Juvenile blended sentencing statutes enable juvenile courts to impose sanctions in the adult correctional system without the youth being processed by adult courts. The current study examines levels of public support for juvenile courts having the option to consider applying this new blended sentencing policy, and it analyzes the impact of various predictor variables, such as the perceived nature of juveniles and expected consequences of adult-level sanctions, on supportiveness. In 2009, a survey was mailed to a random sample of 1,000 Missouri residents, and through a series of follow ups, a 51% response rate was achieved. In general, respondents favored juvenile courts possessing the option to use juvenile blended sentencing. OLS regression analyses determined that the expected consequences of adult sanctions on youths were the strongest predictors of support. Attitudes about the respectfulness of youth and perceived importance of incapacitation in responding to youth crime also influenced attitudes toward the blended policy. Future directions for research along with policy and legal implications are discussed.
ApplegateB. K.DavisR. K.CullenF. T. (2009). Reconsidering child saving: The extent and correlates of public support for excluding youths from the juvenile court. Crime & Delinquency, 55,55–77.
2.
BaronS. W.HartnagelT. F. (1996). “Lock ‘em up:” Attitudes toward punishing juvenile offenders. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 38,191–212.
3.
BernardT. J. (1992). The cycle of juvenile justice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
4.
BishopD. M.FrazierC. E.Lanzo-KaduceL.WinnerL. (1996). The transfer of juveniles to criminal court: Does it make a difference?Crime and Delinquency, 42,171–191.
5.
BohsiuW. (2000). Determinants of public opinion toward juvenile waiver decisions. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 51,9–20.
6.
BouleyE. E.,JrWellsT. L. (2001). Attitudes of citizens in a southern rural county toward juvenile crime and justice issues. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 17,60–70.
CheesmanF.WatersN. L. (2008). Who gets a second chance? An investigation of Ohio’s blended juvenile sentence. Paper presented at the 3rd Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies Papers, Ithaca, New York.
9.
CheesmanF. L.CohenT.DancyD.KleimanM.MottN.GreenH. (2002). Blended sentencing in Minnesota: On target for justice and public safety?. Alexandria, VA: State Justice Institute.
CullenF. T.GilbertK. E. (1982). Reaffirming rehabilitation. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
12.
CullenF. T.FisherB. S.ApplegateB. K. (2000). Public opinion about punishment and corrections. Crime and Justice, 27,1–79.
13.
DavisJ. A.SmithT. W.MarsdenP. V. (1998). General Social Surveys, 1972-1998: Cumulative codebook. Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center.
14.
DeitchM.BarstowA.LukensL.ReynaR. (2009). From time out to hard time: Young children in the adult criminal justice system. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs.
15.
DorfmanL.SchiraldiV. (2001). Off balance: Youth, race and crime in the news. Washington, DC: Youth Law Center.
16.
FazioR. H.ZannaM. P. (1981). Direct experience and attitude-behavior consistency. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology (pp.161–202). Vol. 14,New York: Academic Press.
17.
FazioR. H.ZannaM. P.CooperJ. (1978). Direct experience and attitude-behavior consistency: An information processing analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4,48–51.
18.
FeilerS. M.ShelleyJ. F. (1999). Legal and racial elements of public willingness to transfer juvenile offenders to adult court. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27,55–64.
19.
FeldB. C. (1997). Abolish the juvenile court: Youthfulness, criminal responsibility, and sentencing policy. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88,68–136.
20.
FeldB. C. (1998). Juvenile and criminal justice systems’ responses to youth violence. Crime and Justice, 24,189–261.
21.
FritschE. J.CaetiT. J.HemmensC. (1996). Spare the needle but not the punishment: The incarceration of waived youth in Texas prisons. Crime and Delinquency, 42,593–609.
22.
GiguereR.DundesL. (2002). Help wanted: A survey of employers concerns about hiring ex-convicts. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 13,396–408.
23.
GriffinP. (2003). Trying and sentencing juveniles as adults: An analysis of state transfer and blended sentencing laws. Pittsburg, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.
24.
GriffinP. (2008). National overviews. InState Juvenile Justice Profiles. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.
25.
GriffinP. (2011). Transfer provisions. InState Juvenile Justice Profiles. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.
26.
HainesK.CaseS. (2007). Individual differences in public opinion about youth crime and justice in Swansea. The Howard Journal, 46,338–355.
27.
HartT. C. (1998). Causes and consequences of juvenile crime and violence: Public attitudes and question-order effect. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 23(1):129–143.
28.
HirschfieldP. J.PiqueroA. R. (2010). Normalization and legitimization: Modeling stigmatizing attitudes toward ex-offenders. Criminology, 48,27–55.
29.
HowellJ. C. (2008). Preventing and reducing juvenile delinquency: A comprehensive framework. (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
30.
I-FangJ.BallJ. D.WalshA. (2008). Predicting public opinion about juvenile waivers. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19,285–300.
31.
Kansas Statutes §38-1636(f)(2). (1999).
32.
KjelsbergE.SkoglundT. H.RustadA. (2007). Attitudes towards prisoners, as reported by prison inmates, prison employees and college students. BMC Public Health, 7,71–80.
MaxfieldM. G.BabbieE. (2009). Basics of research methods for criminal justice and criminology. (2nd ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
35.
McGowanA.HahnR.LibermanA.CrosbyA.FulliloveM.JohnsonR.… StoneG. (2007). Effects on violence of laws and policies facilitating the transfer of juveniles from the juvenile justice system to the adult justice system: A systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32,s7–s28.
36.
MearsD. P. (1998). Theorizing and predicting juvenile justice sanctioning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Washington, DC.
37.
MearsD. P. (2001). Getting tough with juvenile offenders: Explaining support for sanctioning youth as adults. Criminology, 28,206–226.
38.
MearsD. P.HayC.GertzM.ManciniC. (2007). Public opinion and the foundation of the juvenile court. Criminology, 45,223–257.
39.
MelvinK. B.GramlingL. K.GardnerW. M. (1985). A scale to measure attitudes toward prisoners. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12,241–253.
40.
MillarM. G.MillarK. U. (1996). The effects of direct and indirect experience on affective and cognitive responses and the attitude-behavior relation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32,561–579.
41.
MoonM. M.SundtJ. L.CullenF. T.WrightJ. P. (2000). Is child saving dead? Public support for juvenile rehabilitation. Crime and Delinquency, 46,38–60.
42.
MooreM. H.WakelingS. (1997). Juvenile justice: Shoring up the foundations. Crime and Justice, 22,253–301.
43.
MyersD. L. (2005). Boys among men: Trying and sentencing juveniles as adults. Westport, CT: Praeger.
44.
NaginD. S.PiqueroA. R.ScottE. S.SteinbergL. (2006). Public preferences for rehabilitation versus incarceration of juvenile offenders: Evidence from a contingent valuation survey. The John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics Working Paper Series. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Law School.
45.
PlattA. M. (1977). The child savers: The invention of delinquency. (2nd ed). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
46.
PodkopaczM. R.FeldB. C. (1996). The end of the line: An empirical study of judicial waiver. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86,449–492.
47.
PodkopaczM. R.FeldB. C. (2001). The back-door to prison: Waiver reform, “blended sentencing,” and the law of unintended consequences. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 91,997–1072.
48.
ReddingR. E. (2000). State transfer laws. Charlottesville, VA: Juvenile Forensic Evaluation Resource Center.
49.
ReddingR. E. (2010). Juvenile transfer laws: An effective deterrent to delinquency. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
50.
ReddingR.HowellJ. (2000). Blended sentencing in American juvenile courts. In FaganJ.ZimringF. (Eds.),The changing borders of Juvenile Justice (pp.145–177). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
51.
RobertsJ. V. (1992). Public opinion, crime, and criminal justice. Crime and Justice, 16,99–180.
52.
RobertsJ. V. (2004). Public opinion and youth justice. Crime and Justice, 31,495–542.
53.
RothmanD. J. (1980). Conscience and convenience: The asylum and its alternatives in Progressive America. New York, NY: Aldine Transaction.
54.
SanbornJ. B. (1994). Certification to criminal court: The important policy questions of how, when, and why. Crime and Delinquency, 40,262–281.
55.
SanbornJ. B. (2009). Prosecuting juvenile offenders in criminal court. In BenekosP. J.MerloA. V. (Eds.), Controversies in juvenile justice and delinquency (2nd ed., pp. 173–201). Newark, NJ: LexisNexis/Anderson Publishing.
56.
SchwartzI. M. (1992). Juvenile justice and public policy: Toward a national agenda. New York, NY: Lexington Books.
57.
SchwartzI. M.GuoS.KerbsJ. J. (1993). Impact of demographic variables on public opinion regarding juvenile justice: Implications for public policy. Crime and Delinquency, 39,5–28.
58.
SchwartzI. M.GuoS.KerbsJ. J. (1996). Public attitudes toward juvenile crime and juvenile justice: Implications for public policy. In RojeckD. G.JensenG. F. (Eds.),Exploring delinquency: Causes and control (pp.13–21). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
59.
ShearG. E. (2011). The disregarding of the rehabilitative spirit of juvenile codes: Addressing resentencing hearings in blended sentencing schemes. Kentucky Law Journal, 99,211–230.
60.
SheldenR. (2006). Delinquency and juvenile justice in American society. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
61.
SiegelL. J.WelshB. C. (2009). Juvenile delinquency: Theory, practice, and law. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
62.
SolerM. (2001). Public opinion on youth, crime, and race: A guide for advocates. Washington, DC: Youth Law Center.
63.
SprottJ. B. (1996). Understanding public views of youth crime and the youth justice system. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 38,271–290.
64.
SprottJ. B. (1998). Understanding public opposition to a separate youth justice system. Crime and Delinquency, 44,399–411.
65.
StalansL. R.HenryG. T. (1994). Societal views of justice for adolescents accused of murder: Inconsistency between community sentiment and automatic legislative transfers. Law and Human Behavior, 18,675–696.
State of New Mexico Children, Youth, and Families Department. (2008). Probation and aftercare. Retrieved fromhttp://www.cyfd.org/node/29
68.
SteinbergL.PiqueroA. R. (2010). Manipulating public opinion about trying juveniles as adults: An experimental study. Crime and Delinquency, 56,487–506.
69.
SteinerB.WrightE. (2006). Assessing the relative effects of state direct file waiver laws on violent juvenile crime: Deterrence or irrelevance?The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 96,1451–1477.
70.
TorbetP.GableR.Hurst IVH.,MontgomeryI.SzymanskiL.ThomasD. (1996). State responses to serious and violent juvenile crime. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
71.
TriplettR. (1996). The growing threat: Gangs and juvenile offenders. In FlanaganT. J.LongmireD. R. (Eds.),Americans view crime and justice: A national public opinion survey (pp.137–150). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
72.
TrulsonC. R.CaudillJ. W.BelshawS. H.DeLisiM. (2010). A problem of fit: Extreme delinquents, blended sentencing, and the determinants of continued adult sanctions. Criminal Justice Policy Review. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0887403410370618.
