Public Opinion on Juvenile Blended Sentencing

• Author: Melissa Melton,Aida Hass,Brett Garland
• DOI: 10.1177/1541204011418991
• Published date: 01 April 2012
• Date: 01 April 2012
• Subject Matter: Articles

Articles
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
10(2) 135-154
Public Opinion on Juvenile
ª The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
Blended Sentencing
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1541204011418991
http://yvj.sagepub.com
Brett Garland1, Melissa Melton2, and Aida Hass1
Abstract
Juvenile blended sentencing statutes enable juvenile courts to impose sanctions in the adult
correctional system without the youth being processed by adult courts. The current study
examines levels of public support for juvenile courts having the option to consider applying this
new blended sentencing policy, and it analyzes the impact of various predictor variables, such as
the perceived nature of juveniles and expected consequences of adult-level sanctions, on
supportiveness. In 2009, a survey was mailed to a random sample of 1,000 Missouri residents, and
through a series of follow ups, a 51% response rate was achieved. In general, respondents favored
juvenile courts possessing the option to use juvenile blended sentencing. OLS regression analyses
determined that the expected consequences of adult sanctions on youths were the strongest
predictors of support. Attitudes about the respectfulness of youth and perceived importance of
incapacitation in responding to youth crime also influenced attitudes toward the blended policy.
Future directions for research along with policy and legal implications are discussed.
Keywords
blended sentencing, juvenile justice, public opinion
The determination of adult status in the United States is rather consistent in many respects. People
must be at least 17 years old to enlist in the military (U.S. Army, 2010), 18 years old to vote in an
official national election (U.S. Const. amend. XXVI), and only one state permits teens under 18 years
of age to be legally married without parental consent (Cornell University Law School, 2010). This
legal line of demarcation between childhood and adulthood around the ages of 17 and 18 generally
holds true in the juvenile and adult courts as well (Krisberg, 2005), although there is an increasing
number of instances where juveniles are being considered as adults for the purposes of trial and
punishment regarding criminal offenses (Deitch, Barstow, Lukens, & Reyna, 2009).
As part of the ‘‘get tough on crime’’ movement and a new mantra in modern American justice of
‘‘do adult crime, do adult time’’ (Howell, 2008), more punitive legislation has emerged for serious
juvenile offenders, graying the lines at times between the juvenile and adult justice systems (Moon,
1Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Missouri State University, Springfield, MO, USA
2Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Jefferson City, MO, USA
Corresponding Author:
Brett Garland, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Missouri State University, 901 South National Ave.,
Springfield, MO 65897, USA
Email: BrettGarland@MissouriState.edu

---

136
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 10(2)
Sundt, Cullen, & Wright, 2000; Moore & Wakeling, 1997; Podkopacz & Feld, 2001; Siegel &
Welsh, 2009). Juvenile waiver laws (also called transfer laws) that enable adult criminal courts
to try and punish youth arrested for certain types of crimes have existed in every state since 1979
(Steiner & Wright, 2006). Moreover, many states have recently amended their waiver laws so that
children can be tried as adults at earlier ages and for more types of crimes (Feld, 1998; Redding,
2000, 2010; Sanborn, 2009; Steiner & Wright, 2006).
In the 1990s, juvenile blended sentencing was introduced as a new juvenile justice option that
allows ‘‘juvenile courts to impose adult sentences or extend their sentencing jurisdiction into early
adulthood’’ (Redding & Howell, 2000, p. 145, emphasis added). Juvenile blended sentencing differs
from the juvenile waiver in that the juvenile court has the jurisdiction to directly inflict an adult-level
sanction (e.g., incarceration in adult prison), whereas the application of adult sanctions through juve-
nile waiver is possible only by the adult criminal court. This new type of sentencing has gained
legislative appeal, as it generates a compromise between two distinct philosophies for handling seri-
ous and violent youth: rehabilitation and punishment. Specifically, a juvenile blended sentence in its
most popular form refers to a youth offender remaining in the rehabilitative-oriented juvenile system
but simultaneously facing a suspended and presumably tougher adult sanction if the individual fails
to comply with the juvenile court’s instructions (Podkopacz & Feld, 2001; Redding & Howell, 2000;
Shear, 2011). Importantly, the most extraordinary aspect of juvenile blended sentencing is that the
juvenile court is granted unprecedented power to apply adult-level sanctions to youths—a legal
power it was never intended to possess by the reformers who initiated the first juvenile courts (Platt,
1977; Rothman, 1980).
Although the practice of juvenile blended sentencing has existed for almost two decades, little
research has been directed at how the public feels about this relatively new policy. This is discon-
certing, given that public opinion can influence how lawmakers devise crime and sentencing policies
(Baron & Hartnagel, 1996; Nagin, Piquero, Scott, & Steinberg, 2006; Roberts, 1992). This explora-
tory study examines two key issues. First, we investigate the extent to which the public supports the
concept of juvenile blended sentencing and explore how support varies based on the type of crime
committed and the juvenile offender’s criminal history. Second, we examine potential reasons why
people might support or oppose a juvenile court having the authority to consider this new sentencing
option. In addressing this point, we analyze the impact of four categories of variables while control-
ling for respondents’ demographic characteristics. These variable categories include perceptions of
the nature of juveniles and their propensity for constructive change, attitudes about how society
should address youth crime, the anticipated consequences for a juvenile who receives adult sanc-
tions, and one’s personal experiences with youth and the juvenile justice system.
Issues in Juvenile Blended Sentencing
Three different models of juvenile blended sentencing have been used to date. The juvenile-
exclusive model, used only by New Mexico, allows a juvenile court to impose either a juvenile or
an adult sentence at the juvenile judge’s discretion (Griffin, 2003, 2011). The second, and most
widely used, form of juvenile blended sentencing is the juvenile-inclusive model. Unlike the
juvenile-exclusive model, juvenile-inclusive sentencing permits the juvenile court to impose both
a juvenile and an adult sentence. The youth serves the juvenile sentence first and remains in the juve-
nile system unless conditions of the disposition are violated, in which case the adult sanction
is imposed (Redding & Howell, 2000). Twelve states—Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois,
Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Ohio, and Vermont—follow this
model (Griffin, 2003, 2011; State of Maine, 2008).
According to Griffin (2003, 2011), the juvenile-contiguous model is used in Colorado, Rhode
Island, and Texas. This blended model grants the juvenile court the authority to give a youth a

---

Garland et al.
137
juvenile sentence followed immediately by an adult sentence. Under this model, the juvenile is
retained under juvenile jurisdiction until the state-declared age of majority. Once the juvenile is offi-
cially declared an adult, the juvenile court will hold a mandatory hearing to determine whether or not
the juvenile should serve the adult portion of the blended sentence. Although the term ‘‘blended sen-
tencing’’ can refer to both juvenile and adult blended sentencing, the use of the term in this article
refers only to juvenile blended sentencing.
Juvenile blended sentencing varies in its application across the United States (Griffin, 2003,
2008, 2011). Depending on the state, the minimum age at which this type of sentencing can be
imposed differs greatly. For example, juveniles age 14 or older in Massachusetts may only be given
blended sentences for certain felonies involving interpersonal violence; for the same crimes, juve-
niles in Alaska must be age 16 or older. In contrast, Colorado, Michigan, Rhode Island, Texas, and
Vermont have no minimum age requirement for administering a blended sentence. Moreover, many
state legislatures specify offense categories for which juvenile blended sentencing may be used.
Crimes designated for consideration of blended sentencing broadly include violent crimes (including
sex offenses), drug-related crimes, weapon-related offenses, and property crimes. In Kansas and
Michigan, however, any offense may be subject to a juvenile blended sentence. Offender age,
offense seriousness, past criminal history, and public safety concerns are all potential factors con-
sidered when judging the appropriateness of a blended sentence (Griffin, 2003, 2011; Podkopacz
& Feld, 2001; Torbet et al., 1996).
The current legislative and ideological push to treat more juveniles like adults for prosecution and
punishment which is reflected in part through the increasing number of blended sentencing statutes
is not without criticism (Redding & Howell, 2000). One evident issue is that this movement runs
counter to the original aims of juvenile justice in the United States. The first juvenile institutions
and juvenile courts were inspired by the belief...