Professional Documents
Culture Documents
research-article2017
CADXXX10.1177/0011128717714203Crime & DelinquencyLehmann et al.
Article
Crime & Delinquency
124
Juveniles on Trial: Mode The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
of Conviction and the sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0011128717714203
https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128717714203
Adult Court Sentencing journals.sagepub.com/home/cad
of Transferred Juveniles
Abstract
Several studies have compared the criminal court sentences given to
transferred juveniles with those given to adults, but this research has
reported inconsistent findings. In addition, some research has found that
mode of conviction can interact with offenders characteristics, resulting
in stronger or weaker effects of these factors among defendants convicted
at trials. The current study explores the direct effects of juvenile status on
sentence severity and whether these effects are conditioned by mode of
conviction. Examination of data from Florida circuit courts (N = 1,107,233)
shows that transferred juveniles are less likely to be incarcerated than adults
but are given longer incarceration sentences. Interaction analyses reveal that
these disparities are weaker among trial cases than among plea cases.
Keywords
juvenile transfer, age, mode of conviction, sentencing, trial
Since the early 1990s, every U.S. state has either implemented or revised
legislation that facilitates the transfer of juvenile offenders to the adult court
(Griffin, Addie, Adams, & Firestine, 2011; Sickmund & Puzzanchera, 2014).
Concerns about the prospect of rising juvenile crime rates among members of
the public created a context where punishing juveniles who commit adult
crime with adult time became an important feature of criminal justice
political agendas (Myers, 2005; Zimring, 1998). As a result, the get tough
era of punishment saw the expansion of legal mechanisms designed to trans-
fer more juvenile offenders to the adult court (Butts & Mears, 2001; Singer,
1997). In light of these policy shifts, a small but growing literature has
explored the criminal court punishment of transferred juveniles relative to
similar adult defendants. The findings from these studies have been mixed,
with some reporting evidence that transfers are subjected to a juvenile pen-
alty in sentencing (Kurlychek & Johnson, 2004, 2010) and others docu-
menting null, mixed, or negative effects of juvenile status (Johnson &
Kurlychek, 2012; Jordan, 2014; Jordan & McNeal, 2016; Steiner, 2009).
There is another body of research that has found that the impact of legal
and extralegal factors in sentencing can interact with mode of conviction.
Specifically, a trial conviction has been shown to moderate the effects of the
defendants demographic and case characteristics on sentence severity
(Bradley-Engen, Engen, Shields, Damphousse, & Smith, 2012; Johnson,
2003; Ulmer & Bradley, 2006; Ulmer, Eisenstein, & Johnson, 2010).
However, the role that trials may play in conditioning these variables is theo-
retically ambiguous. For instance, trials may strengthen the positive effects
of aggravating factors as well as the negative effects of mitigating factors,
producing greater disparities in sentencing according to these characteristics.
Conversely, trials may weaken the effects of both aggravating and mitigating
factors, resulting in reduced disparities in punishment severity. By strength-
ening or weakening the influence of juvenile status, mode of conviction may
condition the sentencing of transfers relative to adults. Two prior studies have
examined this issue (Kurlychek & Johnson, 2004; Steiner, 2009), but these
studies, which reported contradictory findings, were limited in terms of the
ages of the adult defendants under study, the number of cases available, and
the time frame of the data.
With the goal of advancing scholarship on the sentencing of transferred
youth as well as the literature on the moderating effect of conviction mode,
the present research explores the direct effects of juvenile status on sentence
severity and the potential interaction of juvenile status with a trial conviction.
We begin our analyses by examining whether adults of different age groups
are sentenced more or less harshly than transferred juveniles at two stages of
sentencing. We then assess whether the disparities between adults and juve-
niles in punishment are strengthened or weakened by mode of conviction.
Before describing our data and analytic strategy, we first review prior empiri-
cal and theoretical developments related to the sentencing of transferred
Lehmann et al. 3
juveniles in the criminal court. Next, we discuss the ways that mode of con-
viction might condition the effect of juvenile status. We then present the
research questions to be addressed in the current study.
transfers were more likely to receive a prison sentence than adults ages 18 to
29. Using data from both Pennsylvania and Maryland, Johnson and Kurlychek
(2012) observed that juvenile status was associated with the use of upward
sentencing guideline departures; however, they also found in Maryland that
juveniles were more likely than young adults to receive downward departures.
Jordan (2014) made an important advancement to this research by incor-
porating adults older than age 30 in his analysis, and he found mixed support
for the existence of a juvenile penalty in sentencing. His analyses revealed
that transferred youth were not more likely than adults of any age to receive
sentences to jail, and they were only more likely to receive prison sentences
and were sentenced for longer jail terms than adults ages 60 and older.
However, transfers received significantly longer prison sentences than young
adults ages 18 to 29. Using the same data as Steiner (2009), Jordan and
McNeal (2016) observed that juveniles were less likely to receive sentences
to jail compared with adults of all ages, though they received longer incar-
ceration sentences than all adults.
Several theoretical perspectives have been proposed to explain why extra-
legal factors, including juvenile status, may impact sentencing outcomes. In
her theory of causal attributions, Albonetti (1991) argues that the information
available to judges is limited and that court actors must make sentencing
decisions in a context of bounded rationality. To account for this limitation,
judges can rely on stereotyped attributions that connect the characteristics of
defendants to their likelihood of recidivism and the level of danger they pose
to the community (see also Bridges & Steen, 1998; Farrell & Holmes, 1991).
Thus, judges can develop a system of patterned responses such that the
extralegal factors that are perceived to be associated with reoffending, such
as race, ethnicity, gender, and age, can be predictive of harsher sentences.
Another perspective that is closely related to Albonettis (1991) posits that
there are three focal concerns that guide judicial actors in the sentencing pro-
cess (Steffensmeier, Ulmer, & Kramer, 1998). These include blameworthiness,
protection of the community, and practical constraints and consequences.
Blameworthiness refers to the culpability of the offender, and it suggests that
defendants who are viewed as having demonstrated a greater degree of crimi-
nal intent or are more centrally involved in the offense are deserving of harsher
sentences. Community protection relates to judges desire to enhance the safety
of the community by delivering more severe punishments in cases involving
offenders who demonstrate a heightened level of dangerousness or recidivism
risk. Finally, when sentencing, judges may consider practical constraints and
consequences, which can include bureaucratic and organizational circum-
stances, courtroom workgroup relations, the availability of criminal justice
resources, and the needs and circumstances of the offenders themselves.
Lehmann et al. 5
Dependent Variables
Our analyses focus on two stages of the sentencing decision: a sentence to
incarceration and, among those receiving such a sentence, the length of the
incarceration term. Several scholars (e.g., Harrington & Spohn, 2007;
Holleran & Spohn, 2004) have recommended that prison and jail sentences
10 Crime & Delinquency 00(0)
n % M SD
Incarceration sentence
Yes 447,759 40.44
No 659,474 59.56
Sentence length (Ln) 2.00 1.76
Age at offense
14-17 30,733 2.78
18-20 165,709 14.97
21-29 353,399 31.92
30-39 317,099 28.64
40-49 183,843 16.60
50-59 45,250 4.09
60+ 11,200 1.01
Mode of conviction
Trial 21,226 1.92
Plea 1,086,007 98.08
Race and ethnicity
Black 483,898 43.70
Hispanic 105,186 9.50
White 518,149 46.80
Sex
Male 903,643 81.61
Female 203,590 18.39
Primary offense type
Violent offense 185,295 16.73
Sex offense 20,718 1.87
Property offense 353,654 31.94
Drug offense 398,829 36.02
Other offense 148,737 13.43
Case seriousness 40.97 45.68
Scored to prison
Yes 290,993 26.28
No 816,240 73.72
Note. N = 1,107,233. Sentencing year and judicial circuit dummies are not displayed.
Analytic Strategy
Our analysis proceeds as follows. To address our first research question con-
cerning the impact of juvenile status, we estimate binary logistic regression
models to determine the direct effects of each adult age group, relative to
transferred juveniles, on the likelihood of a sentence to incarceration. Next,
among those defendants who received a sentence to incarceration, we use
ordinary least squares (OLS) regression to estimate the direct effects of age
on incarceration sentence length.2 To answer our second research question
Lehmann et al. 13
Findings
Direct Effects of Juvenile Status
Displayed in Model 1 of Table 2 are the logistic regression estimates for the
independent effects of age, mode of conviction, and the controls on the likeli-
hood of a sentence to incarceration. These results indicate that being a trans-
ferred juvenile is significantly negatively predictive of a sentence to
incarceration, and members of all six adult age groups are more likely than
juveniles to be incarcerated. All of the included covariates have significant
effects on the likelihood of an incarceration sentence as well. Specifically, trial
cases, Blacks, males, drug, and other offenders are more likely than plea
cases, Whites, females, and property offenders to be sentenced to incarcera-
tion upon conviction. Hispanic ethnicity, violent offenses, and sex offenses are
negatively associated with an incarceration sentence, while case seriousness
and scoring to prison are positively associated with this outcome.
Model 2 in Table 2 estimates the direct effects of age and the covariates on
incarceration sentence length using OLS regression. In contrast with the
model predicting the in/out decision, these results indicate that juvenile status
is positively associated with sentence length, with transferred juveniles
receiving significantly longer sentences than five of the six adult age groups.
While the coefficient is negative, young adults ages 21 to 29 comprise the
only adult age group that does not receive significantly longer incarceration
terms than juveniles. As in Model 1, trial cases, Blacks, males, those with
higher levels of case seriousness, and those who scored to prison receive
longer incarceration terms than others. Hispanics in this model receive longer
sentences than Whites. In addition, violent and sex offenders are punished
with longer sentences than property offenders, while drug and other offend-
ers are given shorter sentences.
b Exp(b) b b Exp(b) b
Note. Ages 14 to 17, plea, White, female, property offense, and not scoring to prison are used as the
reference categories. Sentencing year and judicial circuit dummies are not displayed. OLS = ordinary least
squares.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
incarceration sentence, net of the covariates. The main effects of age should
be interpreted in this model as the effects of membership in each adult age
group relative to transferred juveniles among plea cases. The pattern of find-
ings here closely mirrors that shown in Model 1, with adults of all ages sig-
nificantly more likely than juveniles to receive a sentence to incarceration.
The interaction terms involving age and mode of conviction reflect the
changes in the effect of belonging to each age group associated with a trial
conviction relative to the effects of age among plea cases. All six interaction
Lehmann et al. 15
terms are negative, though two fail to achieve statistical significance. These
results suggest that the disparities between adults and juveniles in the likeli-
hood of incarceration, which consistently disadvantage adults, are condi-
tioned by mode of conviction, such that these differences are weaker among
trial cases than among plea cases. The coefficient for mode of conviction
represents the effect of a trial conviction among transferred juveniles, and it
shows that being convicted by a trial is positively associated with incarcera-
tion for these defendants.
Presented in Model 4 of Table 2 is the OLS regression of incarceration
sentence length on the interaction between juvenile status and mode of con-
viction, net of the controls. As before, the main effects of each age group
should be interpreted as the effects of membership in these categories relative
to juveniles on sentence length among plea cases. These coefficients mirror
those seen in Model 2 and suggest that adults, except for young adults ages
21 to 29, are sentenced to significantly shorter incarceration terms than trans-
ferred juveniles. Regarding the interactions between the age categories and
mode of conviction, all the multiplicative terms are positive, and five of the
six are statistically significant. These interactions indicate that the disadvan-
taging effects of being a juvenile relative to an adult are conditioned by mode
of conviction, such that they are weaker among trial cases than plea cases.
Understood differently, the findings suggest that juvenile-adult disparities in
sentence length are less prominent for cases convicted at trials. As before, the
main effect of mode of conviction indicates that a trial conviction is associ-
ated with longer incarceration sentences among transferred juveniles.3
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.
Notes
1. Due to data limitations, we could not distinguish between negotiated pleas ver-
sus nonnegotiated pleas and jury trials versus bench trials in our measure of
mode of conviction.
2. One concern with models predicting sentence length is that, because the sub-
sample of defendants who are sentenced to prison is nonrandom, the estimates
may be affected by sample selection bias (Bushway, Johnson, & Slocum, 2007).
One method used to correct for this bias is the Heckman correction procedure.
However, Bushway and colleagues (2007) note that, in the absence of useful
exclusion restrictions, the correction term is often highly collinear with the pre-
dictors of sentence length, thus introducing bias into the model. We examined
models both with and without the correction and found that the inclusion of the
hazard term, indeed, resulted in problematic levels of collinearity. Therefore, fol-
lowing the example of prior research (Johnson, Ulmer, & Kramer, 2008; Ulmer,
Eisenstein, & Johnson, 2010), we report only the uncorrected sentence length
models with the understanding that the estimates are likely affected to some
extent by sample selection bias.
3. Supplemental models using multinomial logistic regression were conducted
in which the effects of juvenility were estimated using a trichotomous out-
come of a sentence to jail or prison relative to supervision. The jail versus
supervision comparison revealed substantively similar findings to those pre-
sented in the binary logistic model, with adults of all ages significantly more
likely than juveniles to be sentenced to jail. In the prison versus supervi-
sion comparison, the same pattern of findings emerges with two exceptions.
Adults ages 18 to 20 were significantly less likely to receive sentences to
prison than juveniles, and adults ages 60+ were also less likely than juveniles
to receive this sentence. In the interaction model, due to the substantially
reduced statistical power as a result of separating jail and prison sentences,
no significant moderating effect of mode of conviction was observed in
either comparison.
References
Albonetti, C. A. (1991). An integration of theories to explain judicial discretion.
Social Problems, 38, 247-266.
Lehmann et al. 21
Holleran, D., & Spohn, C. (2004). On the use of the total incarceration variable in
sentencing research. Criminology, 42, 211-240.
Jackson, R., & Pabon, E. (2000). Race and treating other peoples children as adults.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 507-515.
Johnson, B. D. (2003). Racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing departures across
modes of conviction. Criminology, 41, 449-490.
Johnson, B. D., & Kurlychek, M. C. (2012). Transferred juveniles in the era of sen-
tencing guidelines: Examining judicial departures for juvenile offenders in adult
criminal court. Criminology, 50, 525-564.
Johnson, B. D., Ulmer, J. T., & Kramer, J. H. (2008). The social context of guidelines
circumvention: The case of federal district courts. Criminology, 46, 737-783.
Jordan, K. L. (2014). Juvenile status and criminal sentencing: Does it matter in the
adult system? Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 12, 315-331.
Jordan, K. L., & McNeal, B. A. (2016). Juvenile penalty or leniency: Sentencing of
juveniles in the criminal justice system. Law and Human Behavior, 40, 387-400.
Jordan, K. L., & Myers, D. L. (2011). Juvenile transfer and deterrence: Reexamining
the effectiveness of a get-tough policy. Crime & Delinquency, 57, 247-270.
King, N. J., Soule, D. A., Steen, S., & Weidner, R. R. (2005). When process affects
punishment: Differences in sentences after guilty plea, bench trial, and jury trial
in five guidelines states. Columbia Law Review, 105, 959-1009.
Kramer, J. H., & Ulmer, J. T. (2009). Sentencing guidelines: Lessons from
Pennsylvania. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Kupchik, A. (2006). The decision to incarcerate in juvenile and criminal courts.
Criminal Justice Review, 31, 309-336.
Kurlychek, M. C., & Johnson, B. D. (2004). The juvenile penalty: A compari-
son of juvenile and young adult sentencing outcomes in adult criminal court.
Criminology, 42, 485-517.
Kurlychek, M. C., & Johnson, B. D. (2010). Juvenility and punishment: Sentencing
juveniles in adult criminal court. Criminology, 48, 725-758.
LaFree, G. D. (1985). Adversarial versus nonadversarial justice: A comparison of
guilty pleas and trials. Criminology, 23, 289-312.
Lehmann, P. S., Chiricos, T., & Bales, W. D. (2017). Sentencing transferred juveniles
in the adult criminal court: The direct and interactive effects of race and ethnicity.
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 15, 172-190.
Lehmann, P. S., Pickett, J. T., Ryon, S. B., & Kosloski, A. E. (2017). Race, juvenile
transfer, and sentencing preferences: Findings from a randomized experiment.
Race and Justice. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/2153368717699674
Lemmon, J. H., Austin, T. L., Verrecchia, P. J., & Fetzer, M. (2005). The effect of
legal and extralegal factors on statutory exclusion of juvenile offenders. Youth
Violence and Juvenile Justice, 3, 214-234.
Mears, D. P., Cochran, J. C., Stults, B. J., Greenman, S. J., Bhati, A. S., & Greenwald,
M. A. (2014). The true juvenile offender: Age effects and juvenile court sanc-
tioning. Criminology, 52, 169-194.
Myers, D. L. (2003). Adult crime, adult time: Punishing violent youth in the adult
criminal justice system. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 1, 173-197.
Lehmann et al. 23
Myers, D. L. (2005). Boys among men: Trying and sentencing juveniles as adults.
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Reddington, F. P., & Sapp, A. D. (1997). Juveniles in adult prisons: Problems and
prospects. Journal of Crime & Justice, 20, 139-152.
Rhodes, W. M. (1979). Plea bargaining: Its effect on sentencing and convictions in
the District of Columbia. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 70,
360-375.
Sickmund, M., & Puzzanchera, C. (2014). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2014
national report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Singer, S. I. (1997). Recriminalizing delinquency: Violent juvenile crime and juvenile
justice reform. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, D. A. (1986). The plea bargaining controversy. The Journal of Criminal Law
and Criminology, 77, 949-968.
Steffensmeier, D., Ulmer, J., & Kramer, J. (1998). The interaction of race, gender, and
age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, black, and male.
Criminology, 36, 763-798.
Steiner, B. (2009). The effects of juvenile transfer to criminal court on incarceration
decisions. Justice Quarterly, 26, 77-106.
Ulmer, J. T. (1997). Social worlds of sentencing: Court communities under sentenc-
ing guidelines. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Ulmer, J. T., & Bradley, M. S. (2006). Variation in trial penalties among serious vio-
lent offenses. Criminology, 44, 631-670.
Ulmer, J. T., Eisenstein, J., & Johnson, B. D. (2010). Trial penalties in federal sen-
tencing: Extra-guidelines factors and district variation. Justice Quarterly, 27,
560-592.
Ulmer, J. T., & Kramer, J. H. (1996). Court communities under sentencing guidelines:
Dilemmas of formal rationality and sentencing disparity. Criminology, 34, 383-
408.
Wooldredge, J. (1989). An aggregate-level examination of the caseload pressure
hypothesis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 5, 259-270.
Word, D. L., & Perkins, R. C. (1996). Building a Spanish surname list for the 1990s:
A new approach to an old problem. Washington, DC: Population Division, U.S.
Bureau of the Census.
Zane, S. N. (2017). Do criminal court outcomes vary by juvenile transfer mechanism?
A multi-jurisdictional, multilevel analysis. Justice Quarterly, 34, 542-569.
Zane, S. N., Welsh, B. C., & Mears, D. P. (2016). Juvenile transfer and the specific
deterrence hypothesis: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Criminology &
Public Policy, 15, 901-925.
Zimring, F. E. (1998). American youth violence. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Zimring, F. E. (2000). Penal proportionality for the young offender: Notes on imma-
turity, capacity, and diminished responsibility. In T. Grisso & R. G. Schwartz
(Eds.), Youth on trial: A developmental perspective on juvenile justice (pp. 271-
290). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
24 Crime & Delinquency 00(0)
Author Biographies
Peter S. Lehmann is a doctoral student in the College of Criminology and Criminal
Justice at Florida State University. His research interests include juvenile justice and
delinquency, disparities in sentencing, and public opinion on crime and criminal jus-
tice policy. His recent work has appeared in Justice Quarterly, Journal of Criminal
Justice, Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, and other outlets.
Ted Chiricos is William Julius Wilson Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice
at Florida State University. His current research interests focus on the effects of race,
immigration, age, and social threat on justice outcomes as well as the various factors
contributing to the extraordinary punitiveness of American culture. He is also collabo-
rating on the examination of threat-related factors that may contribute to intimate
partner violence.
William D. Bales is a professor at Florida State Universitys College of Criminology
and Criminal Justice. He focuses on a range of crime and policy topics, including the
effectiveness of electronic monitoring and tests of labeling theory. He has published
in Criminology, Criminology and Public Policy, and other crime and policy journals.