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.     

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.     

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.     

RETHINKING JUVENILE STATUS OFFENSE LAWS: CONSIDERATIONS FOR CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION ACT

Families struggling with a breakdown in communication, trying to control the behavior of an unruly child, or experiencing a crisis often look for outside help. Many families, particularly those without resources to pay for private support, turn to their local status offense system. Status offenders are young people charged with behavior unique to their status as juveniles such as running away, truancy, or disobedience. In 2007, Congress will begin to consider reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA), the federal act related to status‐offender policy. By providing an overview of recent state status‐offense legislation and case law, this article identifies issues to be addressed by Congress in reauthorizing the JJDPA.     

IS THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN ALCOHOL USE AND DELINQUENCY CAUSAL OR SPURIOUS?*

We attempt to isolate the effects of alcohol on different types of delinquent behavior by identifying the spurious portion of the relationship. Using data on adolescents from Finland, we compare the relationship between drinking and delinquent behavior while sober to the total relationship between drinking and delinquent behavior (sober or not). For each type of offense, we find a substantial relationship between drinking and sober delinquency, which suggests a good deal of spuriousness. For crimes of petty theft (shoplifting and stealing from home), the relationship between drinking and sober delinquency is just as strong as the total relationship, which suggests the relationship is almost completely spurious. For violence, vandalism, car theft, and graffiti writing, the alcohol‐sober delinquency relationship is weaker, which suggests that alcohol has a causal effect on these offenses.     

TO RECOMMEND OR NOT TO RECOMMEND: THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION

Tippins and Wittmann provide a cogent argument for custody evaluators not to make recommendations to the court. From their forensic and scientific perspectives, they have identified some important issues, which will certainly stimulate interesting discussion among custody evaluators. In response to their article, it is my view that public sector custody evaluations offer a philosophical and procedural alternative to forensic evaluations. This article proposes that recommendations should be viewed as part of the process of evaluations rather than the outcome. Based on a qualitative and interpretive model, recommendations are judged based on their applicability, transferability, and transparency. Recommendations viewed in qualitative terms provide parents with opportunities to step out of litigation and provide guidance for parents' ongoing roles postseparation.     

“YOUTH IS ENMESHED IN A HIGHLY DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILY SYSTEM”: EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILIES,PARENTAL INCARCERATION,AND JUVENILE COURT DECISION MAKING*

Although prior work has substantiated the role of external attributes in juvenile court decision making, no study to date has examined how family situational factors as well as maternal and paternal incarceration affect juvenile court officials' responses to troubled youth. Using quantitative and qualitative juvenile court data from a large urban county in the southwest, this study draws on attribution theory to examine how family structure, perceptions of family dysfunction, and parental incarceration influence out‐of‐home placement decisions. Findings reveal that juvenile court officials' perceptions of good and bad families inform their decision making. This study emphasizes the need to unravel the intricate effects of maternal and paternal incarceration and officials' attributions about families and family structure on juvenile court decision making.     

THE STATE IS STRONG BUT I AM WEAK: WHY THE IMMINENT LAWLESS ACTION STANDARD SHOULD NOT APPLY TO TARGETED SPEECH THAT THREATENS INDIVIDUALS WITH VIOLENCE

Surely there is a profound difference between inciting to arson by the use of words and inciting to revolution by the use of words. We do not have a ready word for the distinction, yet it is a deep and obvious one.—Harry Kalven, Jr.     

MENTAL HEALTH AND JUVENILE ARRESTS: CRIMINALITY,CRIMINALIZATION, OR COMPASSION?*

Juveniles in secure confinement allegedly suffer from more mental health problems than their peers. This may reflect background and behavioral characteristics commonly found in clients of both mental health and juvenile justice systems. Another explanation is that mental disorders increase the risk of arrest. These interpretations were tested on a sample of Pittsburgh boys (n = 736). Findings indicate that arrested youth exhibit more attention deficit hyperactivity (ADH) problems, oppositional defiant (OD) problems, and nondelinquent externalizing symptoms prior to their first arrests compared to their never‐arrested peers. However, arrested and nonarrested youth score similarly on prior affective and anxiety problems and internalizing symptoms. Net of delinquency, substance use, and other selection factors, internalizing problems lower the risk of subsequent arrest, whereas OD problems and nondelinquent externalizing symptoms increase it. ADH problems have no effect on arrest net of delinquency and substance use. These findings lend only partial support to the criminalization hypothesis. Whereas some mental health symptoms increase the risk of arrest, others elicit more cautious or compassionate official responses.     

THE LAW OF CRIME CONCENTRATION AND THE CRIMINOLOGY OF PLACE*

According to Laub (2004), criminology has a developmental life course with specific turning points that allow for innovations in how we understand and respond to crime. I argue that criminology should take another turn in direction, focusing on microgeographic hot spots. By examining articles published in Criminology, I show that only marginal attention has been paid to this area of study to date—often termed the criminology of place. I illustrate the potential utility of a turning point by examining the law of crime concentration at place, which states that for a defined measure of crime at a specific microgeographic unit, the concentration of crime will fall within a narrow bandwidth of percentages for a defined cumulative proportion of crime. By providing the first cross‐city comparison of crime concentration using a common geographic unit, the same crime type, and examining a general crime measure, I find strong support for a law of crime concentration. I also show that crime concentration stays within a narrow bandwidth across time, despite strong volatility in crime incidents. By drawing from these findings, I identify several key research questions for future study. In conclusion, I argue that a focus on the criminology of place provides significant opportunity for young scholars and has great promise for advancing criminology as a science.     

EXPLAINING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EMPLOYMENT AND JUVENILE DELINQUENCY*

Most criminological theories predict an inverse relationship between employment and crime, but teenagers' involvement in paid work during the school year is correlated positively with delinquency and substance use. Whether the work–delinquency association is causal or spurious has been debated for a long time. This study estimates the effect of paid work on juvenile delinquency using longitudinal data from the national Monitoring the Future project. We address issues of spuriousness by using a two-level hierarchical model to estimate the relationships of within-individual changes in juvenile delinquency and substance use to those in paid work and other explanatory variables. We also disentangle the effects of actual employment from the preferences for employment to provide insight about the likely role of time-varying selection factors tied to employment, delinquency, school engagement, and leisure activities. Whereas causal effects of employment would produce differences based on whether and how many hours respondents worked, we found significantly higher rates of crime and substance use among nonemployed youth who preferred intensive versus moderate work. Our findings suggest the relationship between high-intensity work and delinquency results from preexisting factors that lead youth to desire varying levels of employment.     

WE NEVER CALL THE COPS AND HERE IS WHY: A QUALITATIVE EXAMINATION OF LEGAL CYNICISM IN THREE PHILADELPHIA NEIGHBORHOODS*

This article presents data from the completed first wave of a multiwave comparative study of crime, danger, and informal social control that focuses on youth living in three high‐crime neighborhoods in Philadelphia, PA (N= 147). The study is a purposive sample of delinquent and nondelinquent young men and women in one predominantly African‐American, one predominantly Latino, and one predominantly white neighborhood, and researchers have completed in‐depth interviews and self‐reports with each subject. This article focuses on the narratives that youth living in high‐crime neighborhoods build around their contact with police and the strategies the young people propose for crime reduction in their communities. The data illustrate that most youth in each neighborhood are negatively disposed toward police and that this is grounded in the lived experience of negative encounters with law enforcement. However, when youth expounded on what they thought would reduce crime, they overwhelmingly chose increased and tougher law enforcement. We analyze these findings to determine whether support exists for a subcultural approach or a cultural attenuation/procedural justice argument, and we explore the implications of our findings for community‐based crime control.     

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.     

ADOLESCENT DRUG USERS: THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IS MISSING AN IMPORTANT OPPORTUNITY

A significant number of youth and young adults who use drugs have fallen through the cracks of our juvenile and adult justice systems in terms of receiving any meaningful services. The situation is due to a number of factors, including the reliance on adolescent self reporting utilized by most of the research, the failure of justice and other systems to routinely assess youth for either current drug use or indicia of drug use (e.g., "resiliency" or "protective" factors), and confidentiality and other restrictions pertaining to access to juvenile justice system information. Yet, retrospective reviews of drug use patterns for adults in the criminal justice system make it clear that drug use is beginning for most of these offenders during adolescence or before. This article urges (1) juvenile courts to develop mechanisms for systematically screening youth who come into the system for drug use and/or propensities for drug use and (2) adult courts to embark on similar strategies and to develop adolescent tracks that would be geared to providing the services these youth (despite their chronological age) need and would otherwise not receive in the adult system.     

ASSESSING THE EXTENT OF CRIME DISPLACEMENT AND DIFFUSION OF BENEFITS: A REVIEW OF SITUATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION EVALUATIONS*

Few criticisms of situational crime‐prevention (SCP) efforts are as frequent or prevalent as claims of displacement. Despite emerging evidence to the contrary, the prevailing sentiment seems to be that crime displacement is inevitable. This study examined 102 evaluations of situationally focused crime‐prevention projects in an effort to determine the extent to which crime displacement was observed. The results indicate that of the 102 studies that examined (or allowed for examination of) displacement and diffusion effects, there were 574 observations. Displacement was observed in 26 percent of those observations. The opposite of displacement, diffusion of benefit, was observed in 27 percent of the observations. Moreover, the analysis of 13 studies, which allowed for assessment of overall outcomes of the prevention project while taking into account spatial displacement and diffusion effects, revealed that when spatial displacement did occur, it tended to be less than the treatment effect, suggesting that the intervention was still beneficial. Implications for theory and future research are discussed.     

BREAKING THE CYCLE OF DRUGS AND CRIME: FINDINGS FROM THE BIRMINGHAM BTC DEMONSTRATION

Research Summary: We compared 137 felony defendants arrested before the implementation of Breaking the Cycle, a pretrial intervention with felony defendants that included drug testing, supervision, and drug treatment as needed, to 245 BTC participants. We found Significant lower rates of arrest and self-reported drug use and crime among BTC participants during the next year.
Policy Implications: Systematic intervention aimed at all drug-involved felony defendants, not just selected defendants, is effective, but may encounter substantial challenges in achieving collaboration across criminal justice agencies, services providers, and levels/branches of government.