Support for Balanced Juvenile Justice: Assessing Views About Youth, Rehabilitation, and Punishment

Abstract

Objectives The juvenile court was envisioned as a system of justice that would rehabilitate and punish young offenders. However, studies have not directly measured or examined support for ''balanced'' juvenile justice-that is, support for simultaneously employing juvenile rehabilitation and punishment to sanction youth-or how beliefs central to the creation of the court influence support for balanced justice. Drawing on scholarship on juvenile justice and theoretical accounts of views about sanctioning, the study tests hypotheses about such support. MethodsThe study employs multinomial logistic regression, using data from 866 college students enrolled in criminology and criminal justice classes, to examine support for different approaches to sanctioning violent juvenile offenders.Results Analyses indicate that a majority of respondents supported balanced justice for violent delinquents, approximately one-third supported a primarily rehabilitation-focused approach to sanctioning, and the remainder supported a primarily punishment-oriented approach. Individuals who believed that youth could be reformed and deserved treatment were more likely to support balanced justice or a primarily rehabilitation-oriented approach to sanctioning youth. ConclusionsThe findings underscore the nuanced nature of public views about sanctioning youth, the salience of philosophical beliefs to support different sanctioning approaches, and the importance of research that accounts for beliefs central to the juvenile court's mission.

Americans’ Opinions on Juvenile Justice: Preferred Aims, Beliefs About Juveniles, and Blended Sentencing

“…Similar results were found in a 2007 replication in four states (Piquero & Steinberg, 2010). These findings also parallel the results of Mears et al’s (2015) analysis of college students’ preferences. They asked students about the appropriate “goal of sentences for violent juvenile offenders” on a scale that allowed emphasis of punishment, rehabilitation, or both (p. 466).…”

“…Drawing again on their college-student sample, Mears and his colleagues provide evidence that beliefs about the possibility of reform drive preferences for delinquency countermeasures (Mears et al, 2015; Mears & Pickett, 2019). In one study, Mears et al (2015) used a single item—“how often is it possible to rehabilitate violent juvenile offenders” (p. 468)—and a second study combined answers to this question, with one that asked about the chances of rehabilitation for “juvenile offenders who commit serious property crimes (e.g., burglary)” (Mears & Pickett, 2019, p. 848). When respondents were more confident about the possibility of reform, they tended to favor a rehabilitative approach to juveniles over an exclusively punitive approach (Mears et al, 2015).…”

“…In one study, Mears et al (2015) used a single item—“how often is it possible to rehabilitate violent juvenile offenders” (p. 468)—and a second study combined answers to this question, with one that asked about the chances of rehabilitation for “juvenile offenders who commit serious property crimes (e.g., burglary)” (Mears & Pickett, 2019, p. 848). When respondents were more confident about the possibility of reform, they tended to favor a rehabilitative approach to juveniles over an exclusively punitive approach (Mears et al, 2015). Furthermore, greater confidence that juveniles can be rehabilitated predicted lower self-reported probability of voting for a politician because he or she supported trying juvenile offenders as adults and less support for transferring juveniles to the adult court (Mears & Pickett, 2019).…”

Racial Sympathy and Support for Capital Punishment:A Case Study in Concept Transfer

“…The inclusion of rehabilitation is important because it is a progressive policy preference. Although inversely related, punishment and treatment attitudes are distinct and can be held simultaneously (Cullen et al, 2000;Mears, Pickett, & Mancini, 2015;Sloas & Atkin-Plunk, 2019; see also Unnever, Cochran, Cullen, & Applegate, 2010). It is possible that racial sympathy might not only diminish death penalty support and punitiveness but also heighten advocacy for offender treatment.…”

Prisons or Problem-Solving: Does the Public Support Specialty Courts?

“…Fourth, Americans tend to favor a mixture of rehabilitation and punishment in a correctional response to offenders (Cullen et al, 2000). Recently, this has been referred to as a "balanced" approach to sanctioning (see, e.g., Mears, Pickett, & Mancini, 2015).…”