Characterizing the Effects of Symbolic and Racial Threat on Charge Modifications in the Juvenile Court

• Date: 01 October 2021
• Published date: 01 October 2021
• Author: Patrick G. Lowery
• DOI: 10.1177/2153368718808351
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Characterizing the Effects

of Symbolic and Racial Threat

on Charge Modifications

in the Juvenile Court

Patrick G. Lowery

1

Abstract

African Americans have long been overrepresented in juvenile justice, starting at

arrest and all the way through to confinement. Importantly, some scholars argue

examining “back-end” processes of juvenile justice and exploring the utility of different

theoretical frameworks may aid in explaining African American overrepresentation.

Drawing on two similar theoretical explanations, symbolic and racial threat, this study

examines whether disparities are explained better by perceived threats to the

dominant group norms and values, as well as between-group inequalities (symbolic

threat) or Black encroachment into the political and economic resources of the

dominant (White) group (racial threat). Notably, this study explores the effects of

symbolic and racial threat on reduced and dropped charges within one states’ juvenile

court. Hierarchical generalized linear models are utilized to analyze official Depart-

ment of Juvenile Justice files, which were supplemented with American Community

Survey data. Results indicated strong support for the symbolic threat perspective but

fail to support the tenants of racial threat. Implications of these findings and future

directions for research were discussed.

Keywords

minority group threat, criminological theories, juvenile courts, race and juvenile

justice, conflict theory, stereotypes, racial disparities

1

L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs, Virginia Commonwealth University,

Richmond, VA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Patrick G. Lowery, L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs, Virginia Commonwealth

University, 1001 West Franklin Street, Raleigh Building, Room 2009C, Richmond, VA 23284-2028, USA.

Email: pglowery@vcu.edu

Race and Justice

ªThe Author(s) 2018

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/2153368718808351

journals.sagepub.com/home/raj

2021, Vol. 11(4) 475–\ 499

Racial stereotypes and disparities in the juvenile justice system have long been concerning

to scholars, stakeholders, and policy makers alike (Armstrong & Rodriguez, 2005; Bridges

& Steen, 1998; Freiburger & Burke, 2011; Leiber, Bishop, & Chamlin, 2011). Specific to

the juvenile court process, perhaps the most critical stages of judicial processing are the

adjudication and dispositional decision stages (Bishop & Frazier, 1988; Rodriguez, 2010).

During these stages, juveniles receive “individualized” justice, where legally relevant

measures (e.g., age and offense) and other additional information (e.g., community/

household characteristics, education) may, in part, affect the decision-making processes of

judges (Armstrong & Rodriguez, 2005; Feld, 1991, 1999).

To address both racial disparities and the decision-making process, some scholars

have argued one fitting method to better understand and measure these dispositional

decision concerns is through charge reductions and dropped charges; although these

studies are limited in their quantities (Fix, Fix, Wienke Totura, & Burkhart, 2017;

Leiber & Peck, 2015; Thomas, Moak, & Walker, 2013). Furthermore, these limited

number of studies tend to focus on largely courtroom-relevant variables and ignore

macrolevel structural variables

1

(e.g., income stratification by race, county-level race

demographics, minority legal representation), which is a problematic observation in

light of the disproportionate minority contact (DMC) mandate (Armstrong & Rodri-

guez, 2005; Frazier & Cochran, 1986; Leiber, Peck, & Rodriguez, 2016; Lowery,

Burrow, & Kamin ski, 2018; Rodr iguez, 2013). Sp ecifically, ext ralegal individ ual,

courtroom, and community dynamics may influence how a decision maker perceives a

juvenile’sblameworthiness and culpability, and thereforecourtroom outcomes (DeJong

& Jackson, 1998; Leiber et al., 2016; Rodriguez, 2007; Sampson & Laub, 1993).

Decision makers may also be influenced by other legal information, such as the

offense type and seriousness, and a juvenile’s prior record (Britt, 2000; Frazier,

Bishop, & Henretta, 1992; Leiber et al., 2011, 2016; Steffensmeier, Ulmer, & Kramer,

1998). One particular aspect that may affect juvenile court outcomes are individuals

who commit serious and violent offenses. Indeed, juveniles who commit serious and

violent offenses are the most problematic offenders in the juvenile justice system,

because as a whole, they are escalating toward more serious offending on the age–

crime curve (Sampson & Laub, 2003). In this view, serious and violent juveniles are

the most likely candidates for future offending, and therefore intuitively, one would

expect these juveniles to receive treatment that is more punitive during the juvenile

court process (Piquero, Brame, Mazerolle, & Haapanen, 2002). To this point, these

groups of offenders have proliferated the notion of chronic offenders who do not desist

from criminal behavior as they age throughout the life course and continue to offend at

high rates (Blumstein & Cohen, 1979; Moffitt, 1993; Piquero et al., 2002).

2

Ideally, legal factors alone should explain juvenile justice decision-making, and the

reasoning behind modifying charges should not be immune to this ideal legal process.

However, an abundance of prior research suggests juvenile court decision-making is

also guided by numerous extralegal characteristics, where race serves as perhaps the

most contentious extralegal consideration (Engen, Steen, & Bridges, 2002; Jordan &

Myers, 2011; Leiber et al., 2016; Thomas et al., 2013). In fact, racial minorities are

overrepresented in juvenile justicefrom arrest all the way to confinement (Leiber et al.,

476

Race and Justice 11(4)