There is a large body of research examining the impact of race on juvenile court outcomes. Fewer studies have specifically examined the decision by prosecutors to formally petition a case to the juvenile court. A much smaller body of literature statistically controls for structural level variables (e.g., population density and racial composition), while examining the impact of race. Using the symbolic threat hypothesis, the current study examines the effect of race on the decision to petition a case to the juvenile court among youths in West Virginia's juvenile court, while controlling for both individual and structural factors. The results show that race at the individual level did not have a significant impact on odds of petition; although, percentage in poverty significantly interacted with race to increase the odds of Black youths being petitioned in areas of increased poverty. Implications of the results are further discussed.
Several studies have examined the effects of race and ethnicity on the sentences of adult offenders in the criminal court. The findings of these studies often show that race and ethnicity influence defendants’ sentencing outcomes. Few studies, however, have examined how race and ethnicity influence juvenile defendants sentenced in the adult criminal justice system. The purpose of this study, therefore, is to determine how race and ethnicity affect the sentences of juveniles, utilizing a national dataset of youth convicted of a felony in adult court. The findings suggest that race and ethnicity do impact the sentencing outcomes of convicted youthful offenders. In addition, the results suggest that the combination of race and other factors (i.e., interactions) has an effect on sentencing. Implications for subsequent research also are discussed.
Although research has examined the effectiveness of juvenile transfer on recidivism, there has been a lack of research done in assessing how well juvenile waiver to adult court meets the criteria necessary for deterrence to occur (i.e., certainty, severity, and swiftness of punishment). The purpose of this study is to assess how well juvenile transfer meets these criteria, using data on 345 youths legislatively waived to adult court in Pennsylvania. The findings indicate that there is greater punishment severity in adult court, but there is no difference in punishment certainty between the two court systems. In addition, court processing occurred more quickly in juvenile court. In other words, only one element of deterrence theory is achieved with juvenile transfer. Implications for subsequent research and policy are discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.