The verdict on jury trials for juveniles: the effects of defendant's age on trial outcomes

Abstract

With the progression to more adult-like policies and procedures for youth in the justice system, the right to a jury trial has been extended to young offenders. These youth would not be tried by a jury of their peers, however, but by a jury of adults. The concern is that adult jurors may hold negative attitudes about youth that might influence their decision making in a case involving a young defendant. Two studies examined whether and under what conditions defendant's age affects jurors' decisions about the guilt and sentencing of an accused. In study 1, data were gathered from two samples of jury eligible adults: one university sample and one public sample. Mock jurors read written transcripts of a trial involving a defendant who was presented as either 13, 17, or 25 years of age. Results indicated that the defendant's age had no effect on mock jurors' verdict or their ratings of defendant guilt. However, younger defendants were granted shorter sentences than the adult defendants. In study 2, mock jurors read the same trial presented in study 1 but were asked to deliberate about the case and render group verdicts. These group verdicts did not differ significantly by defendant's age. Age-related themes that emerged from group deliberations were identified, and results indicated that age tended to be used as a mitigating factor in favor of youth rather than against them. These findings are discussed in terms of their implications for youth justice policy and practice.

Juror decision making for juveniles tried as adults: the effects of defendant age, crime type, and crime outcome

“…These legislative changes, particularly with consistent emphasis on protecting society from dangerous juveniles who commit severe crimes, raise concerns of the fairness of trying juveniles in adult court. Juvenile defendants face a jury of adults who may hold biases that could influence verdict and sentencing decisions (Warling & Peterson-Badali, 2003). Empirical research has demonstrated that a wide variety of factors including defendant age, knowledge of a previous criminal history, crime type, and crime outcome may be influential for jury decisions for juvenile defendants in adult court (Ghetti & Redlich, 2001;Levine, Williams, Sixt, & Valenti, 2001;Rudebeck & Woody, 2002;Tang & Nunez, 2003;Warling & Peterson-Badali, 2003).…”

“…These differences have necessitated additional investigation. Warling and Peterson-Badali (2003) examined the effects of the defendant's age on decisions about the guilt of and recommended sentences for a juvenile or adult defendant in adult court, and they concluded that the defendant's age does not impact jurors' verdicts. Sentence length varied with age, however, such that jurors assigned less severe sentences for younger defendants.…”

“…Studies of juror decision making for juveniles tried as adults Many scholars have raised concerns about the fairness of trying juveniles as adults because of the developmental differences between juveniles and adults (Cooper, 1997;Grisso, 1997;Steinberg & Scott, 2003), and several studies have focused on the influence of the defendant's age on verdict and sentencing decisions for juveniles tried as adults (Ghetti & Redlich, 2001;Rudebeck & Woody, 2002;Tang & Nunez, 2003;Warling & Peterson-Badali, 2003). As described subsequently, only some studies have found significant effects of age on jurors' decision making, and these studies have reported differential results related to the defendant's age.…”

“…Sentence length varied with age, however, such that jurors assigned less severe sentences for younger defendants. Additionally, Warling and Peterson-Badali (2003) employed the Juror Bias Scale (JBS) in their post-test questions as a measure of bias toward defendants in the legal system. Proprosecution bias was associated with guilty verdicts but not recommended sentences (Warling & Peterson-Badali, 2003).…”

“…Additionally, Warling and Peterson-Badali (2003) employed the Juror Bias Scale (JBS) in their post-test questions as a measure of bias toward defendants in the legal system. Proprosecution bias was associated with guilty verdicts but not recommended sentences (Warling & Peterson-Badali, 2003). Tang and Nunez (2003) investigated the effects of defendant age and juror bias on judgments of culpability for juvenile defendants tried as adults.…”