Examining the “Gang Penalty” in the Juvenile Justice System: A Focal Concerns Perspective

Abstract

There are hundreds of thousands of juvenile gang members in the United States who are at heightened risk of criminal offending, violent victimization, and incarceration. Importantly, however, incarceration in itself is a lifelong risk factor for negative social outcomes. That said, little is known about the effects of gang membership on the sentencing outcomes of juvenile offenders. The primary research question of the current study is: How does self-reported gang membership influence the likelihood of incarceration relative to similarly situated non-gang-involved juvenile defendants? To address this question, the current study uses data obtained from the Pathways to Desistance study. In a sample of 1,067 serious adolescent offenders drawn from Wave I, results show that gang affiliation is a significant predictor of incarceration. This finding was consistent across the two study sites (Phoenix, AZ, and Philadelphia, PA), ultimately providing support for a “gang penalty” in juvenile sentencing outcomes. The implications for future research, juvenile justice policy, and youth development are discussed.

Examining the Impact of Mental Health, Substance Use, and Co-Occurring Disorders on Juvenile Court Outcomes

“…While the focal concerns perspective has commonly been applied to explain adult criminal justice processing, research has only recently extended this perspective to explain juvenile justice decision-making (Bishop, Leiber, and Johnson 2010; Walker and Cesar 2020). Given the dual focus on social control and treatment in the juvenile justice system (Feld 1999), Bishop and colleagues (2010) argue that the fundamental goals of juvenile court differ from adult court.…”

“…Therefore, unlike adult courts, juvenile court actors are encouraged to use a holistic approach wherein extra-legal factors are “allowed” to inform decision-making (Ericson and Eckberg 2016). Indeed, research employing the focal concerns perspective to examine juvenile justice outcomes has shown that minority youth (especially Blacks), males, and gang-affiliated youth are more likely to face punitive sanctions in the juvenile justice system due to attributions of blameworthiness and dangerousness (see Cochran and Mears 2015; Fader, Kurlychek and Morgan, 2014; Guevara, Herz and Spohn, 2006; Walker and Cesar, 2020).…”

“…Altogether, the focal concerns perspective, which has been referred to as the “dominant theoretical framework” for explaining disparities in adult sentencing outcomes (Hartley, Maddan, and Spohn 2007:58), has recently been extended to explain disparities in juvenile justice processing (Bishop et al 2010; Fader et al 2014; Guevara et al 2006; Walker and Cesar 2020). Given the dual goals of control and rehabilitation, the juvenile justice system may rely on extra-legal attributes of juvenile offenders such as mental health and substance use disorders to make sentencing decisions either favoring punitive or treatment-based sanctions.…”

Psychological Knowledge Used In Criminal Practice With The Involvement Of Minors

“…When investigating criminal cases involving minors, the following forms are widely used: psychological expertise in court, psychological-medical, multidisciplinary expert evidence, a psychologist, an educator as a specialist-consultant involvement, interrogation by a psychologist, the analysis of sociopsychological an employer's reference, a СV, and others (Walker & Cesar, 2020).…”

Gang Affiliation and Prisoner Reentry: Discrete-Time Variation in Recidivism by Current, Former, and Non-Gang Status

“…Fleisher and Decker (2001) referred to the official prison record as “jacketing,” as gang classification follows prisoners throughout their incarceration. In this sense, it represents a credential inside of prison, where the label imputes, as Goffman (1963:5) put it, “the wide range of imperfections on the basis of the original one.” Few labels in criminal justice generate as much stigma—focal concerns of blameworthiness and dangerousness (Walker and Cesar 2020)—as that of “gang member.” The gang label can lead to consequences inside prisons, such as poorer interactions with correctional personnel, a higher custody level, a more restrictive housing assignment, or limited access to rehabilitative programming, all of which could elevate risk of recidivism (Cook et al 2015; Di Placido et al 2006; Jacobs 2001). Integrated data management systems also mean that gang affiliation can be made available to relevant criminal justice personnel outside of prisons, such as police and parole officers (Fleisher and Decker 2001; Huff and Barrows 2015).…”