a scenario about a juvenile accused of murder and decided whether the youth should be tried as an adult or as a juvenile. The age of the offender (11‐, 13‐ or 15‐years‐old), the sex of the offender, abuse history and victim type (neighbour or father) were varied. After indicating jurisdictional preference, participants read a series of statements (e.g. importance of punishment) and rated how important each was in their decision. Results . Significant main effects and complex interactions between defendant gender, age and abuse history were found. In general, younger defendants were more likely than older defendants to be recommended for juvenile court. Overall, juvenile offenders with a history of child abuse received less harsh verdicts. For males, a history of abuse affected decisions about trial venue and verdict both alone and in combination with other factors such as age, sex and relationship to victim. Results supported a mediational model in which extralegal and mitigating factors influenced the importance of a ‘just desserts’ orientation, which, in turn, influenced jurisdictional decisions. Conclusion . Despite a recent tendency for policymakers to pass legislation that requires more juveniles be sent to adult courts, the present study suggests that the public does not support automatic transfers to adult courts and that mitigating factors are important to their jurisdictional decisions.     

Improving court-appearance rates through court-date reminder phone calls

Without a defendant’s appearance in court, the adjudication of criminal charges cannot proceed. The low defendant court appearance rates of Lafayette Parish, Louisiana were identified as a high priority to address. A pilot project was implemented, in which, Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Office (LPSO) Information Officers would call defendants approximately 5–9 days before their pretrial court appearance. This process began in September 2014. LPSO staff attempted to call all non-incarcerated or diverted defendants with known contact information. LPSO staff documented when calls were made and the type of response (spoke to defendant, left a voicemail, no answer, inoperable phone or spoke to friend or family member). Calls were made to defendants with court appearances in arraignment hearings, misdemeanor pretrial and trial, felony pretrial and traffic court. Court appearance rates for all court hearings increased from 48 to 62%.     

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.     

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.     

Societal views of justice for adolescents accused of murder

Examines citizens' views about when juveniles accused of homicide should be tried and punished as adults. Responses from two randomly selected samples of adult Georgia residents suggest that these views are strongly influenced by whether adolescent defendants have been victims of abuse. Laypersons prefer juvenile court for juveniles who kill abusive parents (76% for first time offenders. 77% for those with one prior adjudication). Respondents are split concerning how to punish abused juveniles who have two prior adjudications (49% recommend juvenile court) and abused juveniles with one prior offense who kill a neighbor (48% recommend juvenile court). Most respondents, however, prefer adult court for repeat offenders who kill and have no history of child abuse. These findings suggest that legislative automatic transfers are overly simplistic compared to the contextual sensitivity of community sentiment. Policymakers may have serious misconceptions of societal views of fairness in this area.     

A Comparison of the Dispositions of Juvenile Offenders Certified as Adults with Juvenile Offenders Not Certified

Abstract In recent years, the transfer of juveniles to adult courts has been seen as one way of “getting tough” on juvenile crime. This study examined juvenile cases transferred to adult court, and compared them with a random sample of delinquents adjudicated in juvenile court for conduct that would constitute felonies if committed by an adult. The results indicated that juvenile cases transferred to adult court were far more likely to be pending and unresolved, as compared to the sample from the juvenile justice system. Furthermore, the results did not support the proposition that juveniles transferred to adult court would receive greater punishment than they could expect in juvenile court. Except for a small number of offenders, the prospect of transfer did not appear to provide a deterrent to crime.     

The percentage deposit bail system: An alternative to the professional bondsman

Bail bondsmen in the United States help defendants gain pretrial release. The preminums paid to bondsmen are not returned to the defendants. A percentage deposit bail project in two Massachusetts courts allowed defendants to gain their release by depositing 5% of the amount of bail with the court. These deposits were returned in full to the defendants upon completion of their cases, saving them large sums of money. Moreover, the rate at which defendants failed to appear in court as scheduled was no higher under this percentage deposit system than under the traditional bail bondsman system.     

Feigning incompetency to stand trial

The vulnerability of competency to stand trial instruments to malingering was previously unexamined. In this study, the Georgia Court Competency Test (GCCT) was administered to offenders asked to feign incompetency; their results were compared to controls and pretrial defendants (both competent and incompetent). Offenders appeared to be able to simulate incompetency and tended to score lower on the GCCT than their truly incompetent counterparts. For the detection of simulators, a newly developed Atypical Presentation scale for the GCCT showed promise. In addition, several strategies were explored that included simulators' failure of very simple items (i.e., floor effect) and variable success on items of increasing difficulty (i.e., performance curve). Optimal cutting scores are presented for forensic clinicians to screen defendants for feigned incompetency.     

The Children's Code Reform Movement in New Mexico: The Politics of Expediency

Like many states, New Mexico has experienced a "get-tough" movement in regard to the handling of juvenile offenders. In 1993 the state formulated a major revision of˜the˜Children's Code, and this revision did a variety of things. Among the changes incorporated into the Children's Code revision was a movement from essentially one category of offenders - delinquent children – with provisions for transferring certain serious offenders to adult court, to three categories. The additional two categories of juvenile offenders included "youthful offenders" and "serious youthful offenders." The upshot of these designations was that the state legislature more carefully defined the jurisdiction of the children's (juvenile) court, and prescribed more severe punishment for the most serious offenders. This article explores some of the forces at work in bringing about the revisions in New Mexico's Children's Code. We argue that the personal and institutional goals of politicians and other opinion leaders were more important than a rational reaction to any real crisis. Specifically, the threat to institutional resources posed by such serious offenders may well have kept institutional stakeholders within the juvenile justice system from objecting to recent changes in New Mexico's juvenile code.     

JUVENILITY AND PUNISHMENT: SENTENCING JUVENILES IN ADULT CRIMINAL COURT*

The study outlined in this article addressed a key limitation of prior research on the punishment of juveniles transferred to adult court by employing propensity score matching techniques to create more comparable samples of juvenile and young adult offenders. Using recent data from the Maryland State Commission on Criminal Sentencing Policy, it tested competing theoretical propositions about the salience of juvenile status in adult court. Findings indicate that even after rigorous statistical matching procedures, juvenile offenders are punished more severely than their young adult counterparts. We found no evidence that this “juvenile penalty” is exacerbated by an offender's race or gender, but it does vary starkly across offense type and mode of transfer, being driven primarily by drug crimes and discretionary waivers. The import of these findings is discussed as they relate to the future of juvenile justice policy regarding the continued use of juvenile transfer to adult court.     

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.     

JUVENILE CRIME AND WHY WAIVER IS NOT THE ANSWER

Many states deal with the issue of juvenile crime by charging juveniles as adults. This is done by a method of waiver. Waiver allows adult criminal courts to have the power to exercise jurisdiction over juveniles.¹ In effect, a juvenile is tried and sentenced as an adult when his or her case is waived (removed) from the juvenile court to the adult court. Waiver in juvenile (youths seventeen and younger) cases should never be allowed because juvenile offenders are too immature and incompetent to appreciate the nature of their crimes and because the juvenile justice system is a more appropriate place to rehabilitate juvenile offenders.     

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.     

TRANSFERRED JUVENILES IN THE ERA OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES: EXAMINING JUDICIAL DEPARTURES FOR JUVENILE OFFENDERS IN ADULT CRIMINAL COURT*

This study contributes to contemporary research on the punishment of juvenile offenders in adult court by analyzing the use of guidelines departures for transferred juveniles in two states, one with presumptive sentencing guidelines (Pennsylvania) and one with voluntary guidelines (Maryland). Propensity score matching is first used to create more comparable samples of juvenile and young adult offenders, and then Tobit regressions are employed to estimate the effect of juvenile status on the likelihood and length of departures. Our findings indicate that juvenile status significantly affects the use of upward departures in Pennsylvania, and the use of both downward and upward departures in Maryland. Judicial reasons for departure are examined to provide additional insight into the complex dynamics surrounding exceptional sentences for juvenile offenders sentenced in adult court.     

Does GPS supervision of intimate partner violence defendants reduce pretrial misconduct? Evidence from a quasi-experimental study

Objectives

This research examines the effect global positioning system (GPS) technology supervision has on pretrial misconduct for defendants facing intimate partner violence charges.

Methods

Drawing on data from one pretrial services division, a retrospective quasi-experimental design was constructed to examine failure to appear to court, failure to appear to meetings with pretrial services, and rearrest outcomes between defendants ordered to pretrial GPS supervision and a comparison group of defendants ordered to pretrial supervision without the use of monitoring technology. Cox regression models were used to assess differences between quasi-experimental conditions. To enhance internal validity and mitigate model dependence, we utilized and compared results across four counterfactual comparison groups (propensity score matching, Mahalanobis distance matching, inverse probability of treatment weighting, and marginal mean weighting through stratification).

Results

Pretrial GPS supervision was no more or less effective than traditional, non-technology based pretrial supervision in reducing the risk of failure to appear to court or the risk of rearrest. GPS supervision did reduce the risk of failing to appear to meetings with pretrial services staff.

Conclusions

The results suggest that GPS supervision may hold untapped case management benefits for pretrial probation officers, a pragmatic focus that may be overshadowed by efforts to mitigate the risk of pretrial misconduct. Further, the results contribute to ongoing discussions on bail reform, pretrial practice, and the movement to reduce local jail populations. Although the cost savings are not entirely clear, relatively higher risk defendants can be managed in the community and produce outcomes that are comparable to other defendants. The results also call into question the ability of matching procedures to construct appropriate counterfactuals in an era where risk assessment informs criminal justice decision-making. Weighting techniques outperformed matching strategies.

     

The Impact of Race on the Pretrial Decision

This study examined the effect of race on the pretrial release decision for drug offenders. Although this decision point has not been examined as extensively as the final sentencing decision, it is a critical discretion point which impacts defendants’ future sentencing outcomes. The results found that race had a significant impact on judges’ decisions to release a defendant on recognizance, with black defendants less likely to receive this release status. Race was not significant, however, in the decision of bail amount or in the likelihood to post bail. These results are consistent with the focal concerns perspective which suggests that black defendants are viewed by courts as more dangerous and blameworthy and thereby, less likely to be released on their own recognizance.     

The effect of race and gender on bail outcomes: A test of an interactive model

This paper responds to suggestions that researchers interested in the relationship between defendant race, defendant gender, and criminal justice outcomes broaden their focus to include pretrial decision making. We used data on defendants charged with violent felonies in Detroit Recorder’s Court to analyze the effect of race and gender on the amount of bail imposed by the judge and on the defendant’s pretrial status. We found that judges take gender, but not race, into account in determining the amount of bail for certain types of cases; more specifically, Black females faced lower bail than Black males in less serious cases. In contrast, we found that both race and gender affected the likelihood of pretrial release. White defendants were more likely than black defendants to be released pending trial and females were more likely than males to be released prior to trial. In fact, white females, white males, and black females all were more likely than black males to be released. An earlier version of this mansucript was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Phoenix, AZ, October, 1993.     

Perceptions of children during a police interrogation: Guilt,confessions, and interview fairness

Abstract

Jurors are often provided with confession evidence and must determine whether the confession was true, false, coerced, or voluntary. As more juveniles are tried in adult criminal court, jurors must increasingly make these determinations about minors’ statements. In this study, mock jurors read an actual interrogation of a child suspect that included confession evidence, and then provided judgments regarding the coerciveness of the interrogation, the child's and police's knowledge and behaviors, and guilt. Child age (11 versus 14 years) and gender were manipulated and examined in relation to participant gender and pre-existing sympathy levels for juvenile offenders. Factors external to the suspect – participant gender and sympathy for juvenile offenders – interacted with child suspect factors to influence perceptions of the child, the interrogation, and guilt. When multiple factors were considered, perceptions of suspect credibility and police fairness were the strongest predictors of guilt and perceived culpability. The findings have implications for decision-making in cases involving juvenile defendants and confession evidence.