Differences in Justice, Differences in Outcomes: A DID Approach to Studying Outcomes in Juvenile and Adult Court Processing

IF 1.3 Q3 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Kendall Robinson, Megan C. Kurlychek
{"title":"Differences in Justice, Differences in Outcomes: A DID Approach to Studying Outcomes in Juvenile and Adult Court Processing","authors":"Kendall Robinson, Megan C. Kurlychek","doi":"10.1080/24751979.2019.1585927","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract For almost half a century, there has been an ongoing philosophical debate regarding the appropriateness of processing youth in adult courts. Since the juvenile system was theoretically designed to rehabilitate and the adult system to punish, one could assume that there should be key differences in both experiences and outcomes across systems. Yet empirical findings remain mixed. However, almost all existing studies are plagued by issues of selection bias and examine only sentencing or recidivism outcomes. This study overcomes these limitations by addressing both sentencing and recidivism as well as capitalizing on a legislative policy change that increased the age of criminal responsibility for all youth in Connecticut. Using a difference in difference modeling strategy, we find that the system of processing matters somewhat for sentencing outcomes with youth in the juvenile system being more likely to receive probation. However, youth processed in the juvenile court also recidivated at a slightly higher rate, which is contrary to expectation. We explore several possible meanings for these findings and end with a call for future research to include qualitative analysis of actual youth experience—regardless of the system of processing—as more probable indicators of later life outcomes.","PeriodicalId":41318,"journal":{"name":"Justice Evaluation Journal","volume":"12 1","pages":"35 - 49"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Justice Evaluation Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24751979.2019.1585927","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Abstract For almost half a century, there has been an ongoing philosophical debate regarding the appropriateness of processing youth in adult courts. Since the juvenile system was theoretically designed to rehabilitate and the adult system to punish, one could assume that there should be key differences in both experiences and outcomes across systems. Yet empirical findings remain mixed. However, almost all existing studies are plagued by issues of selection bias and examine only sentencing or recidivism outcomes. This study overcomes these limitations by addressing both sentencing and recidivism as well as capitalizing on a legislative policy change that increased the age of criminal responsibility for all youth in Connecticut. Using a difference in difference modeling strategy, we find that the system of processing matters somewhat for sentencing outcomes with youth in the juvenile system being more likely to receive probation. However, youth processed in the juvenile court also recidivated at a slightly higher rate, which is contrary to expectation. We explore several possible meanings for these findings and end with a call for future research to include qualitative analysis of actual youth experience—regardless of the system of processing—as more probable indicators of later life outcomes.
司法差异,结果差异:用DID方法研究青少年和成人法庭处理的结果
近半个世纪以来,关于在成人法庭处理青少年的适当性,一直存在着一场持续的哲学辩论。由于少年制度的设计在理论上是为了改造,而成人制度的设计是为了惩罚,人们可以假设,不同制度的经验和结果应该存在关键差异。然而,实证研究结果仍然喜忧参半。然而,几乎所有现有的研究都受到选择偏见问题的困扰,并且只检查量刑或再犯的结果。这项研究通过解决量刑和累犯问题以及利用立法政策的变化来克服这些限制,该变化提高了康涅狄格州所有青少年的刑事责任年龄。使用差异建模策略,我们发现处理系统对判决结果有一定影响,少年系统中的青少年更有可能获得缓刑。然而,在少年法庭审理的青少年的再犯率也略高,这与预期相反。我们探讨了这些发现的几种可能的含义,并呼吁未来的研究包括对实际青年经历的定性分析——不管处理系统如何——作为更可能的晚年生活结果指标。
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
Justice Evaluation Journal
Justice Evaluation Journal CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信