The 1990s saw concerted legislative efforts to increase the mechanisms through which juveniles could be transferred to the adult court. Beginning research exists on how the public feels about transferring youths out of the juvenile justice system, but it is somewhat dated and does little to illuminate the reasons people support transfer. Using a statewide sample and factorial survey design, this study assesses how public views are related to multiple factors, including offense and offender characteristics, views on the appropriate aims of juvenile sentencing, perceptions of juvenile maturity, and expectations about the results of transferring juvenile cases to the adult criminal justice system. Our findings suggest that people want transfer used sparingly and selectively and that support is greatest when they believe that the adult system can provide effective rehabilitation as well as punishment. Implications are discussed.

Previous research has demonstrated that judicial instructions on the law are not well understood by jurors tasked with applying the law to the facts of a case. The past research has also shown that jurors are often confused by the instructions used in the sentencing phase of a capital trial. The current research tested the effectiveness of a “debunking” approach to improving juror misunderstanding associated with capital sentencing instructions. Participants were randomly assigned to hear either Florida's pattern instructions used in the penalty phase of a capital trial or the same instructions with additional statements that mentioned and refuted misconceptions thought to be associated with established areas of miscomprehension. After participants heard the judicial instructions, their understanding of the law on capital punishment decision making was assessed. The results revealed that comprehension was higher for participants exposed to the bias-refutation statements than for participants who were exposed to only the pattern instructions.

Concerns about juvenile murderers were raised by increases in juvenile homicide rates between the mid-1980s and mid-1990s. Little is known, however, about what level of punishment the public desires for such youths. Using a randomly selected sample of Florida citizens and a factorial vignette survey approach, the present study assesses the impact of characteristics of the offender, aspects of the offense, and perceptions of a youth’s maturity on public preferences for the punishment of juvenile murderers. Our findings show that the public favors short sentences of incarceration or less punitive responses in most cases and that the most salient determinant of punitiveness is the type of murder committed. These results are discussed in light of prior research and current policy directions.

Jail crowding is a substantial concern for many local jurisdictions. Although several authors have suggested a system-wide approach to reduce crowding, relatively little is known about how top local criminal justice officials viewthis issue. Using interviews and surveys of criminal justice leaders in a large southern metropolitan county, this study examined perspectives on jail crowding and perceived interagency relationships. Consistent with prior studies, the respondents agreed that jail crowding is a problem and that the consequences of crowding extend beyond the correctional facility. Greater discord was observed on issues of agency responsibility for changing policies to effect reductions in crowding. Findings are interpreted within the context of a “loose coupling” framework of criminal justice organizations.

As scholars of local corrections have noted, jails hold a myriad of inmates for widely diverse reasons. What remains unclear, however, is what purpose or purposes jails are expected to serve. Despite considerable research on the degree of support for various correctional goals, little is known about what goals people want local jails to pursue. Using a survey of local criminal justice leaders in Orange County, Florida, this study examines the preferences policy makers hold regarding the appropriate functions of jails. Our results suggest that these policy makers supported several utilitarian goals but were most supportive of rehabilitation and serving the needs of those with mental health and substance abuse problems. Lesser support was expressed for incapacitation, deterrence, retribution, and detention. The implications of these findings for criminal justice policy and for future research are discussed.