Prosecutor Decision-Making Following Juvenile Life Without Parole Sentencing Reform

IF 1.5 1区社会学 Q2 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice Pub Date : 2023-05-09 DOI:10.1177/15412040231173345

Leah Ouellet, Jennifer Wareham

{"title":"Prosecutor Decision-Making Following Juvenile Life Without Parole Sentencing Reform","authors":"Leah Ouellet, Jennifer Wareham","doi":"10.1177/15412040231173345","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Prosecutors play an integral role in implementing sentencing reform measures in the United States. Following the Supreme Court’s recent restrictions of the use of life without parole sentences for juveniles (JLWOP), county prosecutors in Michigan were tasked with initiating resentencing proceedings by filing sentencing motions for individuals who were currently serving JLWOP (so-called “juvenile lifers”). These motions intimated whether, following the changes in sentencing policy, the prosecutor sought a new life without parole sentence or if they consented to the default term-of-years sentence that would allow a juvenile lifer an opportunity for release. In this paper, we analyze the best-fitting characteristics predicting prosecutor filing decisions. Guided by the focal concerns framework, we ultimately find evidence that prosecutors made filing decisions in ways that were consistent with their existing decision-making schema, relying on characteristics that aligned with typical conceptions of blameworthiness and dangerousness. Prosecutors’ decisions were not associated with characteristics reflecting the new guidance or mitigative logics provided by Supreme Court’s rulings, such as age and immaturity. We conclude that prosecutors’ implementation of sentencing reform measures is constrained by the extent that new policy parameters overlap with existing focal concerns and provide several policy recommendations for addressing this issue.","PeriodicalId":47525,"journal":{"name":"Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice","volume":"21 1","pages":"325 - 349"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15412040231173345","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Prosecutors play an integral role in implementing sentencing reform measures in the United States. Following the Supreme Court’s recent restrictions of the use of life without parole sentences for juveniles (JLWOP), county prosecutors in Michigan were tasked with initiating resentencing proceedings by filing sentencing motions for individuals who were currently serving JLWOP (so-called “juvenile lifers”). These motions intimated whether, following the changes in sentencing policy, the prosecutor sought a new life without parole sentence or if they consented to the default term-of-years sentence that would allow a juvenile lifer an opportunity for release. In this paper, we analyze the best-fitting characteristics predicting prosecutor filing decisions. Guided by the focal concerns framework, we ultimately find evidence that prosecutors made filing decisions in ways that were consistent with their existing decision-making schema, relying on characteristics that aligned with typical conceptions of blameworthiness and dangerousness. Prosecutors’ decisions were not associated with characteristics reflecting the new guidance or mitigative logics provided by Supreme Court’s rulings, such as age and immaturity. We conclude that prosecutors’ implementation of sentencing reform measures is constrained by the extent that new policy parameters overlap with existing focal concerns and provide several policy recommendations for addressing this issue.

查看原文本刊更多论文

少年不得假释终身监禁量刑改革后的检察官决策

在美国，检察官在执行量刑改革措施方面发挥着不可或缺的作用。在最高法院最近限制对少年犯(JLWOP)使用无假释终身监禁的判决之后，密歇根州的县检察官的任务是通过对目前在JLWOP服刑的个人(所谓的“少年犯”)提出量刑动议，启动重审程序。这些动议表明，在量刑政策改变之后，检察官是否寻求新的终身监禁不得假释的判决，或者他们是否同意默认的刑期，这将使少年犯有机会获释。本文分析了预测检察官立案决定的最佳拟合特征。在焦点关注框架的指导下，我们最终发现证据表明，检察官以与其现有决策模式一致的方式做出立案决定，依赖于与典型的可责备性和危险性概念相一致的特征。检察官的判决与反映大法院判决提供的新指导或减轻逻辑的特征无关，例如年龄和不成熟。我们得出结论，检察官实施量刑改革措施受到新政策参数与现有焦点问题重叠程度的限制，并为解决这一问题提供了一些政策建议。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-

CiteScore

6.90

自引率

10.50%

发文量

期刊介绍： Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice: An Interdisciplinary Journal provides academics and practitioners in juvenile justice and related fields with a resource for publishing current empirical research on programs, policies, and practices in the areas of youth violence and juvenile justice. Emphasis is placed on such topics as serious and violent juvenile offenders, juvenile offender recidivism, institutional violence, and other relevant topics to youth violence and juvenile justice such as risk assessment, psychopathy, self-control, and gang membership, among others. Decided emphasis is placed on empirical research with specific implications relevant to juvenile justice process, policy, and administration. Interdisciplinary in scope, Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice serves a diverse audience of academics and practitioners in the fields of criminal justice, education, psychology, social work, behavior analysis, sociology, law, counseling, public health, and all others with an interest in youth violence and juvenile justice.