2017
DOI: 10.1177/2153368717699674
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Race, Juvenile Transfer, and Sentencing Preferences: Findings From a Randomized Experiment

Abstract: In light of the expansion of punitive "get tough" policies for juvenile offenders, some researchers have uncovered evidence that juveniles who are waived to the adult court receive more severe sanctions than retained juveniles. Theoretically, the transfer status of delinquents may serve as a cognitive heuristic in criminal justice system (CJS) actors' "focal concern" judgments. Understood through this framework, transfer status may signify to CJS workers, and especially Whites, that a juvenile offender is espe… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 81 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In light of these perspectives, it is theoretically plausible that juveniles may be sentenced more harshly than adults. In accordance with the focal concerns of blameworthiness and community protection (Steffensmeier et al, 1998), court actors may be inclined to view transferred youth as representing a particularly dangerous class of offender who should be punished severely (Lehmann, Pickett, Ryon, & Kosloski, 2017). While adults are sentenced in the criminal court by default, transferred juveniles are specially selected for sentencing in the adult court by virtue of the seriousness of their offenses or the extensiveness of their prior records.…”
Section: Sentencing Transferred Juveniles In the Adult Courtmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In light of these perspectives, it is theoretically plausible that juveniles may be sentenced more harshly than adults. In accordance with the focal concerns of blameworthiness and community protection (Steffensmeier et al, 1998), court actors may be inclined to view transferred youth as representing a particularly dangerous class of offender who should be punished severely (Lehmann, Pickett, Ryon, & Kosloski, 2017). While adults are sentenced in the criminal court by default, transferred juveniles are specially selected for sentencing in the adult court by virtue of the seriousness of their offenses or the extensiveness of their prior records.…”
Section: Sentencing Transferred Juveniles In the Adult Courtmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous studies have employed experimental vignettes among mock jurors where the degree of fear exhibited in hypothetical stalking scenarios was manipulated (Magyarics et al, 2015; Scott et al, 2014). Future studies could thus apply this methodology to law enforcement and courtroom workgroups (i.e., prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges) using text vignettes (Lehmann et al, 2019), simulated interviews with standardized patient actors (Milone et al, 2010), and/or role-playing scenarios (Hine et al, 2019).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While some literature exists on the sentencing of young people (Bishop et al, 1996; Cleland, 2016; D’Angelo, 2002; Lehmann et al, 2019; Mears et al, 2014; Sheehan & Borowski, 2013), this focuses almost entirely on sentencing outcomes rather than the judicial decision-making process (ie how sentencing decisions are arrived at). Harris’s (2008) study, which involved collecting observational and interview data from three Californian courthouses to investigate how Judges construct young offenders, is a key exception.…”
Section: Judicial Decision-making About Young Offendersmentioning
confidence: 99%