NCJ Number
233574
Journal
Justice Research and Policy Volume: 12 Issue: 2 Dated: 2010 Pages: 1-24
Date Published
2010
Length
24 pages
Annotation
This study examined the sentencing disparity between juveniles waived directly to adult court and those juveniles who remained in the juvenile justice system before being sent to adult courts.
Abstract
The current study examines whether the process by which a juvenile reaches adult court influences later sentencing outcomes. Previous research has found that juveniles who were judicially waived to adult court faced a penalty at sentencing and suggested that this bias may be due to either 1) increased assessments of risk based on the offender's young age, or 2) a stigmatization of the offender by the transfer process itself. By examining a population of 16- and 17-year-old felony defendants in a State that automatically defines such youth as adults, this research directly tested these notions. Findings revealed that in this State, 16- and 17-year-old defendants actually received more lenient sentences than a matched sample of 18- and 19-year-old offenders, which is contrary to what would be expected if the previously found juvenile penalty was related to assessments of risk based on age. Moreover, in a second analysis comparing judicially waived youth (ages 13 to 15) in this same State to the 16- and 17-year-old defendants, it was found that the waived youth received significantly more severe sentences. The results are interpreted as support for the stigmatization hypothesis, suggesting that the process by which a youth reaches adult court does have significant meaning for later court outcomes. References (Published Abstract)