Long held legal distinctions treat individuals under the age of 18 years differently than those over 18. However, neuroscience indicates that an individual’s brain may not be fully mature until 25 years. This brain immaturity suggests emerging adults may be more risk-seeking, impulsive, and less likely to appreciate the consequences of their acts. Because culpability for one’s actions is a key component of sentencing decisions, we hypothesize youthfulness (e.g. ages between 18 and 25 years) may mitigate judicial sentencing of this group. We analyze 5-year data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing. Our results indicate youthful offenders are more likely to get harsher punishment. The potential impacts of these results on other aspects of judicial sentencing and the youthful offenders sentenced were discussed.
AhlinE. M. (2019). Moving beyond prison rape: Assessing sexual victimization among youth in custody. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 47, 160–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2019.04.002
2.
AllisonP. D. (1999). Comparing logit and probit coefficients across groups. Sociological methods & research, 28(2), 186–208.
3.
Arias-CarriónO.StamelouM.Murillo-RodríguezE.Menéndez-GonzálezM.PöppelE. (2010). Dopaminergic reward system: A short integrative review. International Archives of Medicine, 3(1), 1–6.
4.
ArnettJ. J.MitraD. (2020). Are the features of emerging adulthood developmentally distinctive? A comparison of ages 18–60 in the United States. Emerging Adulthood, 8(5), 412–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696818810073
5.
Atkins v Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002).
6.
BeccariaC. (2016). On crimes and punishments. Transaction Publishers.
7.
BernardT. J.KurlychekM. C. (2010). The cycle of Juvenile Justice. Oxford University Press.
8.
BjorkJ. M.KnutsonB.FongG. W.CaggianoD. M.BennettS. M.HommerD. W. (2004). Incentive-elicited brain activation in adolescents: Similarities and differences from young adults. Journal of Neuroscience, 24(8), 1793–1802.
9.
BontragerS.BarrickK.StupiE. (2013). Gender and sentencing: A meta-analysis of contemporary research. Journal of Gender Race & Justice, 16, 349.
10.
BosworthM. (2005). Encyclopedia of prisons and correctional facilities (Vol. 1). Sage Publications, Inc.
11.
BrykA. S.RaudenbushS. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods. Sage Publications, Inc.
12.
BrysonS. L.PeckJ. H. (2022). The effects of age, race, and offense type on receiving a ‘youth discount’ in juvenile court. Journal of Crime and Justice, 45(3), 304–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2021.1915851
13.
CohenA. O.BonnieR. J.Taylor-ThompsonK.CaseyB. (2016). When does juvenile become an adult: Implications for law and policy. Temple Law Review, 88(4), 769–788.
14.
CauffmanE.SteinbergL. (2000). (Im)maturity of judgment in adolescence: Why adolescents may be less culpable than adults. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 18(6), 741–760. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.416
15.
CauffmanE.PiqueroA. R.KimonisE.SteinbergL.ChassinL.FaganJ. (2007). Legal, individual, and environmental predictors of court disposition in a sample of serious adolescent offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 519–535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9076-2
16.
CauffmanE.SteinbergL. (2012). Emerging findings from research on adolescent development and juvenile justice. Victims and Offenders, 7(4), 428–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2012.713901
17.
ChristianJ. (2005). Riding the bus: Barriers to prison visitation and family management strategies. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986204271618
18.
DoernerJ. K.DemuthS. (2010). The independent and joint effects of race/ethnicity, gender, and age on sentencing outcomes in US federal courts. Justice quarterly, 27(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820902926197
19.
DreherJ. C.Meyer-LindenbergA.KohnP.BermanK. F. (2008). Age-related changes in midbrain dopaminergic regulation of the human reward system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 105(39), 15106–15111. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0802127105
20.
DuY. (2020). Brain immaturity and juvenile delinquency: mpirical evidence, age-related legal debate, and ethical concerns. Journal of Law & Social Deviance, 19, 76–140.
21.
EngenR. L.GaineyR. R. (2000). Modeling the effects of legally relevant and extralegal factors under sentencing guidelines: The rules have changed. Criminology, 38(4), 1207–1230.
ErnstM.SpearL. P. (2009). Reward systems. In de HaanM.GunnarM. R. (Eds.), Handbook of developmental social neuroscience (pp. 324–341). The Guilford Press.
24.
FarringtonD. P. (1986). Age and crime. Crime and Justice, 7, 189–250.
25.
FarringtonD. P.LoeberR.HowellJ. C. (2012). Young adult offenders: The need for more effective legislative options and justice processing. Criminology and Public Policy, 11(4), 729–750. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2012.00842.x
26.
FeldB. C.CaseyB. J.HurdY. L. (2013). Adolescent competence and culpability: Implications of neuroscience for juvenile justice administration. In MorseS. J.RoskiesA. L. (Eds.), A primer on criminal law and neuroscience (pp. 179–215). Oxford Academic.
27.
FeldB. C. (2017). The evolution of the juvenile court: Race, politics, and the criminalizing of juvenile justice. In The Evolution of the Juvenile Court. New York University Press.
28.
Florida Statute: Chapter 958-011-958.15 of Title XLVII (2020).
29.
FreiburgerT. L.JordanK. L.Hilinski-RosickC. M. (2019). A multivariate analysis of incarceration and sentence length decisions for older defendants. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(7), 1064–1085. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403418765911
30.
GalvinM. A.UlmerJ. T. (2022). Expanding our understanding of focal concerns: Alternative sentences, race, and “salvageability”. Justice Quarterly, 39(6), 1332–1353. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2021.1954234
31.
GardnerM.SteinbergL. (2005). Peer influence on risk taking, risk preference, and risky decision making in adolescence and adulthood: an experimental study. Developmental Psychology, 41(4), 625–635. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.4.625
32.
GoffP. A.JacksonM. C.Di LeoneB. A. L.CulottaC. M.DiTomassoN. A. (2014). The essence of innocence: consequences of dehumanizing Black children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(4), 526–545. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035663
33.
GogtayN.GieddJ. N.LuskL.HayashiK. M.GreensteinD.VaituzisA. C.NugentT. F.HermanD. H.ClasenL. S.TogaA. W.RapoportJ. L.ThompsonP. M. (2004). Dynamic mapping of human cortical development during childhood through early adulthood. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 101(21), 8174–8179. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0402680101
34.
Graham v. Florida 560 U.S. 48 (2010).
35.
HananM. (2019). Incapacitating errors: sentencing and the science of change. Denver Law Review, 97(1), 151–204.
36.
HesterR.FraseR. S.RobertsJ. V.MitchellK. L. (2018). Prior record enhancements at sentencing: Unsettled justifications and unsettling consequences. Crime and Justice, 47(1), 209–254.
37.
HesterR.SevignyE. L. (2016). Court communities in local context: A multilevel analysis of felony sentencing in South Carolina. Journal of Crime and Justice, 39(1), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2014.913494
38.
HuntK. S.EasleyB. (2017). The effects of aging on recidivism among federal offenders. United States Sentencing Commission.
39.
IcenogleG.SteinbergL.DuellN.CheinJ.ChangL.ChaudharyN.BacchiniD. (2019). Adolescents’ cognitive capacity reaches adult levels prior to their psychosocial maturity: Evidence for a “maturity gap” in a multinational, cross-sectional sample. Law and Human Behavior, 43(1), 69–121. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000315
40.
JohnsonB. D. (2005). Contextual disparities in guidelines departures: Courtroom social contexts, guidelines compliance, and extralegal disparities in criminal sentencing. Criminology, 43(3), 761–796.
41.
JohnsonB. D.DiPietroS. M. (2012). The power of diversion: Intermediate sanctions and sentencing disparity under presumptive guidelines. Criminology, 50(3), 811–850. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2012.00279.x
42.
KeatingD. P. (2004). Cognitive and brain development. In LernerR. M.SteinbergL. (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 45–84). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
43.
Koons-WittB. A.SevignyE. L.BurrowJ. D.HesterR. (2014). Gender and sentencing outcomes in South Carolina: Examining the interactions with race, age, and offense type. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 25(3), 299–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403412468884
44.
KramerJ. H.UlmerJ. T. (2009). Sentencing guidelines: lessons from Pennsylvania. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
45.
KurlychekM. C. (2018). Mitigation for minors: Exploring the nuances of social constructs and legal status in structuring sentences for youthful offenders. Punishment and Society, 20(4), 498–522. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474517708559
46.
KurlychekM. C.JohnsonB. D. (2004). The juvenile penalty: A comparison of juvenile and young adult sentencing outcomes in criminal court. Criminology, 42(2), 485–515.
47.
KurlychekM. C.JohnsonB. D. (2010). Juvenility and punishment: Sentencing juveniles in adult criminal court. Criminology, 48(3), 725–758.
48.
LeiberM. J.JohnsonJ. D. (2008). Being young and black: What are their effects on juvenile justice decision making?Crime and Delinquency, 54(4), 560–581. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128707308857
49.
LoeberR.FarringtonD. P. (Eds.). (2012). From juvenile delinquency to adult crime: Criminal careers, justice policy and prevention. Oxford University Press.
50.
LongJ. S. (2009). Group comparisons in logit and probit using predicted probabilities. Department of Sociology, University of Indiana. Unpublished manuscript.
51.
LunaB.WrightC. (2016). Adolescent brain development: Implications for the juvenile criminal justice system. In HeilbrunK.DeMatteoD.GoldsteinN. E. S. (Eds.), APA handbook of psychology and Juvenile justice (pp. 91–116). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14643-005
52.
LynchM. (2019). Focally concerned about focal concerns: A conceptual and methodological critique of sentencing disparities research. Justice quarterly, 36(7), 1148–1175.
53.
MarkowitzF. E.SyversonJ. (2021). Race, gender, and homelessness stigma: Effects of perceived blameworthiness and dangerousness. Deviant Behavior, 42(7), 919–931.
54.
Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012).
55.
MonahanK. C.SteinbergL.CauffmanE.MulveyE. P. (2009). Trajectories of antisocial behavior and psychosocial maturity from adolescence to young adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 45(6), 1654–1668. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015862
56.
MonahanK. C.SteinbergL.CauffmanE.MulveyE. P. (2013). Psychosocial (im) maturity from adolescence to early adulthood: Distinguishing between adolescence-limited and persisting antisocial behavior. Development and psychopathology, 25(4pt1), 1093–1105. doi:10.1017/S0954579413000394
57.
MorrowW. J.DarioL. M.RodriguezN. (2015). Examining the prevalence of a ‘youth discount’ in the juvenile justice system. Journal of Crime and Justice, 38(4), 473–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2014.912144
58.
NaneixF.MarchandA. R.Di ScalaG.PapeJ. R.CoutureauE. (2012). Parallel maturation of goal-directed behavior and dopaminergic systems during adolescence. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(46), 16223–16232. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3080-12.2012
59.
OkaforP. A. W. (2023). Punitive consequences of being a minority male: an analysis exploring intersectionality, racial/ethnic threat, and sentencing outcomes. Psychology, Crime & Law, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2023.2292505
QuinnP. D.HardenK. P. (2013). Differential changes in impulsivity and sensation seeking and the escalation of substance use from adolescence to early adulthood. Development and psychopathology, 25(1), 223–239. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579412000284
62.
RomerD.ReynaV. F.SatterthwaiteT. D. (2017). Beyond stereotypes of adolescent risk taking: Placing the adolescent brain in developmental context. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 27, 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2017.07.007
63.
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).
64.
ScottE. S.GrissoT. (1997). The evolution of adolescence: A developmental perspective on juvenile justice reform. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88, 137–189. https://doi.org/0091-4169/97/8801-0137
65.
SchnittkerJ. (2000). Gender and Reactions to Psychological Problems: An Examination of Social Tolerance and Perceived Dangerousness. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41(2), 224–240. https://doi.org/10.2307/2676307
ScottE.GrissoT.LevickM.SteinbergL. (2015). Juvenile sentencing reform in a constitutional framework. Temple Law Review, 88, 675–716.
68.
ShenF. X.McLuskieF.ShortellE.BellamorosoM.EscalanteE.EvansB.HayesI.KimmeyC.LaganS.MullerM.NearJ.NicholsonK.OkeriJ.OkoliI.RehmetE.GertnerN.KinscherffR. (2022). Justice for emerging adults after Jones: The rapidly developing use of neuroscience to extend Eighth amendment Miller protections to defendants ages 18 and older. New York University Law Review. Online, 97, 101–126.
69.
ShulmanE. P.SmithA. R.SilvaK.IcenogleG.DuellN.CheinJ.SteinbergL. (2016). The dual systems model: Review, reappraisal, and reaffirmation. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2015.12.010
70.
ShustK. B. (2014). Extending sentencing mitigation for deserving young adults. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 104, 667–704. https://doi.org/0091-4169/14/10403-0667
71.
SowellE. R.ThompsonP. M.TessnerK. D.TogaA. W. (2001). Mapping continued brain growth and gray matter density reduction in dorsal frontal cortex: Inverse relationships during postadolescent brain maturation. Journal of Neuroscience, 21(22), 8819–8829.
72.
SteffensmeierD.KramerJ.UlmerJ. (1995). Age differences in sentencing. Justice Quarterly12(3), 583–602.
73.
SteffensmeierD.MotivansM. (2000). Older men and older women in the arms of criminal law: Offending patterns and sentencing outcomes. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 55(3), S141–S151. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/55.3.S141
74.
SteffensmeierD.UlmerJ.KramerJ. (1998). The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, black, and male. Criminology, 36(4), 763–798.
75.
SteffensmeierD.Painter-DavisN.UlmerJ. (2017). Intersectionality of race, ethnicity, gender, and age on criminal punishment. Sociological Perspectives, 60(4), 810–833. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26579835
SteinbergL. (2009). Should the science of adolescent brain development inform public policy?The American Psychologist, 64(8), 739–750. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.64.8.739
78.
SteinbergL. (2017). Adolescent brain science and juvenile justice policymaking. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23(4), 410–420. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000128
79.
SteinbergL.CauffmanE.WoolardJ.GrahamS.BanichM. (2009). Are adolescents mature than adults? Minors’ access to abortion, the juvenile death penalty, and the alleged APA “flip-flop”. American Psychologist, 64(7), 583–594. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014763
80.
SteinbergL.ScottE. S. (2003). Less guilty by reason of adolescence: Developmental immaturity, diminished responsibility, and the juvenile death penalty. American Psychologist, 58(12), 1009–1018. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.12.1009
81.
SteinerB. (2009). The effects of juvenile transfer to criminal court on incarceration decisions. Justice Quarterly, 26(1), 77–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820802119943
82.
SteinerB.EllisonJ. M.ButlerH. D.CainC. M. (2017). The impact of inmate and prison characteristics on prisoner victimization. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 18(1), 17–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015588503
83.
TamnesC. K.ØstbyY.FjellA. M.WestlyeL. T.Due-TønnessenP.WalhovdK. B. (2010). Brain maturation in adolescence and young adulthood: Regional age-related changes in cortical thickness and white matter volume and microstructure. Cerebral Cortex, 20, 534–548. https://doi:10.1093/cercor/bhp118
TrzesniewskiK. H.DonnellanM. B. (2014). “Young people these days. . .” evidence for negative perceptions of emerging adults. Emerging Adulthood, 2(3), 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696814522620
UlmerJ. T.BaderC.GaultM. (2008). Do moral communities play a role in criminal sentencing? Evidence from Pennsylvania. The Sociological Quarterly, 49(4), 737–768.
WarrenP. Y.CochranJ.ShieldsR. T.FeldmeyerB.BaileyC.StewartE. A. (2020). Sentencing departures and female defendants: Assessing the effects of racial and ethnic threat. Crime & Delinquency, 66(1), 59–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128719839394
93.
WolffN.ShiJ.BlitzC. L.SiegelJ. (2007). Understanding sexual victimization inside prisons: Factors that predict risk. Criminology and Public Policy, 6(3), 535–564. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2007.00452.x
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
