The effects of age, race, and offense type on receiving a ‘youth discount’ in juvenile court

The Latino Paradox, the Racial Invariance Thesis, and Recidivism Among a Sample of Juvenile Offenders

“…Third, the present study used data from only one state, limiting the generalizability and making cross-site comparisons impossible. While it is important to acknowledge this as a limitation, it is fairly commonplace in juvenile justice research (Bryson & Peck, 2021; Leiber et al, 2021; Lowery & Brubaker, 2022; Pupo & Zane, 2021; Thomas et al, 2013). However, future research should strive to follow the leads of Peck and Beaudry-Cyr (2016) and Zane et al (2020) and used multiple states so that cross-site comparisons may be made and the findings may be more generalizable.…”

“…As such, these groups were not included for the purpose of the statistical analysis. Inclusion of these extralegal variables are based on extensive prior research on extralegal factors in the juvenile justice literature (Bryson & Peck, 2021; Jordan & Maroun, 2021; Leiber et al, 2009; Lowery et al, 2018; MacDonald & Chesney-Lind, 2001; Moore & Padavic, 2010; Peck & Beaudry-Cyr, 2016; Rodriguez, 2007).…”

“…This suggests it is possible the system is working as intended and that the Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument (YASI) is working well in its predictive validity of recidivism, and that racial disparities found in the present study are not a result of overt or subtle bias against African Americans in particular. While this point is well taken, other scholars have contended that algorithmic scoring systems, such as risk assessment tools in juvenile justice, are not value neutral tools (Brayne, 2020;Eubanks, 2018;Noble, 2018). In other words, they are operating under a system which already stacked against largely poor African Americans and other racial minorities, because they are devised with certain detrimental racialized assumptions (Eubanks, 2018;Noble, 2018).…”

“…Researchers across several fields have identified several predictors that contribute to recidivism among juvenile offenders 1 , ranging from legal factors, such as prior incarceration and pre-adjudication detention, to various extra-legal factors, including socioeconomic status, gender, and race (Bryson & Peck, 2021; Cottle et al, 2001; Jacobs et al, 2020; Loughran et al, 2009; Leiber et al, 2016; Mallett et al, 2013; Rodriguez, 2007; Wright et al, 2016). Several studies have also established a connection between adult criminal behavior and frequent contact with the criminal justice system as an adolescent (Dubow et al, 2014; Farrington et al, 2009; Rhoades et al, 2016).…”

Split Sentencing and the “Youth Discount” in Florida Criminal Courts

“…While there are good theoretical reasons to expect that a “juvenile penalty” might emerge in adult court punishment, an alternative perspective suggests that transferred juvenile defendants may experience a “youth discount.” Research consistently reveals widespread public optimism about juvenile offenders’ rehabilitative potential (Mears et al, 2007; Piquero et al, 2010), and there is overwhelming support for “child saving” and lenient alternatives to adult court transfer for most youthful offenders (e.g., Applegate et al, 2022; Cullen et al, 2007; Miller & Applegate, 2015). Further, an expansive literature from developmental psychology suggests that adolescents have reduced criminal culpability (e.g., Cauffman & Steinberg, 2000, 2012), and considerations surrounding this issue may explain the relative leniency that younger juveniles experience across decision points within the juvenile justice system (e.g., Bryson & Peck, 2022; Leiber & Johnson, 2008; Leiber et al, 2016; Morrow et al, 2015). 1 Accordingly, an analogous “youth discount” may emerge in the criminal sentencing of transferred juveniles (Feld, 2013), as court actors may perceive them as less blameworthy, less likely to recidivate, and at risk of experiencing undue harm by incarceration in adult facilities (Augustyn & McGloin, 2018; Kurlychek et al, 2022).…”