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

• Author: Brandon K. Applegate,Riane N. Miller
• DOI: 10.1177/0734016814546039
• Published date: 01 June 2015
• Date: 01 June 2015
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Adult Crime, Adult Time?

Benchmarking Public Views

on Punishing Serious

Juvenile Felons

Riane N. Miller

1

and Brandon K. Applegate

2

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.’’

Keywords

sentencing, courts/law, juvenile justice, violent behavior, other

Literature Review

Juvenile Crime and Policy Initiatives

The 1980s and 1990s witnessed dramatically increased concern over rising rates of serious crime

among juveniles (Bernard, 1999; Cook & Laub, 1998). Americans were so convinced that juvenile

crime was out of control that an onslaught of vicious and savvy ‘‘superpredators’’seemed inevitable

(Bennett, Dilulio, & Walters, 1996; Dilulio, 1995). In particular, public attention was focused on

serious violent crimes committed by juveniles. Taking a short-term view, there may have been rea-

son to worry. Arrest rates for juvenile homicide, for example, more than doubled between the mid-

1

Radford University, Radford, VA, USA

2

University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA

Corresponding Author:

Riane N. Miller, Radford University, 307 Adams Street, Radford, VA 24142, USA.

Email: millerrn@email.sc.edu

Criminal Justice Review

2015, Vol. 40(2) 151-168

ª2014 Georgia State University

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0734016814546039

cjr.sagepub.com

1980s and mid-1990s (Cook & Laub, 1998). As Bernard and Kurlychek (2010) observed, however,

the history of juvenile justice in the United States is marked by the widespread belief that juvenile

crime is rising regardless of actual trends. The reality is that juvenile crime rates declined through

the remainder of the 1990s (Puzzanchera & Adams, 2011). Thus, the dramatic concern about rising

juvenile violence may have been excessive (Bernard, 1999).

Even if juveniles’ criminal activity did not warrant widespread panic, juveniles are involved in a

considerable amount of violent and other crime. In 2009, U.S. law enforcement agencies made 1.9

million arrests of persons under the age of 18. Of these arrests, approximately 86,000 were for vio-

lent crimes (murder and nonnegligent homicide, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault).

Thus, juveniles accounted for 15%of all forcible rape arrests, 25%of all robbery arrests, and

12%of all aggravated assault arrests (Puzzanchera & Adams, 2011). Juvenile arrests for property

crimes in 2009 were nearly five times higher than juvenile arrests for violent crimes. Specifically,

in 2009, 417,700 arrests for property crimes involved juvenile suspects. These youths accounted for

approximately one in four arrests for the serious property crimes reported as part of the Federal

Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Report. An additional concern regarding juvenile crime

is the extent to which youths are involved in drug abuse violations, particularly possession and sales.

Though the juvenile drug arrest rate more than doubled between 1991 and 1997, since that time the

rates have been generally declining with juveniles accounting for only about 10%of arrests for drug

abuse violations in 2009 (Puzzanchera & Adams, 2011).

Policy makers, alarmed by the perceived dramatic growth in juveniles’ involvement in personal

and property crime in the 1980s and 1990s, sought to curb these types of serious offending. Demon-

strating separation from traditional considerations of the juvenile system, Applegate, Turner,

Sanborn, Latessa, and Moon (2000) found that judges’ decisions on appropriate dispositions for

juvenile felons hinged on the nature of the offense. Legislators too ratcheted up penalties for certain

categories of juvenile crime. Sanborn and Salerno (2005) report that several states implemented

mandatory or minimum terms of commitment. For example, a juvenile adjudicated for aggravated

robbery in Ohio would face a minimum of one to three years of incarceration (Sanborn & Salerno,

2005). Such a focus on offense characteristics is more consistent with the mandate and orientation of

the criminal court than the traditional juvenile court.

A notable policy trend that was particularly distinct during the 1990s involved more expedient

transfer of some youth out of the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system and into the adult crim-

inal justice system. Specifically, during this time period, 44 states and the District of Columbia

passed legislation that made it easier for juveniles to be transferred to adult courts (Bishop,

2000). The underlying rationale held that juveniles who committed particularly serious crimes

demonstrated that they were not immature and innocent, but rather they had engaged in criminal acts

and ought to be held responsible for their behavior (Feld, 1999). Categorical considerations that

tended to focus on offense seriousness supplanted individualized, offender-based decision making

(Bishop, 2000; Feld, 1987). While transfer had been previously reserved largely for juveniles

accused of murder or another capital offense, states expanded the offenses that were eligible for

transfer. Juveniles accused of aggravated robbery, aggravated sexual assault, arson, burglary, or the

sale or manufacture of drugs, for example, faced the possibility of a criminal trial rather than a juve-

nile court hearing (Fritsch & Hemmens, 1995).

Despite the fact that juvenile crime has been declining steadily since 1994, states have shown

little interest in rescinding the expanded transfer laws (Griffin, Addie, Adams, & Firestine,

2011). Therefore, many juveniles continue to be eligible for adult court processing. These legislative

shifts suggest two underlying presumptions. First, the offense has become the principal consider-

ation in how to handle serious juvenile offenders—‘‘adult crime’’ requires a criminal justice rather

than a juvenile justice response regardless of an offender’s youth. Second, handling these cases in

the criminal justice system leads to convicted juveniles facing the same sanctions as adults.

152 Criminal Justice Review 40(2)