This research seeks to determine whether the manner in which a juvenile is transferred to criminal court affects the length of confinement sentences. A significant difference in confinement sentences was noted between juveniles transferred by statutory exclusion and those waived after a judicial hearing. An underlying political mechanism is deemed responsible for this finding. As such, this research evokes the tension between the political incentives of legislators, the popular will, and the relative expertise of court actors in forming sentencing policy for transferred juveniles.
Alschuler, A. (1968). The prosecutor's role in plea bargaining. University of Chicago Law Review, 36, 50-112.
2.
Arthur, L., & Schwartz, L. (1993). Certification: An overview. Juvenile & Family Court Journal, 44, 361-72.
3.
Barkow, R., & O'Neill. ( 2006). Delegating punitive power: The political economy of sentencing commission and guideline formation. Texas Law Review, 84(7), 1973-2022.
4.
Bishop, D. (2000). Juvenile offenders in the adult criminal justice system. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 81-167). Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
5.
Bishop, D., & Frazier, C. (2000). Consequences of transfer. In J. Fagan & F. Zimring (Eds.), The changing borders of juvenile justice: Transfer of adolescents to the criminal court (pp. 227-276). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6.
Bishop, D., Frazier, C., Lanza-Kaduce, L., & Winner, L. (1996). The transfer of juveniles to criminal court: Does it make a difference? Crime and Delinquency, 42(2), 171-191.
7.
Boland, B., & Forst, B. (1985). Prosecutors don't always aim to pleas. Federal Probation, 49, 10-15.
8.
Bortner, M.A., & Reed, W. (1985). The preeminence of process: An example of refocused justice research. Social Science Quarterly, 66, 413-425.
9.
Bortner, M.A., Zatz, M., & Hawkins, D. (2000). Race and transfer: Empirical research and social context. In J. Fagan & F. Zimring (Eds.), The changing borders of juvenile justice: Transfer of adolescents to the criminal court (pp. 277-320). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10.
Brown, J., & Langan, P. (1998). State court sentencing of convicted felons 1994 . Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
11.
Daly, K., & Bordt, R. (1995). Sex effects in sentencing: A review of the statistical literature. Justice Quarterly, 12, 143-177.
12.
Dawson, R. (2000). Judicial waiver in theory and practice. In J. Fagan & F. Zimring (Eds.), The changing borders of juvenile justice: Transfer of adolescents to the criminal court (pp. 45-81). Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
13.
Dickey, W., & Hollenhorst, P. (1999). Three strikes laws: Five years later. Corrections Management Quarterly, 3(3), 1-18.
14.
Easterbrook, F. (1983). Criminal procedure as a market system. Journal of Legal Studies, 12(2), 289-332.
15.
Engen, R., & Gainey, R. (2000). Modeling the effects of legally relevant and extralegal factors under sentencing guidelines: The rules have changed. Criminology, 38(4), 1207-1229.
16.
Fagan, J., & Deschenes, E. (1990). Determinants of judicial waiver decisions for violent juvenile offenders. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology , 81(3), 314-347.
17.
Feld, B. (1987). Juvenile court meets the principle of offense: Legislative changes in judicial waiver statutes. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 78, 471-533.
18.
Feld, B. (2000). Legislative exclusion of offenses from juvenile court jurisdiction: A history and critique. In J. Fagan & F. Zimring (Eds.), The changing borders of juvenile justice: Transfer of adolescents to the criminal court (pp. 83-144). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19.
Fritsch, E., Caeti, T., & Hemmens, C. (1996). Spare the needle but not the punishment: The incarceration of waived youth in Texas prisons. Crime and Delinquency, 42(4), 593-609.
20.
Griffin, P., Torbet, P., & Szymanski, L. (1998). Trying juveniles as adults in criminal court: An analysis of state transfer provisions. Washington, DC : Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
21.
Juszkiewicz, J., & Schindler, M. (2001). Youth crime/adult time: Is justice served? Corrections Today, 63(1), 102-107.
22.
Kautt, P., & Spohn, C. (2002). Cracking down on black drug offenders? Testing for interactions between offender race, drug type, and sentencing strategy in federal drug sentences. Justice Quarterly, 19(1), 1-35.
23.
Kleck, G. (1981). Racial discrimination in criminal sentencing: A critical evaluation of the evidence with additional evidence on the death penalty. American Sociological Review, 46(6), 783-805.
24.
Langan, P., & Levin, D. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
25.
Loftin, C., Heumann, M., & McDowall, D. (1983) Mandatory sentencing for firearms violence. Law and Society Review, 17, 288-317.
26.
Miethe, T., & Moore, C. (1986). Racial differences in criminal processing: The consequences of model selection on conclusions about differential treatment . Sociological Quarterly, 27, 217-237.
27.
Petersilia, J. (1990). When probation becomes more dreaded than prison . Federal Probation, 54(3), 23-27.
28.
Petersilia, J., & Deschenes, E. (1994). What punishes? Inmates rank the severity of prison vs. intermediate sanctions. Federal Probation, 58(3), 3-8.
29.
Pound, R. (1930). Criminal Justice in America. New York: Henry Holt and Co.
30.
Sanborn, J. (1994). Certification to criminal court: The important policy questions of how, when and why. Crime and Delinquency , 40(2), 262-281.
31.
Secret, P., & Johnson, J. (1997). The effect of race on juvenile justice decision making in Nebraska: Detention, adjudication and disposition 1988-1993. Justice Quarterly, 14(3), 445-478.
32.
Spelman, W. (1995). The severity of intermediate sanctions. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32(2), 107-135.
33.
Spence, D. (1997). Agency policy making and political control: Modeling away the delegation problem. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(2), 199-219.
34.
Spohn, C. (2000). Thirty years of sentencing reform: The quest for racially neutral sentencing process. In Criminal justice 2000 (pp. 428-501). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice .
35.
Spohn, C., & Holleran, D. (2000). The imprisonment penalty paid by young, unemployed Black and Hispanic male offenders. Criminology, 38(1), 281-306.
36.
Steffensmeier, D., & Demuth, S. (2001). Ethnicity and judges' sentencing decisions: Hispanic-Black-White comparisons. Criminology, 39(1), 145-177.
37.
Steffensmeier, D., Kramer, J., & Streifel, C. (1993). Gender and imprisonment decisions. Criminology, 31(3), 411-446.
38.
Steffensmeier, D., Ulmer, J., & Kramer, J. (1998). The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, Black, and male. Criminology, 36(4), 763-793.
39.
Sutton, J. (1987). Doing time: Dynamics of imprisonment in the reformist state. American Sociological Review, 52(5), 612-630.
40.
Wu, B., Cernkovich, S., & Dunn, C. (1997). Assessing the effects of race and class on juvenile justice processing in Ohio. Journal of Criminal Justice, 25(4), 265-277.
