Determinants of Public Opinion Toward Juvenile Waiver Decisions

Wu, Bin

doi:10.1111/j.1755-6988.2000.tb00014.x

Cited by 20 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 28 publications

(22 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A respondent's harsh views about juvenile justice could be a result of their perceptions of specific events or time of day or personal experience on that particular day. As Wu (2000) suggested, researchers need to provide more information regarding the specifics of the questions asked. The questions within this dataset may suffer from these same ills.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Predicting Public Opinion About Juvenile Waivers

Jan

Ball

Walsh

2008

Criminal Justice Policy Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The accountability movement of the juvenile justice system in the late 1980s and early 1990s encouraged more punitive practices by juvenile justice professionals. Public opinion was strong during this time. The attitudes about the juvenile justice system are a product of individual demographic, cultural, and political characteristics. This study addresses opinions about juvenile waivers -a punitive sanction -examining data from the National Opinion Survey of Crime and Justice in the 1990s (see Flanagan, 1996). This study analyzes attitudes about juvenile waivers, using multivariate quantitative methods. The results indicate a consistent relationship between the perception of the sentencing goals of the juvenile court (punishment versus rehabilitation) and one's attitudes towards the use of juvenile waivers. Contrary to the generated hypotheses, though, attitudes about juvenile waivers were not consistently dependent on individual demographic, cultural, or political characteristics.

show abstract

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The questions within this dataset may suffer from these same ills. Research on public opinion should frame the context within which the questions are asked (Wu, 2000).…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting Public Opinion About Juvenile Waivers

Jan

Ball

Walsh

2008

Criminal Justice Policy Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite erroneous public perceptions about juvenile crime rates, however, the public does not favor abandoning the rehabilitative ideal of juvenile justice in favor of wholesale punitive responses to juvenile offenders. While recent polls show that between 58% to 91% of Americans favor (depending on the type of crime and poll) trying violent juvenile offenders as adults (Schwartz, Guo, & Kerbs, 1993;The American Enterprise, 2001;Wu, 2000), there is far less support for imposing adult sentences (Schwartz et al, 1993). Most still believe in the efficacy of the juvenile justice system and want it strengthened, favor early intervention and prevention programs along with rehabilitation over punishment for juvenile offenders, would reserve incarceration only for the most serious and violent offenders, want juvenile offenders tried as adults to receive rehabilitative treatment, and strongly disagree with the confinement of juveniles in adult prisons (Moon, Sundt, Cullen, & Wright, 2000;Schiraldi & Soler, 1998).…”

Section: The Role Of Public Opinionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adult Punishment for Juvenile Offenders: Does it Reduce Crime?

Redding

2008

Handbook of Children, Culture, and Violence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The decade prior to 1994 saw a significant increase in violent juvenile crime, high profile cases of serious and violent crimes committed by juveniles and young adults, and the resulting perception that America was experiencing a juvenile crime wave unlike anything in its history (see Zimring, 1998). Based on the projected growth in the juvenile population during the early twenty-first century, some predicted a coming storm of youth violence (see Welch, Fenwick, & Roberts, 1997) and the emergence of young Asuper-predators@ (DiIulio, 1995). The public, and perhaps even more so policymakers, demanded action. There was a rough consensus among legislators that the juvenile court was too lenient, that serious offenders were beyond rehabilitation and must be incarcerated to ensure public safety, and that juveniles were as culpable for their crimes as adults (Redding, 1997). Thus, states passed legal reforms designed to Aget tough@ on juvenile crime. The most significant change was states= revision of their transfer laws to expand the type of offenses and offenders eligible for transfer from the juvenile court to the adult court for trial and sentencing. Changes also occurred at the federal level with the passage of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-332, 108 Stat.1796), which allowed the transfer of 13-year-olds who committed crimes with firearms on federal property. Congressman Bill McCollum, a key sponsor of the federal legislation, said that A[I]n America today, no population poses a greater threat to public safety than juvenile criminals@ (see Lacayo & Donnelly, 1997, p.26). This chapter discusses the research on the general and specific deterrent effects of transferring juveniles for trial in adult criminal court, identifies gaps in our knowledge base that

show abstract

“…As the above quotes emphasize, there is an alarmist and "get tough" quality to current policy making, research, and public sentiment towards violent crime among juveniles (Allard, 2000;Halikias, 2000;National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 1991;Sprott, 2001;Wu, 2000). The media's selective focus on incidences of extreme violence committed by young persons has likely distorted the public's perception of youth crime and fuelled a punitive attitude towards it.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite these decreases, the rate of violent offending among American youth continues to be substantially higher than the corresponding rate in Canada. Moreover, the American public continues to rate juvenile crime as one of its most pressing social concerns (Walker, 1998;Wu, 2000).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%