ESTIMATING A DOSE‐RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LENGTH OF STAY AND FUTURE RECIDIVISM IN SERIOUS JUVENILE OFFENDERS*

The effect of sanctions on subsequent criminal activity is of central theoretical importance in criminology. A key question for juvenile justice policy is the degree to which serious juvenile offenders respond to sanctions and/or treatment administered by the juvenile court. The policy question germane to this debate is finding the level of confinement within the juvenile justice system that maximizes the public safety and therapeutic benefits of institutional confinement. Unfortunately, research on this issue has been limited with regard to serious juvenile offenders. We use longitudinal data from a large sample of serious juvenile offenders from two large cities to 1) estimate a causal treatment effect of institutional placement, as opposed to probation, on future rate of rearrest and 2) investigate the existence of a marginal effect (i.e., benefit) for longer length of stay once the institutional placement decision had been made. We accomplish the latter by determining a dose‐response relationship between the length of stay and future rates of rearrest and self‐reported offending. The results suggest that an overall null effect of placement exists on future rates of rearrest or self‐reported offending for serious juvenile offenders. We also find that, for the group placed out of the community, it is apparent that little or no marginal benefit exists for longer lengths of stay. Theoretical, empirical, and policy issues are outlined.     

From the Inside/Out: Greene County Jail Inmates on Restorative ReEntry

The application of criminal justice sanctions is often misguided by a failure to recognize the need for a comprehensive approach in the transformation of offenders into law-abiding citizens. Restorative justice is a growing movement within criminal justice that recognizes the disconnect between offender rehabilitative measures and the social dynamics within which offender reentry takes place. By using restorative approaches to justice, what one hopes of these alternative processes is that the offenders become reconnected to the community and its values, something rarely seen in retributive models in which punishment is imposed and offenders can often experience further alienation from society. In this study, the authors wish to examine factors that contribute to failed prisoner reentry and reintegration and explore how restorative reintegration processes can address these factors as well as the needs, attitudes, and perceptions that help construct and maintain many of the obstacles and barriers returning inmates face when attempting to reintegrate into society.     

Risk assessment vs real prediction: The prediction problem and public trust

Confusing risk assessment and the prediction of individual behavior has led to false claims which, if translated into juvenile court or adult sentencing policies (selective incapacitation, for example), may lead to further erosion in public confidence in the justice system. Considerable emphasis has been placed on the consequences of false positives in the literature and in this paper. The false negative has different but equally damaging effects because the impression may be given that increasing the severity of sanctions for selected serious offenders is the solution to juvenile delinquency and adult crime. Analysis of official police records for three birth cohorts from Racine, Wisconsin, reveals that, although high-risk groups produce a disproportionate share of the delinquent and criminal behavior recorded in police reports and juveniles in high-risk groups continue into adult crime disproportionately to others, serious juvenile offenders still account for only a portion of the serious offenses that will ultimately be committed by adults. Therefore, selective incapacitation of early offenders may take only a small bite out of crime. When referrals rather than police contacts were utilized as the predictor variable, there was little difference in predictive efficiency.     

Reforming Justice by Geography; Organizational Responses to the Problem of Juvenile Crime

Growing public sentiment over the problem of juvenile crime has resulted in an administrative focus on "toughening" and rationalizing the sanctions for serious offenders. Our analysis of ten states examines two measures of organizational power, discretion and jurisdiction, to specify the changing mandate of juvenile justice. A typology of reorganization strategies is developed which consists of three "policy change" categories—regulation, negotiation, and displacement. Our findings have implications for defining the recent reforms in juvenile justice, distinguishing patterns within seemingly random geographical variation, and anticipating further directions in the control of serious youthful offenders.     

Student Perceptions of Juvenile Offender Accounts in Criminal Justice Education

In criminal justice programs, a major teaching objective is to expose students to the wide range of experiences and career paths available in criminal justice. Technological advances increase instructional strategies so that students may gain more realistic educational experience and correct erroneous perceptions about the criminal justice system. This paper describes one such strategy for online criminal justice students, a virtual prison tour, founded on the principles of social learning, experiential learning, and e-learning. In an upperclass course in juvenile delinquency, 43 students viewed a video of incarcerated juvenile offenders recounting their experiences of institutionalization, sentences, challenges, programming, and fears upon release. Student responses to seven quantitative questions and one qualitative question revealed that the video greatly impacted their attitudes, understanding, and perceptions of the juvenile justice system and provided pedagogical benefits. This strategy can be used to help criminal justice educators enhance student learning so that students experience a major aspect of the juvenile justice system.     

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.     

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.     

Country Profile: A Review of the New Juvenile Offenders Status in Cambodia

This publication seeks to explore whether the position of juvenile offenders vis‐à‐vis the Cambodian criminal law has changed with the passage of the new criminal legislation and whether this change has been positive or otherwise. The quality of this change will demonstrate to the reader whether the overall process of the reform of the juvenile justice component of the Cambodian system of criminal justice, which spans the last fifteen years and has been funded by the international community, has been a success. The author limited the scope of this inquiry to a comparison between the various domestic laws applicable to juvenile offenders and did not include comparisons with international law, model laws or juvenile laws of other states. Being the first publication of its kind, this analysis limits its claim to the analysis of the relevant statutory provisions rather than ‘practice notes’ which have yet to develop.     

Alcohol addiction and perceived sanction risks: Deterring drinking drivers

This study argued that while sanctions deter offenders from being involved in future drinking-driving offenses, alcohol addiction prevents individuals from making rational choices, and, thus, increases offenders' chances of being involved in drinking driving regardless of the certain, severe, and swift punishments they had experienced. Results indicated that, individuals with more severe alcohol addiction problems had increased chances of committing multiple offenses regardless of the sanctions that they had experienced relative to those with less severe alcohol-related problems. Findings seemed to suggest that criminal justice sanctions alone might not obtain expected deterrent impacts on individuals with alcohol and other addiction problems. Drinking drivers and other drug and alcohol offenders should be screened for substance abuse problems, and, if necessary, provided with treatment.     

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.     

A New Leviathan: Benefit Sanctions in the Twenty‐first Century

This article highlights the spectacular growth of benefit sanctions in the United Kingdom which, at their peak, exceeded the number of fines imposed in the criminal courts. It proposes a three‐fold typology of monetary sanctions – punitive judicial sanctions, exemplified by court fines, regulatory administrative sanctions, exemplified by parking penalties, and disciplinary administrative monetary sanctions, exemplified by benefit sanctions – and compares them in terms of their main aims, how they are imposed, whether the interests of those sanctioned are protected, their severity, the socio‐economic characteristics of offenders, the hardship caused, how proportionate they are, and whether they are compatible with justice. It argues that they are particularly problematic because their severity causes great and disproportionate hardship, and because, in addition to punishing offenders, they also attempt to discipline them by managing their behaviour, and concludes that, in the United Kingdom, they function as a key instrument for disciplining and managing the poor.     

JUVENILE WAIVER AS A MECHANISM OF SOCIAL STRATIFICATION: A FOCUS ON HUMAN CAPITAL*

The historic transformations of the criminal justice system must be justified and interpreted through the effects on criminals (Maruna and Immarigeon, 2011). The push for harsher sentencing policies for juvenile offenders specifically through the use of juvenile waiver to criminal court is one such policy that is not well understood in terms of its effects on offenders, especially in terms of broader outcomes beyond recidivism. We use data from the Pathways to Desistance Study, which consists of a sample of adolescent offenders followed for 7 years postadjudication, to investigate the effect juvenile waiver has on human capital acquisition and yield among 557 adolescents from Maricopa County, Arizona. By using various matching specifications, our findings demonstrate that juveniles transferred to adult court experience no deleterious effects on human capital in terms of educational acquisition compared with similar youth retained in the juvenile system, yet they still earn considerably less income 7 years postadjudication. These results suggest that an important and unintended collateral consequence of juvenile waiver is an increase in social stratification potentially through labeling and labor market discrimination.     

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.     

Exploring the Positive Punishment Effect Among Incarcerated Adult Offenders

The vast majority of offenders released from prison will re-offend, about two-thirds will be re-arrested with three years, most current prison inmates have prior prison experience, and many repeat offenders are devoted to what has been termed a criminal lifestyle. Findings from a survey of over 700 incarcerated adult offenders explore the effect of different measures of past punishment on inmates’ perceptions of the certainty and severity of future sanctions, and self-reported likelihood of re-offending after release. Results are mixed, with measures of current imprisonment being associated with a deterrent effect, while measures of past imprisonment (juvenile and adult) and experience with alternative sanctions being associated with a criminogenic effect. Recognizing that the data are not longitudinal and contain no measures of actual re-offending, the implied positive punishment effect is explained by applying social learning dynamics and insights from ethnographic studies. Specifically, a) non-social reinforcers-particularly affective costs and benefits experienced through offending, b) association with criminal reference groups in and out of prison, and c) a lack of legitimate, reintegrative opportunities upon reentry all serve to promote re-offending. Findings have implications for the study of offender decision-making processes, and speak to the efficacy of imprisonment as a deterrent to crime.     

Stereotypes influence beliefs about transfer and sentencing of juvenile offenders

Despite sharp drops in juvenile crime since the mid-1980s, punitive policies regarding juveniles who commit serious offenses still exist. We assessed beliefs about two such practices: transferring offenders from the juvenile justice to the criminal justice system, and subjecting them to sentences of life without parole (LWOP). We examined whether stereotypes about juvenile offenders – the extent to which people believe they are dispositionally violent superpredators versus economically and socially impoverished wayward youth – influence support for these policies. We measured 321 participants’ beliefs about the causes of juvenile crime and juveniles’ potential for recidivism and rehabilitation. Using vignette methodology and actual case facts, we described a 13-, 17-, or 21-year-old offender who murdered a stranger or abusive parent, and asked whether he should be transferred to criminal court and sentenced to LWOP. As endorsement of the superpredator stereotype increased, so did support for these practices. Offenders who murdered an abusive parent were shown more leniency. Older offenders were generally treated harsher, except by people with strong superpredator stereotypes who, on the issue of LWOP appropriateness, did not distinguish among juveniles of different ages. Findings suggest that stereotypes can influence judgments in cases involving juveniles and indirectly affect policy-making about juvenile offending.     

CONTROLLING OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN: RACIALIZED VIEWS OF DELINQUENCY AND WHITES’ PUNITIVE ATTITUDES TOWARD JUVENILE OFFENDERS*

The juvenile justice system was founded on, and until recently developed around, the idea that society should afford delinquents more leniency and rehabilitative care than adult criminals because of their lower levels of physical and cognitive development and, thus, diminished culpability for law violations and higher amenability to treatment. The past four decades, however, have witnessed a sustained movement to recriminalize delinquency through the enactment of policies that treat juvenile offenders more like their adult counterparts. Feld (1999a) and others have argued that this punitive turn in juvenile justice is in part a result of the racialization of delinquency and violent victimization in the post–Civil Rights era. This study provides the first test of the key assumption underlying this thesis, namely, that Whites’ support for getting tough with juvenile offenders is in part tied to racialized views of youth crime. Drawing on data from a recent national survey, we examine the extent to which relative racial typifications about delinquency and victimization, as well as racial resentment, are associated with general punitiveness toward juvenile offenders as well as support for lower minimum ages of criminal justice jurisdiction. Regression results show that Whites who hold such typifications and those who are more racially resentful are both more likely to embrace punitive youth justice policies and favor transfers for younger offenders. The implications of the findings are discussed.     

Examining the Behavior of a System: An Outcome Evaluation of a Coordinated Community Response to Domestic Violence

One goal of a coordinated community response (CCR) to domestic violence is to create an infrastructure that will facilitate systems-level, and ultimately societal-level change. This study evaluated whether a CCR implemented in two counties in Georgia would be effective at increasing criminal justice system sanctions for male domestic violence offenders (i.e., arrests, prosecutions, convictions, sentencing, and referrals to batterer intervention programs). Time series analyses revealed that, in both counties, there was a significant increase in arrests of male offenders; however, law enforcement agencies also arrested more women following the intervention. More men were sentenced to probation and to attend a batterer’s intervention program post-intervention in one county; in the second county, there was no change in these outcomes. Results highlight the importance of examining how a CCR may affect the behavior of criminal justice systems, especially in terms of the unintended consequences for women.     

Exercising Options: An Assessment of the Use of Alternative Sanctions for Drug Offenders

In this paper, we explore a relatively unexamined area of sentencing—the use of alternative sanctions. While researchers have discussed the potential uses and misuses of alternative sanctions, few have focused on who receives them and why. We argue that, while alternative sanctions have the potential to be useful tools, they also open “windows of discretion” that may disadvantage certain groups. We use quantitative and qualitative data from Washington State to explore how alternative sanctions are applied in cases involving felony drug offenders. The results of quantitative analyses are largely consistent with current theories of sentencing in that court officials rely heavily on indicators of danger and blameworthiness in determining when to apply alternative sanctions. Qualitative analyses, however, suggest that decisions about alternative sanctions are complex, and that court officials’ beliefs about the fairness and efficacy of sentencing options influence the extent to which they will use available alternatives. Implications for criminal justice theory, public policy, and future research are discussed.     

The value of restorative justice*

This paper starts by defining restorative justice and analysing its components. It looks at its practical benefits for the criminal justice system and explores the human benefits, not only for victims, but also for offenders, the families of both parties and the community. The experience of restorative justice in juvenile courts in New Zealand is examined in order to highlight the main benefits of the practice. Studies have shown that restorative justice can have positive effects such as reducing reoffending, providing an insight into offending, bringing together victims and offenders and repairing emotional harm. The paper concludes that although restorative justice on its own will not fix all social problems, it has many positive impacts on participants.     

PUBLIC OPINION AND THE FOUNDATION OF THE JUVENILE COURT*

Over 100 years ago, juvenile courts emerged out of the belief that juveniles are different from adults—less culpable and more rehabilitatable—and can be "saved" from a life of crime and disadvantage. Today, the juvenile justice system is under attack through increasing calls to eliminate it and enactment of statutes designed to place younger offenders in the adult justice system. However, little evidence exists that policy makers have taken the full range of public views into account. At the same time, scholarly accounts of calls to eliminate the juvenile justice system have neglected the role of public opinion. The current study addresses this situation by examining public views about 1) abolishing juvenile justice and 2) the proper upper age of original juvenile court jurisdiction. Particular attention is given to the notion that child‐saving and "get tough" orientations influence public views about juvenile justice. The analyses suggest support for the lingering appeal of juvenile justice among the public and the idea that youth can be “saved,” as well as arguments about the politicization and criminalization of juvenile justice. They also highlight that the public, like states, holds variable views about the appropriate age of juvenile court jurisdiction. We discuss the implications of the study and avenues for future research. Why is it not just and proper to treat these juvenile offenders, as we deal with the neglected children, as a wise and merciful father handles his own child whose errors are not discovered by the authorities? Why is it not the duty of the state, instead of asking merely whether a boy or a girl has committed a specific offense, to find out what he is, physically, mentally, morally, and then if it learns that he is treading the path that leads to criminality, to take him in charge, not so much to punish as to reform, not to degrade but to uplift, not to crush but to develop, to make him not a criminal but a worthy citizen.