The Effect of Transfers From Juvenile to Criminal Court: A Loglinear Analysis

Sagatun, Inger J.; McCollum, Loretta L.; Edwards, Leonard P.

doi:10.1080/0735648x.1985.9721310

Cited by 19 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most studies find high conviction rates for transferred juveniles, usually in the range of 75% to 90% (see, e.g., Bishop, et al, 1989;Bortner, 1986;Champion, 1989;Hamparian et al, 1982;Houghtalin & Mays, 1991;Podkopacz & Feld, 1996;Thomas & Bilchik, 1985). However, some research has found much lower conviction rates in adult court (Kinder et al, 1995;Sagatun, McCollum, & Edwards, 1985;Singer 1996), and a few comparative studies have found little difference in conviction rates between the juvenile and adult systems (Fagan, 1990;Rudman, Hartstone, Fagan, & Moore, 1986).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With regard to incarceration, researchers have examined both incarceration rates of transferred juveniles and length of incarceration. Some early investigators found evidence of a "leniency gap" in adult court, whereby waived offenders typically were not imprisoned and appeared to receive more lenient sentencing than they would have in juvenile court (Bortner, 1986;Champion, 1989;Emerson, 1981;Gillespie & Norman, 1984;Hamparian et al, 1982;Royscher & Edelman, 1981;Sagatun, McCollum, & Edwards, 1985). More recent studies suggest that while property offenders may be treated rather leniently in adult court, often receiving sentences of probation (see, e.g., Barnes & Franz, 1989;Bishop et al, 1989;Podkopacz & Feld, 1996), lengthy imprisonment is commonly imposed on violent youths in the adult system (see, e.g., Barnes & Franz, 1989;Clarke, 1996;Clemment, 1997;Fagan, 1990;Houghtalin & Mays, 1991;Podkopacz & Feld, 1996;Rudman, Hartstone, Fagan, & Moore, 1986).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Predispositional Status of Violent Youthful Offenders: Is There a “Custody Gap” in Adult Criminal Court?

Myers

Kiehl

2001

Justice Research and Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study focused on the immediate justice system response to violent youths in juvenile versus adult court. We examined 557 violent young offenders from Pennsylvania, of whom 138 were judicially waived to adult court and 419 were retained in juvenile court. Statistical analyses revealed that the transferred youths were more likely to be released from secure custody prior to a final disposition of their charges. Of those offenders who were released, the transferred youths also were more likely to recidivate and exhibited more serious predispositional recidivism than did the retained juveniles. These findings suggest the presence of an initial “custody gap” for violent youths waived to the adult criminal system.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Predispositional Status of Violent Youthful Offenders: Is There a “Custody Gap” in Adult Criminal Court?

Myers

Kiehl

2001

Justice Research and Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Bortner (1986) and Champion (1989) observed that juveniles who are remanded to adult court for processing were not always targets for harsher punishments compared to their juvenile court counterparts. Likewise, the research by Sagatun, McCollum, and Edwards (1985) and Clement (1997) revealed that the juvenile court and the adult court tend to treat comparable offenders similarly. More recently, Kupchik (2006) reported that transferred youth are typically punished under the same "juvenile justice model" as youth who are retained in the juvenile justice system.…”

Section: Prior Research On Sentencing Transferred Juvenilesmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…This body of work has reported somewhat mixed findings. Some studies find evidence of a “leniency gap” in punishment, with transferred youth receiving similar or possibly even less severe sanctions than their retained peers (Bortner, 1986; Champion, 1989; Clement, 1997; Sagatun, McCollum, & Edwards, 1985). For example, Bortner (1986) and Champion (1989) observed that juveniles who are remanded to adult court for processing were not always targets for harsher punishments compared to their juvenile court counterparts.…”

Section: Prior Research On Sentencing Transferred Juvenilesmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…E. Clarke, 1996;Eigen, 1981aEigen, , 1981bGillespie & Norman, 1984;Hamparian et al, 1982;Houghtalin & Mays, 1991;Lemmon, Sontheimer, & Saylor, 1991;Podkopacz & Feld, 1996;Thomas & Bilchik, 1985). However, other research has revealed much lower conviction rates for juveniles in adult court, in some cases as low as 25% (Kinder, Veneziano, Fichter, & Azuma, 1995;Sagatun, McCollum, & Edwards, 1985;Singer, 1996). Furthermore, a few comparative studies have found very little difference in conviction rates between the juvenile and adult systems (Fagan, 1990(Fagan, , 1995Rudman, Hartstone, Fagan, & Moore, 1986).…”

Section: The Punishment Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adult Crime, Adult Time

Myers

2003

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contemporary concerns about youth violence and related legislative reforms have resulted in greater numbers of adolescent offenders being handled in the adult criminal justice system. Although some past research suggests that juveniles transferred to adult court often receive somewhat lenient treatment, more recent studies focusing on violent youthful offenders have found the adult system to be more punitive in nature. This study examined this issue for 557 violent youth from Pennsylvania, of which 138 were judicially waived to adult court. Statistical analyses revealed that in terms of punishment certainty, severity, and swiftness, juveniles transferred to adult court were treated more harshly than were those retained in juvenile court, whereas juvenile court processing occurred much more quickly. Corresponding policy implications are discussed.

show abstract

The Effect of Transfers From Juvenile to Criminal Court: A Loglinear Analysis

Cited by 19 publications

References 3 publications

The Predispositional Status of Violent Youthful Offenders: Is There a “Custody Gap” in Adult Criminal Court?

The Predispositional Status of Violent Youthful Offenders: Is There a “Custody Gap” in Adult Criminal Court?

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

Adult Crime, Adult Time

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About