Juvenile transfer status and the sentencing of violent offenders: a test of the liberation hypothesis

Split Sentencing and the “Youth Discount” in Florida Criminal Courts

“…Put differently, juveniles are more likely than adults to receive a split sentence even when such a punishment represents an upward guideline departure. Although prior work on the punishment of transferred youth compared to adults has not examined intermediate sanctions, the current findings mirror those from some previous scholarship focused on conventional sentence types, with juveniles receiving relative leniency under certain conditions (e.g., Jordan, 2014; Jordan & McNeal, 2016; Lehmann, 2021a; Lehmann et al, 2018). Accordingly, while the results from this study are generally indicative of a “youth discount” (Feld, 2013), such an interpretation must be qualified.…”

“…Specifically, some early evidence showed that transferred youth are more likely than young adults to receive incarceration sentences, longer terms of imprisonment, and punitive sentencing guideline departures (Johnson & Kurlychek, 2012;Kurlychek & Johnson, 2004Steiner, 2009). Other studies, however, have revealed that this relationship is nuanced, varying according to the adult age group of comparison as well as the sentencing outcome under scrutiny (Jordan, 2014;Jordan & McNeal, 2016;Kurlychek, 2018;Lehmann, 2018Lehmann, , 2021aLehmann et al, 2018). Although the findings from this body of literature are informative, absent from this work is a consideration of the various intermediate sanctions that can be available to criminal court actors.…”

The Latino Paradox, the Racial Invariance Thesis, and Recidivism Among a Sample of Juvenile Offenders

“…Among the quasi-legal variables are age, coded as 0 = 14 or younger, 1 = 15 or 16, and 2 = 17 or older. While a continuous measure of age is available in the data, it was collapsed into these categories based on Virginia Code of Law § 16.1–228, which defines age categories for the general provisions of age and jurisdiction within the juvenile court, and to follow the example of prior work (Lehmann, 2021; Lowery, 2021). Additionally, because the state of Virginia has five different DJJ regional jurisdictions which have significant sociopolitical differences and socioeconomic disparities, as well as the consideration of “justice by geography” in the juvenile justice system (Pupo & Zane, 2021), region was included in the analysis (0 = northern, 1 = central, 2 = eastern, 3 = southern, 4 = western).…”

“…The racial invariance thesis and Latino paradox may provide explanations for racial variations in other predictors of juvenile recidivism as well. These predictors can be separated into legal factors such as prior incarceration, offense severity, risk scores, prior institutionalization and pre-adjudication detention; and extra-legal factors such as age, sex, and geographic location (Campbell et al, 2018; 2020; Feld, 1991; Cottle et al, 2001; Feld, 1991; Jacobs et al, 2020; Leiber & Fix, 2019; Lehmann, 2021; Loughran et al, 2009; Mallett et al, 2013; Powell et al, 2021). According to the first interpretation of the racial invariance thesis, these factors should be comparable across all races for juveniles in areas of significant disadvantage, as they are facing very comparable forms of inequality.…”