Sentencing Juvenile Offenders: Comparing Public Preferences and Judicial Practice

• Date: 01 March 2002
• DOI: 10.1177/0887403402131004
• Published date: 01 March 2002
• Subject Matter: Journal Article

CRIMINALJUSTICEPOLICYREVIEW/March 2002Tufts,Roberts/SENTENCINGJUVENILEOFFENDERS

Sentencing Juvenile Offenders:

Comparing Public Preferences

and Judicial Practice

Jennifer Tufts

Statistics Canada

Julian V. Roberts

University of Ottawa

The juvenile justice systems of most Western nations have been under considerable

pressureto impose harsher penalties on juvenile offenders. Much of this pressure has

come from politicians who argue that the public and juvenile courts areout of step,

with the latter being more lenient than the public desire.This article reports findings

from a representative national survey of the public, which permitted comparisons

between the sentencing preferences of the public and the actual practice of youth

courts. Respondents wereasked to sentence offenders described in vignettes. The sen-

tencing component employed a 2 ×2×2 design. The variables manipulated were age

of offender (juvenile or adult), criminal history (first offender or recidivist), and

nature of offence (burglary or assault). Results indicated concordance between the

incarcerationrates favored by members of the public and the practice of the courts. In

addition, respondents were also askedquestions about criminal victimization within

the previous 12 months. Consistent with the findings of previousresearch, crime vic-

tims were no more punitive than respondents who did not report having been

victimized.

Public attitudes toward sentencing show a remarkable convergence across

jurisdictions. For decades now, public opinion surveys in Canada, the

United States, and the United Kingdom have revealed widespread discon-

tent with sentencing practices (for a review, see Flanagan & Longmire,

1996; Roberts & Stalans, 1997). A recurrent finding is that most people per-

ceive the criminal courts to be too lenient and believe that judges are out of

touch with the views of the communities that they are elected (or,in Canada

and the United Kingdom, appointed) to serve.

46

Criminal Justice PolicyReview, Volume13, Number 1, March 2002 46-64

© 2002 Sage Publications

at SAGE Publications on December 5, 2012cjp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

However, there are some important qualifications to this general obser-

vation. First, the public are usually asked a general question such as, “Are

sentences too harsh or too lenient?” Imprecise questions of this nature tend

to elicit the most punitive reactions from members of the public (see

Applegate, Cullen, Turner, & Sundt, 1996). A number of research studies

have demonstrated that when answering such questions, respondents are

most likely to think about the most serious offences and the worst offenders

(see Roberts & Stalans, 1997). Second, most people are misinformed about

sentencing practices and tend to underestimate the severity of sentences

imposed at the trial court level (e.g., Hough & Roberts, 1999; Roberts,

1992). Third, public sentencing preferences are seldom compared to the

actual practice of the courts. Nevertheless, the perception persists that there

is a considerable gulf between the views of the court and the sentencing

preferences of the general public.

If members of the public are dissatisfied with sentencing in general, they

are particularly opposed to the treatment of juvenile offenders. This is

reflected in the fact that the percentage of people who believethat sentences

are too lenient is greater for juvenile offenders than adults. For example,

60% of respondents to the 1998 British Crime Survey held the opinion that

youth court sentencing was too lenient (Mattinson & Mirrlees-Black,

2000). Indeed, many members of the public believe that lax sentencing in

youth courts is itself a cause of, rather than an effectiveresponse to, juvenile

crime. Concern about sentencing in juvenile courts is fueled in part by the

perception that juvenile crime trends are escalating out of control. This view

is shaped in large measure by high-profile cases of homicide involvingjuve-

nile offenders. Perhaps the most well-known example is the murder of

Jamie Bulger in the United Kingdom. Since then, several other cases have

attracted widespread media attention, including the killing of Reena Virkby

a gang of teenaged girls in Canada and the murders committed at Colum-

bine High School in the United States.

This public concern about juvenile crime has spawned legislation that

stresses a more punitive approach to juvenile crime. In the United States,

Proposition 21, which was ratified by almost two thirds of votersin Califor -

nia, introduces a number of get-tough measures. For example, the statute

restricts the discretion of judges to refer juvenile offenders for treatment or

probation (rather than incarcerate such offenders). In Australia, mandatory

sentences of imprisonment have been introduced for juveniles, and the

prime minister of the state chief cited a public opinion survey in a press

release and stated that “he was not surprised at the overwhelming support

Tufts, Roberts / SENTENCING JUVENILE OFFENDERS 47

at SAGE Publications on December 5, 2012cjp.sagepub.comDownloaded from