Sentencing Juvenile Offenders: Comparing Public Preferences and Judicial Practice

Abstract

The juvenile justice systems of most Western nations have been under considerable pressure to impose harsher penalties on juvenile offenders. Much of this pressure has come from politicians who argue that the public and juvenile courts are out of step, with the latter being more lenient than the public desire. This article reports findings from a representative national survey of the public, which permitted comparisons between the sentencing preferences of the public and the actual practice of youth courts. Respondents were asked to sentence offenders described in vignettes. The sentencing component employed a 2 × 2 × 2 design. The variables manipulated were age of offender (juvenile or adult), criminal history (first offender or recidivist), and nature of offence (burglary or assault). Results indicated concordance between the incarceration rates favored by members of the public and the practice of the courts. In addition, respondents were also asked questions about criminal victimization within the previous 12 months. Consistent with the findings of previous research, crime victims were no more punitive than respondents who did not report having been victimized.