Emerging adult offenders ages 18 to 25 are legally adults while maintaining neurodevelopmental similarities to adolescents, creating a challenge for the court as to whether to sentence them as adults or juveniles. Using Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing data from 2015 to 2019, this study examines whether non-incarcerated sanctions differ across emerging-adult groups and older adults, and whether county context shapes these decisions. Multilevel models show that emerging adult offenders tend to receive more lenient sanctions than older offenders, and individuals ages 18 to 21 are more likely than those ages 22 to 25 to receive community-based sanctions. County political orientation and urbanization are associated with non-incarcerated sentences, but not with probation-versus-RIP sanctions. Results highlight differential sanctions for emerging adult offenders and the role of contextual factors in sentencing.
ArnettJ. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood. A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469
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.
ArnettJ. J.ŽukauskienėR.SugimuraK. (2014). The new life stage of emerging adulthood at ages 18–29 years: Implications for mental health. The Lancet Psychiatry, 1(7), 569–576.
6.
BazemoreG.UmbreitM. (1995). Rethinking the sanctioning function in juvenile court: Retributive or restorative responses to youth crime. Crime and Delinquency, 41(3), 296–316.
7.
BergerP. L.LuckmannT. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Penguin Books.
8.
BernardT. J.KurlychekM. C. (Eds.). (2010). The cycle of juvenile justice (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
9.
BishopD. M. (2000). Juvenile offenders in the adult criminal justice system. Crime and Justice, 27, 81–167. https://doi.org/10.1086/652199
BontragerS.BarrickK.StupiE. (2013). Gender and sentencing: A meta-analysis of contemporary research. Journal of Gender, Race & Justice, 16(2), 349–372.
12.
BucklenK. B.BellN.LateganD. (2017). State intermediate punishment program: 2017 performance report. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.
BushwayS. D.PiehlA. M. (2007). Social science research and the legal threat to presumptive sentencing guidelines. Criminology & Public Policy, 6(3), 461–482. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2007.00447.x
15.
CaseyB. J.SomervilleL. H.GotlibI. H.AydukO.FranklinN. T.AskrenM. K.JonidesJ.BermanM. G.WilsonN. L.TeslovichT.GloverG.ZayasV.MischelW.ShodaY. (2011). Behavioral and neural correlates of delay of gratification 40 years later. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(36), 14998–15003. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1108561108
16.
CauffmanE.GillespieM. L.BeardsleeJ.DavisF.HernandezM.WilliamsT. (2023). Adolescent contact, lasting impact? Lessons learned from two longitudinal studies spanning 20 years of developmental science research with justice-system-involved youths. Psychological science in the public interest, 24(3), 133–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100623120517
17.
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(6), 519–535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9076-2
18.
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
19.
ClearT. R.FrostN. A. (2013). The punishment imperative: The rise and failure of mass incarceration in America. New York University Press.
20.
DoernerJ. K.DemuthS. (2010). The independent and joint effects of race/ethnicity, gender, and age on sentencing outcomes in U.S. federal courts. Justice Quarterly, 27(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820902926197
21.
DoernerJ. K.DemuthS. (2014). Gender and sentencing in the federal courts: Are women treated more leniently?Criminal Justice Policy Review, 25(2), 242–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403412466877
22.
DohertyE. E.CwickJ. M.GreenK. M.EnsmingerM. E. (2016). Examining the consequences of the “prevalent life events” of arrest and incarceration among an urban African-American cohort. Justice Quarterly, 33(6), 970–999. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2015.1016089
23.
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, 105(39), 15106–15111. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0802127105
24.
DuY.KurlychekM. (2025). Sentencing for youthful offenders: The impact of youthfulness on the sentencing decisions. Crime and Delinquency, 71(11), 3619–3645. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287251323522
25.
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2000.tb01419.x
FarringtonD. P.LoeberR.HowellJ. C. (2012). Overview of: “Young Adult Offenders”: The need for more effective legislative options and justice processing. Criminology & Public Policy, 11(4), 727–728. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2012.00838.x
28.
FeldB. C. (2017). The evolution of the juvenile court. New York University Press.
29.
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: A contribution of the law and neuroscience project, supported by the MacArthur foundation (pp. 179–215). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199859177.003.0007
30.
FranklinT. W. (2010). Community influence on prosecutorial dismissals: A multilevel analysis of case- and county-level factors. Journal of Crime and Justice, 38(4), 693–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.04.043
31.
FranklinT. W.DittmannL.HenryT. K. S. (2017). Extralegal disparity in the application of intermediate sanctions: An analysis of U.S. district courts. Crime and Delinquency, 63(7), 839–874. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128715607533
32.
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
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
35.
GalyeanM. L.WesterD. B. (2010). Comparison of multinomial and binomial proportion methods for analysis of multinomial count data. Journal of Animal Science, 88(10), 3452–3463. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-2868
GoffP. A.JacksonM. C.Di LeoneB. A.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
38.
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, 101(21), 8174–8179. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0402680101
39.
GurR. C. (2021). Development of brain behavior integration systems related to criminal culpability from childhood to young adulthood: Does it stop at 18 years?Journal of Pediatric Neuropsychology, 7(1–2), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40817-021-00101-1
40.
HesterR.FraseR. S.RobertsJ. V.MitchellK. L. (2018). Prior record enhancements at sentencing: Unsettled justifications and unsettling consequences. Crime and Justice, 47, 209–254. https://doi.org/10.1086/695400
HuntK. S.EasleyB. (2017). The effects of aging on recidivism among federal offenders. United States Sentencing Commission.
43.
IcenogleG.SteinbergL.DuellN.CheinJ.ChangL.ChaudharyN.Di GiuntaL.DodgeK. A.FantiK. A.LansfordJ. E.OburuP.PastorelliC.SkinnerA. T.SorbringE.TapanyaS.Uribe TiradoL. M.AlampayL. P.Al-HassanS. M.TakashH. M. S. . . . 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), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000315
44.
JohnsonB. D. (2006). The multilevel context of criminal sentencing: Integrating judge- and county-level influences. Criminology, 44(2), 259–298.
45.
JohnsonB. D.DipietroS. M. (2012). The power of diversion: Intermediate sanctions and sentencing disparity under presumptive guidelines. Criminology, 50(3), 811–850. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2012.00279.x
46.
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
47.
LatessaE. J.JohnsonS.KoetzleD. (Eds.). (2020). What works (and doesn’t) in reducing recidivism (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429341366
48.
Lê CookB.AlegríaM. (2011). Racial-ethnic disparities in substance abuse treatment: the role of criminal history and socioeconomic status. Psychiatric Services, 62(11), 1273–1281. https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.62.11.pss6211_1273
49.
LoeberR.FarringtonD. P. (2014). Age-crime curve. In BruinsmaG.WeisburdD. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp. 12–18). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_474
50.
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
51.
LynchM. (2019). Focally concerned about focal concerns: A conceptual and methodological critique of sentencing disparities research. Justice Quarterly, 36(7), 1148–1175. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2019.1686163
MaddanS.HartleyR. D. (2017). Towards the development of a standardized focal concerns theory of sentencing. In UlmerJ. T.BradleyM. S. (Eds.), Handbook on punishment decisions: Locations of disparity (1st ed., pp. 317–335). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315410371
54.
MarkowitzF. E.SyversonJ. (2021). Race, gender, and homelessness stigma: Effects of perceived blameworthiness and dangerousness. Deviant Behavior, 42(7), 919–931. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2019.1706140
55.
MeixnerJ. B.Jr. (2021). Modern sentencing mitigation. Northwestern University Law Review, 116(6), 1395–1480.
56.
MetzA. (2020). A qualitative perspective on alternative sentencing practices in Virginia. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 32(4), 221–224. https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2020.32.4.221
57.
MonahanK.SteinbergL.PiqueroA. R. (2015). Juvenile justice policy and practice: A developmental perspective. Crime and Justice, 44(1), 577–619. https://doi.org/10.1086/681553
58.
MonahanK. C.SteinbergL.CauffmanE. (2009). Affiliation with antisocial peers, susceptibility to peer influence, and antisocial behavior during the transition to adulthood. Developmental psychology, 45(6), 1520–1530. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017417
59.
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(4 Pt 1), 1093–1105. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579413000394
60.
MyersL. B.ReidS. T. (1995). The importance of county context in the measurement of sentence disparity: The search for routinization. Journal of Crime and Justice, 23(3), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2352(95)00013-g
NowotnyK. M. (2015). Race/ethnic disparities in the utilization of treatment for drug dependent inmates in U.S. state correctional facilities. Addictive behaviors, 40, 148–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.09.005
63.
Painter-DavisN.UlmerJ. T. (2020). Discretion and disparity under sentencing guidelines revisited: The interrelationship between structured sentencing alternatives and guideline decision-making. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 57(3), 263–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427819874862
64.
PopeJ. G. (2019). Mass incarceration, convict leasing, and the Thirteenth Amendment: A revisionist account. New York University Law Review, 94(6), 1465–1554.
65.
PuzzancheraC.HockenberryS.SickmundM. (2022). Youth and the juvenile justice system: 2022 national report. National Center for Juvenile Justice.
66.
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
67.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Sage Publications, Inc.
68.
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
69.
RyonS. B.ChiricosT.SiennickS. E.BarrickK.BalesW. (2017). Sentencing in light of collateral consequences: Does age matter?Journal of Crime and Justice, 53, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2017.07.009
70.
SahkerE.ToussaintM. N.RamirezM.AliS. R.ArndtS. (2015). Evaluating racial disparity in referral source and successful completion of substance abuse treatment. Addictive behaviors, 48, 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.04.006
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
73.
ScottE. S.GrissoT.LevickM.SteinbergL. (2015). The Supreme Court and the transformation of juvenile sentencing. Models for Change: Systems Reform in Juvenile Justice. https://www.modelsforchange.net/publications/778.html
74.
ShenF. X.McluskieF.ShortellE.EscalanteE.EvansB.HayesI.KimmeyC.LaganS.MullerM.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 Features. https://nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/NYULawReview-Volume-97-Shen.pdf
75.
ShulmanE. P.SmithA. R.SilvaK.IcenogleG.DuellN.CheinJ.SteinbergL. (2016). The dual systems model: Review, reappraisal, and reaffirmation. Developmental cognitive neuroscience, 17, 103–117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2015.12.010
76.
SmithM. S.SchriverJ. L. (2018). Judges’ sentencing decisions with older offenders. Psychology Crime and Law, 24(2), 105–116.
77.
SortaD.PielJ. (2022). Rehabilitation potential in juvenile sentencing. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 50(1), 140–142. https://doi.org/10.29158/JAAPL.210156L1-21
78.
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. The Journal of Neuroscience, 21(22), 8819–8829. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.21-22-08819.2001
79.
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01265.x
SteffensmeierD.MotivansM. (2000). Older men and older women in the arms of criminal law: Offending patterns and sentencing outcomes. Journals of Gerontology Series B, 55(3), S141–S151. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/55.3.s141
82.
SteffensmeierD.Painter-DavisN.UlmerJ. (2017). Intersectionality of race, ethnicity, gender, and age on criminal punishment. Sociological Perspectives, 60(4), 810–833.
83.
SteinbergL. (2008). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Review, Current Directions in Risk and Decision Making, 28(1), 78–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.002
SteinbergL. (2017). Adolescent brain science and juvenile justice policymaking. Psychology Public Policy and Law, 23(4), 410–420. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000128
86.
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
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(3), 534–548. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhp118
89.
TogaA. W.ThompsonP. M.SowellE. R. (2006). Mapping brain maturation. Trends in neurosciences, 29(3), 148–159.
90.
TravisJ.WesternB.RedburnF. S. (Eds.) (2014). The growth of incarceration in the United States: Exploring causes and consequences. The National Academies Press.
UlmerJ. T.BaderC.GaultM. (2008). Do moral communities play a role in criminal sentencing? Evidence from Pennsylvania. Sociological Quarterly, 49(4), 737–768. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2008.00134.x
UlmerJ. T.SilverE.HanrathL. S. (2023). Back to basics: A critical examination of the focal concerns framework from the perspective of judges. Justice Quarterly, 40, 813–836. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2022.2132274
95.
UlmerJ. T.Van AstenC. (2004). Restrictive intermediate punishments and recidivism in Pennsylvania risk assessment: Methodologies and application. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 16(3), 182–187.
ZvonkovichJ.KleimanM.HesterR.StrangeC. C. (2023). The impact of COVID-19 on sentencing practices. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 48(4), 921–944. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-023-09730-y
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.
