Raising the Age

Cauffman, Elizabeth; Donley, Sachiko; Thomas, Ann

doi:10.1111/1745-9133.12257

Cited by 8 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Phase I. panelists had anticipated resistance within the juvenile justice system, but not the criminal justice system. This resistance may stem from reform-driven efforts to raise the age of juvenile jurisdiction above 18 (Cauffman et al, 2017; Tolliver et al, 2021) or to apply developmental reform principals to 18–25 year olds in the adult criminal justice system (Lindell & Goodjoint, 2020; Perker et al, 2019), an idea with community support (Fountain et al, 2021). Alternatively, the national de-incarceration movement in the criminal justice system (Reitz, 2019), accelerated due to the COVID-19 pandemic (Abraham et al, 2020), may have provoked a broad resistance to any reform to the criminal justice system.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The developmental reform in juvenile justice: Its progress and vulnerability.

Cavanagh

Paruk

Grisso

2022

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past twenty years, the developmental reform to juvenile justice has shifted law, policy, and practice toward a research-informed perspective on adolescent development. However, as with any reform, the developmental reform has vulnerabilities that may reduce its likelihood to be sustained. In order to maintain and build upon the gains of the developmental reform to juvenile justice, we document a 2-phase, 5-year effort to identify and track threats to the reform. In Phase I, a threat assessment methodology was employed to develop a consensus among a panel of experts about threats to the developmental reform and potential mitigating strategies. In Phase II, panelists completed a follow-up survey 5 years later to report the manifestation and impact of the threats they had forecasted. Overall, panelists viewed the health of the developmental reform in juvenile justice positively, particularly in its rate of progression and states’ interest in the reform. Eleven threats were identified in Phase I, but only 3 of these (Racial Bias, Fragmented Efforts, and Trends in Other Social Systems) were reported as having manifested in Phase II. Notably, many of the panelists were largely unfamiliar with new and ongoing reform-relevant research, pointing to an opportunity for reform-minded researchers to disseminate their findings among policymakers and practitioners. In addition to offering a perspective on the developmental reform, the threat assessment methodology used in the project offers potential for threat assessments to forecast future trends in other public policy reforms. We close with recommendations for sustaining the progress of the developmental reform movement.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The developmental reform in juvenile justice: Its progress and vulnerability.

Cavanagh

Paruk

Grisso

2022

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, some states have set the age of criminal responsibility to less than 18 years, meaning individuals as young as 16 or 17 are excluded from the juvenile justice system simply due to their age (Griffin, Addie, Adams, & Firestine, 2011). Although “Raise the Age” campaigns have seen many successes in recent years (Cauffman, Donley, & Thomas, 2017), five states (GA, MI, MO, TX, and WI) still prosecute juveniles as young as 16 the same as adults, regardless of offense or criminal history (Juvenile Justice, Geography, Policy, Practice & Statistics, 2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of waiver to adult court on youths’ perceptions of procedural justice.

Kaasa¹,

Tatar²,

Dezember³

et al. 2018

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current study examined perceptions of fair treatment in a past court experience among a sample of incarcerated youth (n = 364). Perceptions were compared for youth whose cases were processed through the juvenile (n = 261) versus adult court (n = 103) systems. In general, youth who were adjudicated in adult court felt more justly treated by legal authorities than youth adjudicated in juvenile court. Specifically, youth in adult court rated judges as only marginally more just than youth in juvenile court, but rated their defense attorney’s treatment as significantly more just. Youth rated the prosecutor’s treatment as relatively unjust regardless of where their case was handled. Differences in perceptions of procedural justice were also observed based on prior arrest history and race, with minority youth and repeat offenders perceiving the process to be less procedurally just. Our findings should not be used as support for the increased transfer of youth into adult court, as other studies have demonstrated these youth tend to have worse outcomes. However, our findings do suggest that improvements should be made to increase elements of procedural justice in juvenile court settings.

show abstract

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

Lehmann

2021

Journal of Crime and Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Raising the Age

Cited by 8 publications

References 24 publications

The developmental reform in juvenile justice: Its progress and vulnerability.

The developmental reform in juvenile justice: Its progress and vulnerability.

The impact of waiver to adult court on youths’ perceptions of procedural justice.

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About