Predicting sentencing outcomes and time served for juveniles transferred to criminal court in a rural northwestern state

Steiner, Benjamin

doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2005.08.008

Cited by 14 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Prior research has offered some tentative support for the expectation that the juvenile penalty might vary by offense types (Barnes and Franze, 1989;Kurlychek and Johnson, 2004). Second, prior research has suggested that the mode of transfer represents an important consideration in judicial attributions of juvenile culpability and dangerousness (Steiner, 2005). We anticipate that juvenile status might have more pronounced effects for those offenders who reach adult court through a discretionary waiver hearing, as this mechanism clearly sends a message from the juvenile court that this particular youth is beyond the rehabilitative capacities of the juvenile system.…”

Section: Heterogeneity In the Juvenility Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Juvenility and Punishment: Sentencing Juveniles in Adult Criminal Court*

Kurlychek

Johnson

2010

Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Heterogeneity In the Juvenility Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Juvenility and Punishment: Sentencing Juveniles in Adult Criminal Court*

Kurlychek

Johnson

2010

Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Clinicians can advise the court about which youths may benefit from alternative sentencing options, and for which youths rehabilitation is less probable (53). If alternative sentencing options are made available, prison sentences may become less common (54). Clinicians and researchers must continue to refine juvenile assessment technology to assist the court with weighing mitigating psychiatric factors in transfer decisions (44,55).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychiatric Disorders Among Detained Youths: A Comparison of Youths Processed in Juvenile Court and Adult Criminal Court

Washburn¹,

Teplin²,

Voss³

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rural experiences of the criminal justice system vary greatly: from, for example, the rates of prosecution and sentencing, to the spatial distribution of police institutions, courts, and correctional facilities. This subject has been examined within a range of different contexts (see, e.g., Austin, 1981;Bond-Maupin & Maupin, 1998;Campbell et al, 2014;Ferrazzi & Krupa, 2018;Romero, 2020;Steiner, 2005;. For example, the effects of legislation on the policing of rural youth have been found to be of limited success due to the situational contexts of rural regions, including geography, underdeveloped infrastructure, and restricted resources (Ricciardelli et al, 2017;Wright, 1997).…”

Section: The Rural Criminal Justice Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crime and Safety in the Rural

Ceccato

Abraham

2022

SpringerBriefs in Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SpringerBriefs in Criminology present concise summaries of cutting edge research across the fields of Criminology and Criminal Justice. It publishes small but impactful volumes of between 50-125 pages, with a clearly defined focus. The series covers a broad range of Criminology research from experimental design and methods, to brief reports and regional studies, to policy-related applications.The scope of the series spans the whole field of Criminology and Criminal Justice, with an aim to be on the leading edge and continue to advance research. The series will be international and cross-disciplinary, including a broad array of topics, including juvenile delinquency, policing, crime prevention, terrorism research, crime and place, quantitative methods, experimental research in criminology, research design and analysis, forensic science, crime prevention, victimology, criminal justice systems, psychology of law, and explanations for criminal behavior.SpringerBriefs in Criminology will be of interest to a broad range of researchers and practitioners working in Criminology and Criminal Justice Research and in related academic fields such as Sociology, Psychology, Public Health, Economics and Political Science.

show abstract

Predicting sentencing outcomes and time served for juveniles transferred to criminal court in a rural northwestern state

Cited by 14 publications

References 31 publications

Juvenility and Punishment: Sentencing Juveniles in Adult Criminal Court*

Juvenility and Punishment: Sentencing Juveniles in Adult Criminal Court*

Psychiatric Disorders Among Detained Youths: A Comparison of Youths Processed in Juvenile Court and Adult Criminal Court

Crime and Safety in the Rural

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About