Race, Juvenile Transfer, and Sentencing Preferences: Findings From a Randomized Experiment

• Author: Stephanie Bontrager Ryon,Justin T. Pickett,Peter S. Lehmann,Anna E. Kosloski
• DOI: 10.1177/2153368717699674
• Date: 01 July 2019
• Published date: 01 July 2019
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Race, Juvenile Transfer,

and Sentencing Preferences:

Findings From a Randomized

Experiment

Peter S. Lehmann

1

, Justin T. Pickett

2

,

Stephanie Bontrager Ryon

3

and Anna E. Kosloski

3

Abstract

In light of the expansion of punitive “get tough” policies for juvenile offenders, some

researchers have uncovered evidence that juveniles who are waived to the adult court

receive more severesanctions than retained juveniles. Theoretically, the transfer status

of delinquents may serveas a cognitive heuristic in criminal justice system (CJS) actors’

“focal concern” judgments. Understood through this framework, transfer status may

signify to CJS workers, and especially Whites, that a juvenile offender is especially dan-

gerous or blameworthy, thereby justifying harsher punishments. To examine these

relationships, two experimental vignettes were embedded in a national survey of CJS

workersin which the transferstatus of the offenderwas randomized. Analysesreveal that

respondentsdid not preferharsher sentencesfor the transferredviolent male delinquent,

but they did recommend significantly harsher sentences for the transferred nonviolent

female delinquent. White respondents, however, were especially punitive in their sen-

tencing preferences for the transferred violentmale delinquent. The findingsare partially

consistentwith the theoretical expectationthat transfer status functionsas a heuristic in

CJS actors’ assessments of juvenile offenders. The results also suggest that White CJS

workers may racially typify violentyouth who have been transferred to adult court.

Keywords

juvenile justice, sentencing, transfer, race, cognitive heuristics

1

College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

2

School of Criminal Justice, University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, NY, USA

3

School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs, CO, USA

Corresponding Author:

Peter S. Lehmann, Collegeof Criminology and Criminal Justice,Florida State University, 112 S. Copeland St.,

Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA.

Email: pl13@my.fsu.edu

Race and Justice

2019, Vol. 9(3) 251-275

ªThe Author(s) 2017

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/2153368717699674

journals.sagepub.com/home/raj

The 1980sand 1990s were “a time of unprecedentedchange” (Snyder& Sickmund, 1999,

p. 5) in American juvenilejustice as state legislatures passed measures designed to “get

tough” on juvenile offenders. In response to public fear surrounding a predicted rise in

juvenile crime, these two decades saw the proliferation of punitive juvenile justice

practices, including the transferof juvenile offenders to the adult criminalcourt (Myers,

2005; Zimring,1998). Before the 1980s,few states had legal mechanismsof transferring

juvenilesto the adult court for processingbesides judicial discretionarywaiver. Since the

get tough era, however, every state has adopted additional policies which facilitate

juvenile transfer(Griffin, Addie, Adams, & Firestine, 2011; Sickmund & Puzzanchera,

2014). Abandoning traditional juvenile justice goals of rehabilitation, these practices

“criminalizedelinquency” (Feld,1993; Singer & McDowall, 1988) andsubject juveniles

to a range of adult criminalpenalties and the possibilityof incarceration in adult jailsand

prisons(Singer, 1997; Mears, 2001).Scholars also have arguedthat juvenile transfersare

highly racialized both in operation and in public perception (Feld, 1999a; Jackson &

Pabon, 2000; Pickett & Chiricos, 2012; Ward, 2012).

The expansion of juvenile transfer policies in recent years has sparked a notable increase

in research focused on the relationship between transfer and punishment. While some

studies comparing the sanctions of transferred youth to juveniles retained in the juvenile

system have shown that transferred juveniles are sanctioned either similarly or less harshly

than comparable retained youth (Champion, 1989; Clement, 1997;Kupchik, 2006), others

have found that youth are treated more harshly in the adult system (Jordan & Myers, 2011;

Lemmon, Austin, Verrecchia, & Fetzer, 2005; Myers, 2003). Additionally, research

comparing the criminal sentences of transferred juveniles and adult offenders has likewise

been mixed, with some studies finding that juvenile status is an aggravating factor in the

adult court (Johnson & Kurlychek, 2012; Kurlychek & Johnson, 2004, 2010) and others

finding mixed or negative effects (Jordan, 2014; Jordan & McNeal, 2016; Steiner, 2009).

Theoretically, irrespective of other legal or extralegal factors, juvenile transfer status may

be used among court actors as a mental shortcut, or “cognitive heuristic,” in the process of

sanctioning youthful offenders (Johnson& Kurlychek, 2012; Kurlychek & Johnson, 2010).

The unique contribution of the current study to the literature is 2-fold. First, we use

an experimental design to examine the existence of a “juvenile transfer heuristic”

among criminal justice system (CJS) workers. Second, we test whether transfer status

interacts with the race of the survey respondent such that Whites respond especially

punitively to vignettes involving transferred youth. To address these questions, we use

data from a recent national survey in which the transfer effect is isolated through

randomized vignettes of juvenile offenders. These data engage a wide range of CJS

actors (e.g., police, judges, prosecutors, probation officers, and others) in order to

incorporate the different types of CJS actors who may exert influence, direct or

indirect, over the punishment of youth offenders.

Prior Research on Sentencing Transferred Juveniles

Currently, all 50 states have laws in place that allow some youth offenders to be

transferred to adult court for sentencing (Sickmund & Puzzanchera, 2014). Instead of

252 Race and Justice 9(3)