Race, Juvenile Transfer, and Sentencing Preferences: Findings From a Randomized Experiment

Abstract

In light of the expansion of punitive "get tough" policies for juvenile offenders, some researchers have uncovered evidence that juveniles who are waived to the adult court receive more severe sanctions than retained juveniles. Theoretically, the transfer status of delinquents may serve as a cognitive heuristic in criminal justice system (CJS) actors' "focal concern" judgments. Understood through this framework, transfer status may signify to CJS workers, and especially Whites, that a juvenile offender is especially dangerous or blameworthy, thereby justifying harsher punishments. To examine these relationships, two experimental vignettes were embedded in a national survey of CJS workers in which the transfer status of the offender was randomized. Analyses reveal that respondents did not prefer harsher sentences for the transferred violent male delinquent, but they did recommend significantly harsher sentences for the transferred nonviolent female delinquent. White respondents, however, were especially punitive in their sentencing preferences for the transferred violent male delinquent. The findings are partially consistent with the theoretical expectation that transfer status functions as a heuristic in CJS actors' assessments of juvenile offenders. The results also suggest that White CJS workers may racially typify violent youth who have been transferred to adult court.

Juveniles on Trial: Mode of Conviction and the Adult Court Sentencing of Transferred Juveniles

“…In light of these perspectives, it is theoretically plausible that juveniles may be sentenced more harshly than adults. In accordance with the focal concerns of blameworthiness and community protection (Steffensmeier et al, 1998), court actors may be inclined to view transferred youth as representing a particularly dangerous class of offender who should be punished severely (Lehmann, Pickett, Ryon, & Kosloski, 2017). While adults are sentenced in the criminal court by default, transferred juveniles are specially selected for sentencing in the adult court by virtue of the seriousness of their offenses or the extensiveness of their prior records.…”

A Focal Concerns Perspective on Prosecutorial Decision Making in Cases of Intimate Partner Stalking

“…Previous studies have employed experimental vignettes among mock jurors where the degree of fear exhibited in hypothetical stalking scenarios was manipulated (Magyarics et al, 2015; Scott et al, 2014). Future studies could thus apply this methodology to law enforcement and courtroom workgroups (i.e., prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges) using text vignettes (Lehmann et al, 2019), simulated interviews with standardized patient actors (Milone et al, 2010), and/or role-playing scenarios (Hine et al, 2019).…”

A ‘central paradox’: Judicial decision-making in cases of sexual offending by young people

“…While some literature exists on the sentencing of young people (Bishop et al, 1996; Cleland, 2016; D’Angelo, 2002; Lehmann et al, 2019; Mears et al, 2014; Sheehan & Borowski, 2013), this focuses almost entirely on sentencing outcomes rather than the judicial decision-making process (ie how sentencing decisions are arrived at). Harris’s (2008) study, which involved collecting observational and interview data from three Californian courthouses to investigate how Judges construct young offenders, is a key exception.…”