Plea Bargains Among Serious and Violent Girls: An Intersectional Approach Exploring Race in the Juvenile Court
| Published date | 01 January 2019 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1557085117720724 |
| Author | Patrick G. Lowery |
| Date | 01 January 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2017
Article
Feminist Criminology
2019, Vol. 14(1) 115 –139
Plea Bargains Among
© The Author(s) 2017
Article reuse guidelines:
Serious and Violent Girls:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085117720724
DOI: 10.1177/1557085117720724
journals.sagepub.com/home/fcx
An Intersectional Approach
Exploring Race in the Juvenile
Court
Patrick G. Lowery1
Abstract
There exists much scholarship on the decision-making process in the juvenile court.
While a variety of processes in the juvenile court, types of offenders, and theoretical
frameworks have been analyzed to better understand the decision-making processes,
there are some gaps, particularly in the use of an intersectional framework in
explaining the plea bargaining process among serious and violent girls. Given the
paucity of research on this subject, the present study pays homage to intersectionality
by exploring the aforementioned process and group in the juvenile court.
Keywords
race, juvenile justice, intersections of race/class/gender, female criminality, judges
Introduction
Research has focused on the context of race in decision making related to sanction
severity both recently (Holleran & Stout, 2016; Leiber & Peck, 2013, 2015; Leiber,
Peck, & Beaudry-Cyr, 2016) and in the past (Bishop & Frazier, 1996; DeJong &
Jackson, 1998; Frazier, Bishop, & Henretta, 1992). Outside of the direct effects of race,
other factors have been found to work in conjunction with race, such as age (Guevara,
Spohn, & Herz, 2004), prior record (Rodriguez, 2010); offense type (Mallicoat, 2007),
1Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Patrick G. Lowery, L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs, Virginia Commonwealth
University, 917 West Franklin Street, Bowe House, Room 203, Richmond, VA 23284-2028, USA.
Email: pglowery@vcu.edu
116
Feminist Criminology 14(1)
life and living situation (Thomas, Moak, & Walker, 2013), and gender (Freiburger &
Burke, 2011; Leiber, Brubaker, & Fox, 2009). These direct and indirect effects are
found despite the renewal of the Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention Act
(JJDPA) of 2002 and expansion of the Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) man-
date in the JJDPA. These are important findings in light of some research which has
noted that sanction severity for juveniles is linked to future offending (Huizinga,
Schumann, Ehret, & Elliott, 2003), which, for example, may disproportionately fall on
minority offenders (Leiber & Fox, 2005). In fact, the cumulative consequences of racial
disparities in juvenile justice as the life course progresses are well documented, and
may be found at the intake process, plea process, and sentencing (Engen, Steen, &
Bridges, 2002; Frazier & Cochran, 1986; Leiber & Johnson, 2008; Lowery, Burrow, &
Kaminski, 2016; Rodriguez, 2010; Thomas et al., 2013).
However, one may argue that much research has focused on the effects of race, and
under these concerns lies an overlooked aspect in the literature: serious and violent
female juvenile offenders. On average, most forms of female offending have been
decreasing over the last 10 years (Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2013). However, this is not
the case for all offenses. For example, evidence does exist which suggests that in 2000
and 2009, involvement in serious and violent offenses, such as assault, robbery, and
burglary, has all significantly increased, contrary to the notion that female offending
has been decreasing in contemporary times (Puzzanchera & Adams, 2011). These
changes for girls, especially minority girls, may be highlighted by placement statistics,
which suggest that in 2013, minority girls made up 68% of placements in secure con-
finement (Hockenberry, 2014). Thus, the experiences that girls of color face in the
juvenile justice system remain problematic and worthy of investigation, despite the
efforts of DMC furthering our understanding of minority overrepresentation.
For serious and violent girls, there has been an amplification in public perceptions
about their behaviors in the recent years (Artz, 1998; Feld, 2009). Noting these behav-
ioral concerns, Steffensmeier, Schwartz, Zhong, and Ackerman (2005) looked at
sources beyond criminal justice records, and concluded that violent increases were
more of a social construction rather than an empirical reality; at odds with Puzzanchera
and Adams (2011). However, Steffensmeier et al. (2005) did note that arrests for girls
have increased, and that girls are disproportionately charged more seriously for minor
offenses (e.g., using a pen as a “robbery” weapon) and “acting out” offenses, such as
that of domestic violence. Thus, changes in law enforcement, sentencing, and policy
may be a result of the “culture of control” over behaviors viewed as not “lady-like,”
rather than true changes in girls’ behaviors (Garland, 2001; Steffensmeier et al., 2005).
Resulting from these observations, it is argued that the number of girls formally pro-
cessed in the juvenile justice system is disjointed relative to their crime rates (Tracy,
Kempf-Leonard, & Abramoske-James, 2009).1
But do these recent changes in perceptions affect all girls equally? Are the findings
of racial disparities in the juvenile justice system among boys consistent with those of
girls? Presently, that answer is unclear. Therefore, there is a need to explore the racial
disparities for females, which may be furthered by the historical treatment of girls of
color in the juvenile justice system and racialized/stereotyped gender identities
Lowery
117
assigned by decision makers (Burgess-Proctor, 2006; Chesney-Lind, 1973; Holsinger
& Holsinger, 2005; King, 1988). To provide examples, Ward (2012) notes that when
Black girls were given access to the juvenile justice system, they were viewed as less
“salvageable” compared with their White counterparts who were viewed as worthy of
rehabilitation. Moreover, Potter (2015) notes that the experiences of Black women,
especially juveniles, in the justice system remain insufficiently addressed. This is also
furthered by gaps in the literature involving the plea bargaining process for juveniles.
Much plea bargaining research focuses on adults (Kyckelhahn & Cohen, 2008), and
no contemporary studies have focused on the plea bargaining process for female juve-
niles, much less serious and violent female juveniles (although see, Burrow & Lowery,
2015 for serious/violent boys).
Moreover, no contemporary empirical evidence exists that examines whether the
plea bargaining process for serious and violent girls would operate in a similar capac-
ity to that of adults of their juvenile male counterparts. Furthermore, while studies
have used an intersectional framework to better understand the nature and expression
of serious and violent crimes by adult women (Burgess-Proctor, 2006; Daly, 1997;
Wesely, 2006), a gap exists when it comes to gender and race-based stereotypes in the
juvenile court (Leiber et al., 2009). Framed through an intersectional lens and a Black
feminist perspective, this study bridges that gap by inspecting the impact of race and
gender, as well as extralegal factors, on plea bargaining outcomes by using case pro-
cessing data from a juvenile court in one southern state during the years 2007 to 2012.
Plea Bargaining and Juveniles
The extant literature focusing on the plea bargaining process for juveniles is far from
replete. Yet, we know that plea bargains make up a very significant number of disposi-
tions at both the state (approximately 95% of all cases disposed) and federal (approxi-
mately 84% of all cases disposed) levels for adults (Kyckelhahn & Cohen, 2008;
Teeter, 2004). Existing quantitative assessments focus almost exclusively on adults
but provide some salient findings: For example, Nardulli, Eisenstein, and Flemming
(1988) note that environmental, contextual, and individual factors play a role in the
plea bargaining process. Other quantitative research suggests that these plea negotia-
tions are tempered by the severity of the offense found in the defendant’s prior record
(Albonetti, 1990; Frenzel & Ball, 2008; Meyer & Gray, 1997).
This same line of research suggests that Black defendants seem to be consistently
less likely to enter into either negotiated or nonnegotiated pleas, opting to take their
cases to trial (Albonetti, 1990; Frenzel & Ball, 2008; Meyer & Gray, 1997). To that
point, those who refuse to plead guilty often face a “trial penalty” for exhausting the
systems resources, although this penalty may vary across offenders (Johnson, 2003;
Smith, 1986; Ulmer & Bradley, 2006; Ulmer, Eisenstein, & Johnson, 2010). Other
scholars note that the “trial penalty” exists within the juvenile court as well, often serv-
ing as an “unofficial waiver” (Mears, 2003; Redlich, 2009).
For juveniles, what research does exist on this increasing phenomenon comes from
older, largely qualitative research and legal and/or statutory analyses in the early 1990s
118
Feminist Criminology 14(1)
(Sanborn, 1992, 1993, 1996). Still, some noteworthy implications may be drawn from
these works: Sanborn (1996), for example, noted that prior research points to a consis-
tent finding, in that courtroom actors were able to identify a number of characteristics
ascribed to the juvenile that affected what they believed to be the correct disposition,
such as their home situation and...
To continue reading
Request your trial