Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Article 1: Adult Crime, Adult Time? Benchmarking Public Views on Punishing Serious Juvenile Felons

Abstract: During the 1980s and 1990s, policy makers became alarmed by the perceived increase in juveniles’ involvement in serious crime. As a result, a number of laws were passed to increase the penalties associated with the commission of such crimes, including laws making juvenile waiver to adult court easier. Although research exists regarding public support for transferring juveniles, limited research is available to shed light on whether the public supports juveniles receiving “adult time” for “adult crimes.” This study expands on the current literature by assessing the public’s views on the appropriate level of punishment for juveniles who have committed a serious felony offense. Drawing on public responses to vignettes and data from the National Judicial Reporting Program, we also benchmark public preferences against actual sentences in criminal court. Although our results show that the public favors less severe penalties for many juveniles, we also find evidence of a public sentiment that “adult crime” merits “adult time.”
 

Article 2: Crime Salience and Public Willingness to Pay for Child Saving and Juvenile Punishment

Abstract: Public policy in the area of youth crime has periodically shifted back and forth between punishment and child saving. Generally, scholars believe that public opinion and youth justice policies are linked. It is also believed that crime salience—fear and perceived risk of victimization—is linked to public opinion about youth sanctions. To test these widely held beliefs, this study examines public opinion about youth justice policies by exploring the impact of crime salience on public support for child saving versus youth punishment. This study expands on prior literature by also considering the public’s willingness to pay (WTP) for the youth justice policies they prefer. Results indicate that fear increases punitiveness, WTP for youth justice policies generally, and, more specifically, the WTP for youth punishment. However, fear does not affect the public’s WTP for child saving. Limitations and suggestions for future research are discussed.
 

Article 3. Reconsidering Child Saving the Extent and Correlates of Public Support for Excluding Youths From the Juvenile Court

Abstract: The 1990s saw concerted legislative efforts to increase the mechanisms through which juveniles could be transferred to the adult court. Beginning research exists on how the public feels about transferring youths out of the juvenile justice system, but it is somewhat dated and does little to illuminate the reasons people support transfer. Using a statewide sample and factorial survey design, this study assesses how public views are related to multiple factors, including offense and offender characteristics, views on the appropriate aims of juvenile sentencing, perceptions of juvenile maturity, and expectations about the results of transferring juvenile cases to the adult criminal justice system. Our findings suggest that people want transfer used sparingly and selectively and that support is greatest when they believe that the adult system can provide effective rehabilitation as well as punishment. Implications are discussed.

Article 4. The Cycle of Juvenile Court History                                   

Abstract: Some long-held assumptions about the origins of the juvenile courts have recently been challenged by Anthony M. Platt and Sanford J. Fox, who argue that middle-class and conservative interests dominated the juvenile court movement. Generally, the efforts of these writers to correct previous exaggerated claims for the 1899 Illinois Juvenile Court Act are valid and valuable; however, both seem to overstate the claims that the reformers themselves made for the Act. Their evidence does not prove that the Act reflected an imposition of middle-class values upon immigrants, racial minorities, and the poor. Furthermore, they pay too little attention to the role of private charity in providing for the new detention facilities and probation services mandated by the 1899 legislation; they overlook the importance of probation as the keystone of juvenile court reform; and reflecting a long-standing tendency, they exaggerate and distort the meaning and role of informal procedures in the early juvenile courts. Understanding the significance of the basic elements and intellectual tendencies of the first juvenile courts can help put present controversies about juvenile court reform in perspective.