Examining the prevalence of a ‘youth discount’ in the juvenile justice system

A Multilevel Test of the Racial Threat Hypothesis in One State’s Juvenile Court

“…Scholars who study sentencing have noted that race affects outcomes for adult offenders across a number of criminal justice contexts (Crawford et al, 1998; Crow & Johnson, 2008; Jacobs & Carmichael, 2001; Steffensmeier et al, 1998). Nonetheless, there are still questions about the degree to which race affects sanctioning for juvenile offenders and whether there are decision points occurring prior to the dispositional stage where race effects are most likely to be observed (Morrow, Dario, & Rodriguez, 2015; Peck, Leiber, & Brubaker, 2014). A number of theoretical perspectives have been offered that purport to explain the observed differences among these offenders (Bishop & Frazier, 1996; Fagan, 1996; Kurlychek & Johnson, 2004; Leiber & Johnson, 2008).…”

The Likelihood of a “Youth Discount” in Juvenile Court Sanctions

“…Most recently, Morrow, Dario, and Rodriguez (in press) used data from a single southwestern city and assessed for race/ethnicity and age effects with decision making at diversion, detention, petition, and adjudication. In terms of main effects, Blacks were less likely to participate in diversion, and both Blacks and Latinos were more likely to be detained compared to Whites.…”

“…Overall, the results were somewhat inconsistent in terms of the youth discount and of race/ethnicity/age effects with court outcomes. Morrow and colleagues (in press, pp. 13) concluded thatdespite the fact that younger youth are generally perceived as being less accountable for their actions, decision-makers partake in a ‘balancing act’ … whereby age may be viewed as less of a concern compared to the stereotypes revolving around race/ethnicity and delinquency.…”

“…While a limited number of studies have examined the extent that a “youth discount” acts as a conditioning effect for the treatment of Whites and Blacks in the juvenile court (cf. Leiber & Johnson, 2008; Leiber & Mack, 2003; Morrow, Dario, & Rodriguez, in press), no study has extended the inquiry to consider the interaction between race, gender, and age within this context. That is, research is lacking into whether the consideration of age by juvenile justice decision makers is the same for otherwise similarly situated White males, White females, Black males, and Black females.…”

Potential Impact of Research on Adolescent Development on Juvenile Judge Decision‐making

“…Age is another juvenile offender demographic known to be significantly influential on juvenile judge decision‐making. Specifically, older adolescents (ages 16 and 17) have been found to often receive more punitive and severe dispositions compared to younger peers (Morrow, Dario, & Rodrigues, ), and the perceived heightened future risk of juvenile offenders to public safety, especially for older juveniles, has been found to negatively influence juvenile judge decision‐making (Shook & Sarri, ). Like gender, there are many reasons discussed in the literature regarding why these older offenders may receive more severe dispositions, including the role of the offender's prior record.…”