Juvenile Sentencing Disparities

Introduction

Juvenile sentencing patterns have been a topic in social science research since the system’s inception.  More specifically, research has extensively examined sentencing patterns of juvenile court judges and posited that sentencing disparities are quite apparent throughout the majority of the United States (Belknap & Holsinger, 2006; Mallicoat, 2012; Provine, 2007; Sickmund, 2004; Walker, Spohn, & DeLone, 2004).  The causes of the disparities are highly debated among academics.  Scholars who have examined this issue have found a relationship between judges’ demographic characteristics and their sentencing decisions while others have found disparities related more specifically to the characteristics of the offenders (D’Angelo, 2007; Sickmund, Slady, Kang, & Puzzanchera, 2013; Puzzanchera, 2013).     

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has been following sentencing disparity for more than a decade.  Based on the reports provided by OJJDP, and other references, it would appear that the juvenile justice system still has a problem with discriminatory practices, particularly within the sentencing stage.  For example, Black males have a higher total detainment ratio in the United States when compared to the total White male detainment ratio (Sickmund, Sladky, Kang, & Puzzanchera, 2013; Walker, Spohn, & Delone, 2012).  In addition, the severity of the sentences is also quite disproportionate in the American juvenile justice system.  Particularly, the OJJDP, other government organizations, as well as scholars, posit that Black males are committed to a long-term secure facility more than White males (Sickmund, Sladky, Kang, & Puzzanchera, 2013; Walker, Spohn, & Delone, 2012).  Thus, this essay examines the sentencing disparities in the juvenile justice system as well as the disproportionate statistics because of these causations.    

Literature Review

Scholars have examined sentencing disparities and illustrated a plethora of variables that contribute to legal-based discrimination.  However, the majority of research posits that essential characteristics, such as race and age of the offender, and political climate of the jurisdiction, are the primary factors for the disparity issues in the United States’ juvenile courts (Bernard & Kurlychek, 2010; Carmichael & Burgos, 2012; Mallicoat, 2012; Provine, 2007; Walker, Spohn, & Delone, 2012; Zimring, 1998).  On the other hand, research suggests that additional factors such as the severity of the offense, prior record, sentencing guidelines, socioeconomic status, inadequate legal defenses, poor parental supervision, untreated cognitive issues, and perceptions of the jurists contribute to the prevalence of disparities as well (Carmichael & Burgos, 2012; D’Angelo, 2007; Freiburger & Jordan, 2011; Mays & Ruddell, 2008; Schmalleger, 2008; Schwartz, 1989; Thornberry, 1979; Unnever & Hembroff, 1998).  It has been suggested by many scholars that these extra-legal factors are primary indicators for juvenile sentencing disparities.  More specifically, government databases and other scholarly inquires present data that suggests that such factors are disproportionate and account for imbalanced sentencing practices with youths who have any of the variables when compared to youths who do not have such attachments and commit the same or similar offenses (cite). 

The following sections will present information that the academics have researched and found to be the primary affiliations, and causes, for the disparity issues in the American juvenile court systems.  Starting with a historical perspective and then transitioning into more recent times the evidence of the discussed disparities will be posited.      

Early Sentencing Disparities

According to the literature, juvenile sentencing disparities have always been relegated by the system’s practitioners by the previously mentioned variables in the United States.  Moreover, it was common in the early years of the formal system to sentence immigrant youths more punitively when compared to non-immigrant youths (Bernard & Kurlychek, 2010, p. 54).  Past documentation infers that children who were considered to be indigent, immigrants, or without proper parental guidance, were processed into the penal system and houses of refuge at higher rates when compared to affluent youths and thus were forced to endure mandated labor and other alleged rehabilitative conditions (Bernard & Kurlychek, 2010; Mays & Ruddell, 2008).  Scholars have clearly documented that historically moral panics in the United States led to negative hype about juvenile criminality, as well as notions of how to suppress the criminality of the American youth who were affiliated with so-called under classes and improper ethics (Bernard & Kurlychek, 2010, pp. 37-92). 

Even with the lack of statistical analyses, the information does provide credible data that allows for one to comprehend how legal-based discrimination was occurring during this particular period of history.  With this being known, social class becomes a primary variable for such juvenile court sentencing disparities and thus is a topic that is greatly reviewed by scholars in more contemporary publications.  Because of the division of social stratification in the United States, and more specifically with the tendency of the courts to sentence lower social class offenders more punitively than members of higher social classes, the following portion of this literature review will be centered on socioeconomic status and the juvenile disparities that have been formulated by the particular courts.        

Socioeconomic Status and Inadequate Legal Defense as Variables in Juvenile Court Sentencing Disparities

More recently, scholarly publications have expanded on the variables associated with juvenile sentencing disparities and used socioeconomic status as a main consideration when studying the topic of judicial-related disparities (D’Angelo, Brown, & Strozewski, 2013; Levitt, 1998; Sickmund, 2004; Thornberry, 1973; Walker, Spohn, & Delone, 2012; Wright & Thomas, 2003).  The poverty of juveniles who are from poor communities is, at times, suggested in studious publications to be a mitigating factor for juvenile sentencing disparities.  Much of the literature suggests that youths from these areas are underrepresented in juvenile courts in respect to proper legal processes, as well as maintaining that such children are products of their environments, and not the deviant adolescents that require swift and punitive judicial outcomes (Armstrong & Kim, 2011; Taylor; Guevara, Herz, & Spohn, 2008; Guevara, Boyd, & Brown, 2012).  Because of these ideologies, strain and labeling theories arise that, in turn, note disparities that are often based on false assumptions about juvenile deviancy and individuals who lack proper legal representation (ABA, 1995; Becker, 1936; Erikson, 1966; Kitsuse, 1964; Lemert, 1972; Merton, 1938; Merton, 1968; Tannebaum, 1938).  For example, the ABA (1995) and OJJDP (2013) posit that juvenile offenders who are considered to be indigent and have public counsel are more likely to receive harsher sentences when compared to youths who are not poor or have private attorneys. 

The American Bar Association (ABA) report in 1995 posits that out of all the lawyers who were surveyed 17 percent of attorneys spent less than an hour on each case, 44 percent for one to two hours, 28 percent for three to four hours, and 11 percent for five hours or more (p. 26).  Moreover, the same report presented self-perceptions of the appointed lawyers’ legal representation in juvenile court cases.  In particular, 18 percent of the attorneys surveyed felt that they provided inadequate defense (p. 50).  Within the same ABA survey, it was reported that only 30 percent of attorneys, both appointed and privately retained, regularly filed pretrial motions; whereas 70 percent of the surveyed attorneys stated that they filed pretrial motions “sometimes,” “rarely,” or “never (p. 50).”  More statistics verify the lack of proper legal counsel for indigent juvenile offenders and the sentencing disparities in juvenile courts.  Platt, Schecter, & Tiffany (1967) demonstrated how many juveniles who cannot afford to retain a privately hired attorney are adjudicated either faster and with less precision because of the overwhelming amount of cases that public attorneys are managing and the cooperation of the defenders with the prosecutors (pp. 630-634).  In addition, the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) verified the work of Platt, Schecter, & Tiffany (1997) in a 2011 report.  Specifically, it was reported that not only are public defenders greatly overwhelmed in the United States juvenile justice system, but also that many poor youths are encouraged to waive their right to trial and thus the petition to sentencing occurs without much protestation from their attorney (OJP, 2011).  Second to this, it was presented that only 42 percent of youths in custody reported that they had representation (OJP, 2011).  Puritz and Shang (2000) performed a study and suggested that, out of all the surveyed public defender offices that represented juvenile offenders, 78 percent did not have budgetary methods for attorneys to attend training programs, 48 percent did not have training programs, 46 percent did not have a section in the office training manual for juvenile offender-related incidents, 35 percent did not have juvenile delinquency included in their training program, 32 percent did not have any training manual, and 32 percent did not have any formal training (pp. 23-24).  Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that juvenile offenders who are represented by public defenders are sentenced differently when compared to youths who are not represented by public attorneys. 

In comparison, the Center for Children’s Law and Policy (CCLP) (1998) performed a study that incorporated juveniles being waived to adult court and found that youths who have public defenders are more likely than youths who have privately retained attorneys to not be returned to a juvenile court (p. 9).  Additionally, the CCLP (1998) reported that juveniles who are poor and are considered to be racial or ethnic minorities are more likely to not be represented by privately retained attorneys (p.11).  More precisely, only 11 percent of African American youths were documented as having private legal counsel, 16 percent of Latino youth had privately retained legal counsel, while 22 percent of Caucasian youth had private representation (p. 11).  Again, the CCLP (1998) does claim that poor and minority youths are more likely to face legal-based discrimination; a disparity that is performed by the juvenile courts, and more specifically, by the juvenile court judges (pp. 11-12).  In a conjoined effort, the CCLP (1998) referred to statistics that were presented by the OJJDP in 1999 and, in turn, posited the racial biases and how they are coupled with indigent juveniles (pp. 11-13).  With the statistics being presented by these organizations, the information does suggest that socioeconomic status is a characteristic that contributes to juvenile sentencing disparities, as well as that inadequate legal defense occurs because of monetary reasons and lack of training.    

All in all, the displayed statistics suggest that indigent youths who receive public defenders are more likely to receive a harsher sentence when compared to juvenile offenders who are not represented with court appointed counsel.  With respect to environmental factors and socioeconomic status, many criminologists have suggested that such deprivation contributes to juvenile delinquency and, in turn, fosters sentencing practices that are discriminatory.  Youth violence is more prevalent in dilapidated communities, which unfortunately includes many minority children, and thus promulgates sentencing disparities for the juveniles who hail from such environments.  To verify this statement, the conservative philosophy that stemmed from the scare of youth violence in the 1980s will be discussed so as to present information on how sentencing disparities in the juvenile courts originated.  Accordingly, the next section will present the racial, ethnic, and sentencing guideline biases in respect to juvenile sentencing disparities.  Moreover, the forthcoming section will encompass how political philosophies are also entertained and thus contribute to bias sentencing by the juvenile court judges.                                

Race, Ethnicity, Sentencing Guidelines, and Political Climate

Politics has always played a direct and indirect role in the juvenile justice system, particularly in the development of punishment-related policies (Bishop, 2004; Carmichael & Burgos, 2012; Fearn, 2005; Fording, Soss, Schram, 2011; Homant & Osowski, 1982; Thornberry, 1979).  Some scholars have argued that there is at minimum an indirect relationship between the political climate and sentencing disparities in the juvenile justice system.  Specifically, conservative “get tough on crime” policies, coupled with depictions in the media, have ascertained particular sentencing patterns for juvenile offenders (Altheide, 2009; Benekos & Merlo, 2008; Carmichael & Burgos, 2012; Feld, 2003; Garland, 2008; Smith, 2004; Sullivan, 2005; Welch, Price, & Yankey, 2002; Wright & Thomas, 2003).  For instance, the conservative political ideology of the 1980s and depictions of urban-minority youth gangs in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, and other highly populated urban jurisdictions in the media caused ordinary citizens to call for justice, and thus an adherence to suppress the wariness by the political and legal officials in the country came about (Mays & Ruddell, 2008; Walker, Spohn, & Delone, 2012; Zimring, 1998).  Statistics from the Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), and other scholars verify this and posit that at about the midpoint of the 1980s the rates for juvenile violent offenses rose to unprecedented levels, and continued to increase to the mid-1990s (DOJ, FBI, 2013; Puzzanchera, Adams, & Hockenberry, 2012; Stahl, Puzzanchera, Livsey, Sladky, Finnegan, Tierney, & Snyder, 2007; Zimring, 1998).  These organizations, and individuals, present statistics from 1985 to 1996 and, in turn, show how the total juvenile delinquency cases increased 46 percent and, more specifically, demonstrate how the large increases contained many youths who are considered to be a minority and from poor communities and were sentenced differently when compared to other categories of youths who do not have such characteristics (DOJ, 2013, FBI, 2013; Puzzanchera, Adams, & Hockenberry, 2012; Zimring, 1998).  A prior report by the OJJDP (1999) verifies this and, in turn, presents how minority youth only represent one third of the total youth population in the United States, but approximately two-thirds of youth who are detained or placed in secure facilities are minority individuals.   

 More specifically, court cases that included Black youths increased 78 percent from 1985 to 1994; whereas, cases with White youth during the same time period only rose 26 percent; which is a demonstration that racial biases are existent in the sentencing processes of juvenile court judges (Butts, Snyder, Finnegan, Aughenbaugh, & Pool, 1996).  Moreover, and as previously mentioned, the media propaganda focused on urban-minority populations and statistics from the National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) posit that African American youths were receiving harsher sentences when compared to other categories of youth during the particular period of conservative history in the United States (Butts, Snyder, Finnegan, Aughenbaugh, & Pool, 1994; Butts, Snyder, Finnegan, Aughenbaugh, & Pool, 1996; Sickmund, Stahl, Finnegan, Snyder, Poole, & Butts, 1998; Stahl, Sickmund, Finnegan, Snyder, Poole, & Tierney, 1999; Walker, Spohn, & Delone, 2012; Zimring, 1998).

Educational Variables and Juvenile Court Sentencing Disparities

With the guidelines, and blatancy of adhering to the moral panic dilemma, scholars presented the disadvantages of being a minority in the juvenile justice system with other variables as well.  Particularly, some juvenile justice specialists have posited educational variables that contribute to sentencing disparities in juvenile courts.  The “pipeline to prison theory" suggests that minority youths -- juveniles who are socioeconomically, racially, and ethnically considered to be minorities -- are targeted in their scholastic environment, and more specifically in the aforementioned impecunious communities more than juveniles who are not affiliated with such conditions (Cole & Casquez-Helig, 2011; Gonzalez, 2012; Meiners, 2011; Osher, Coggshall, Colombi, Woodruff, Francois, & Osher, 2012). 

Moreover, once minorities are targeted, and suspended or expelled from their academic institutions, the concept of labeling theory comes to light and, therefore, ascertains a sentencing contrivance that is most certainly biased and premeditated by juvenile court judges (Boyd, 2009; Darensburg, Farrington, Osborn, & West, 1978; Perez, & Blake, 2010; Geronimo, 2011; Osgood & Weichselbaum, 1984; Redding, 2003).  Specifically, Tonya Boyd (2009) presents information on zero tolerance policies that were formulated by the Department of Education, as well as how many simple disturbances in educational settings have become a catalyst for sending our most-at-risk youths, which unfortunately includes many youths who are indigent and from poor communities, into the nation’s various juvenile justice systems (pp. 573-574).  Upon the entrance into the system, Perie Reiko Koyaman (2012) present information about how once a child does enters the juvenile justice system that lengthy absences from school occur and, in turn, foster uneducated individuals who rarely return to educational settings and thus live disenchanted livelihoods after release from correctional facilities (p. 35).  More specifically, statistics from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BOJS) illustrate that youths who have poor literacy skills, and overall minimal education, are more likely to engage in criminal activity (Hodges, Giuliutti, & Porpotage, 1994; Roy-Stevens, 2004). 

Another BOJS report in 2003 indicated that 52 percent of inmates who were under twenty-four years of age have not completed high school or received a General Equivalency Diploma and had a prior juvenile record (p. 7).  Due to the chastising in school environments, and lack of social bonds, youths who do not have average or above average education are sentenced more harshly when compared to juveniles who do have typical educational backgrounds (McCord, Widom, Bamba, & Crowell, 2001; Thornberry, Moore, & Christenson, 1985).  Thornberry, Moore, and Christenson (1985) performed a study on school dropouts and criminality and did posit that low social class, and being Black, was positively associated with criminality in life; which does suggest that disparities for youths and their educational backgrounds, and also social class and race (pp. 10-16).  Another study performed by Soifer (2010) projected education and delinquency in a manner that allows for further comprehensiveness of sentencing disparities in the juvenile courts.  More precisely, Soifer (2010) identified numerous poor scholastic achievements as a contributor for juvenile sentencing disparity in the Washington, D. C. area.  Low test results among Black males and the rate of offenses were correlated and found to be a causation for the disproportionate sentencing in the jurisdiction (Soifer, 2010, pp. 7-9).  On a more national level, the National Center on Education, Disability, and Juvenile Justice (EDJJ) reported that most juvenile delinquents have experienced low levels of academic achievement, school suspensions or expulsions, and other behavioral issues that led them to juvenile justice-related interventions and harsher sentencing when compared to juveniles who do not have such experiences (Christle, Nelson, Jolivette, & Riney, 2002, p. 4).  Similar to Thornberry, Moore, and Christenson (1985), the OJJDP (2006) reported findings and inferred that from 1976 to 2000 low income families and Black and Hispanic children were much more likely to drop out and, in turn, are more likely to engage in unlawful behavior and thus be sentenced more often when compared to juveniles from higher social classifications, juveniles who have higher levels of education, and Caucasian youth in general (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006, pp. 14-15). 

More statistics can be implemented to verify the legal-based discrimination in the American juvenile justice system with the educational factors that are being discussed.  Specifically, the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (DOEOCR) posits that Black students represent only 16 percent on the entire student population, but they account for 32 percent to 42 percent of the suspensions and expulsions, and thus are more likely to have juvenile court interventions while being under an adult age as well as later in life (DOEOCR, 2014).  Additionally, the DOEOCR presents data on how 24 percent of the student population that is referred to law enforcement are Black students, as well as how 24 percent of the total student population who have school-related arrests are Black students (DOEOCR, 2014).  In comparison to White students’ referrals and arrests, the percentages are much higher than the Black students who enter the same or similar processes, however the total population of Black students in the United States, and more specifically the disparity concerns in the juvenile justice system, is the discriminatory practices that are being presented (DOEOCR, 2014). 

Educational variables are another part of the reasons for sentencing disparities in the American juvenile courts.  With that being said, the increase in female offenders over the last several decades have given scholars a new area of study to present to the public and academic community.  Also, because gender discrimination occurs in the juvenile courts many of the research projects entail elements of stereotypes in respect to gender and the American culture.  Therefore, the following section will discuss the juvenile sentencing disparities in respect to gender and gender-based stereotypes that enable discrimination in the juvenile sentencing processes.   

Gender and Juvenile Court Sentencing Disparities

Gender has become another popular topic in academic literature that is tuned toward the American juvenile justice system’s sentencing disparities (Belknap & Holsinger, 2006; Bontrager, Barrick, & Stupi, 2013; Guevara, Herz, & Spohn, 2008; Hessick, 2010; Leiber, 2000; Leiber & Mack, 2008; Mallicoat, 2012; Moore & Padavic, 2010; Poe-Yamagata & Butts, 1996; Shepherd, Luebbers, & Dolan, 2013; Wu, El-Bassel, Gilbert, Hess, Lee, & Rowell, 2012).  Beginning in the late 1980s, and carrying on up until the present, females juveniles have been sentenced at a much higher rate when compared to the male juvenile offenders (OJJDP, 2013).  To be more precise, from 1989 to 1993 the female juvenile arrest was nearly double the male arrest rate; 23 percent compared to 11 percent (Poe-Yamagata & Butts, 1996, p. 2).  Additionally, and during the same time frame, the female juvenile violent crime index increased by 55 percent as compared to 33 percent for males (Poe-Yamagata & Butts, 1996, p. 2).  On a greater scale, the overall female juvenile female caseload increased 14 percent from 1997 to 2010 (Puzzanchera & Hockenberry, 2013, p. 12).  Moreover, female offenders who committed offenses against a person was at 28 percent; whereas males within the same category was at 24 percent.  Other categories of offenses present the increase in female offenders as well; particularly, from 1995 to 2010 truancy case rates for females increased 4 percent but decreased 12 percent for males (Puzzanchera & Hockenberry, 2013, p. 72).   

Academics posit that not only is the female increase attributed to the aforementioned “get tough” policy, but also the stereotypical comprehension of femininity and masculinity.  Meaning that because the American culture depicts females in a particular fashion they are subjected to harsher penalties due their “non-feminine” activity (Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2004; Chesney-Lind & Sheldon, 2004; Corley, Cernkovich, Giordano, 1989; Denno, 1994; Ellis, 2005; Embry & Lyons, 2012; Feld, 2009; Hudson, Hanks, & Hunt, 2008; Mallicoat, 2012; McDermott & Laub, 1986; Steffensmeier, Ulmer, & Kramer, 1998; Rodriguez, Curry, & Lee, 2006; Russell, 2012).  Mallicoat (2012) posits that because of the moral panic and conservative ideology there was an extensive increase starting in the early 1990s; in 1991 girls made up 19 percent of delinquency cases, then a decade later girls made up 26 percent of delinquency cases in 2002, and 27 percent in 2007 (p. 284).  Furthermore, she goes on to state that female offenders who break socially prescribed gender norms are punished, or treated, more harshly than females who are not socially atypical as well as differently from boys who participate in similar behavior (p. 284).  Carr, Hudson, Hanks and Hunt (2008) performed a study that included a sample size of 587 youths that mostly included boys; particularly 64.7 percent males and 36.5 percent females (p. 31).  More specifically, they discovered that 24 percent of the females had some form of status offense as their most serious offense; whereas only 2 percent of males had the same type of offense (p. 31).  In addition, males accounted for 65 percent of the felony cases in the study, while females had the remaining 28.8 percent of serious offenses (p. 32).  Carr, Hudson, Hanks, and Hunt (2008) also posit that the females, with both serious and non-serious offenses, have a greater risk of recidivating when compared to boys with particular variables attached (p. 32).  Specifically, they posited that 38.1 percent of the female cohorts returned to residential placement and 27.8 percent of males returned to residential placement (p. 37). 

In contrast, studies have shown that males also receive more severe forms of sentencing because of the same concept; males in the American culture are depicted with machismo-like tendencies and, in turn, are subjected to harsher sentences because of the cultural perceptions toward males (Carr, Hudson, Hanks, & Hunt, 2008; Kupchik & Harvey, 2007; MacDonald & Chesney-Lind, 2001; McDermott & Laub, 1986).  Specifically, male juveniles are sentenced more often than girls in the majority of category of offenses (Puzzanchera & Hockenberry, 2013, p. 12).  Secondly, even with the increase in female sentencing processes over the last few decades Puzzanchera and Hockenberry (2013) presented statistics from 2010 that claim that male youths were more likely to be sentenced for drug offenses when compared to females; specifically, the male case rate was four times greater when compared to females’ drug offense case rates during this year (p.14.).  Lastly, male juveniles are statistically higher in every category of offense when compared to female youths (Puzzanchera & Hockenberry, 2013, p. 15).  To be more precise, and again, even though the female juvenile percentages have increased disproportionally over the last several decades the amount of male offenders who are sentenced in the American juvenile courts is much higher when compared to female offenders (Puzzanchera & Hockenberry, 2013; Puzzanchera, Adams, & Hockenberry, 2009). 

Because the imbalanced sentencing in the juvenile courts occurs in many facets, the next section of this literature review will present information about the age of juvenile offenders and how the sentencing contrivances are disproportionate in respect to different forms of criminality.  Additionally, the information will posit which age groups are more likely to receive harsh sentences.       

Age of Offenders and Juvenile Court Sentencing Disparities

Age of juvenile offenders have always been a subject that has either been separated from studies in juvenile sentencing disparity or put into topics that imply that specific ages are a contributing factor when it comes to finalizing a juvenile-related legal process.  Puzzanchera and Hockenberry (2013) present data on how the highest rate of juvenile court cases is for juveniles in the sixteen and seventeen year-old age range (p. 11).  More specifically, they posit that from 1986 to 1997 there was a 148 percent increase for sixteen year-old drug offense case rates and from 1986 to 1998 there was a 145 percent increase for seventeen year-old juveniles in the same offense category (p. 11). 

Other delinquent classifications suggest very similar disparities in the American juvenile justice system and also occur more so in the late teen years of the juvenile offender.  Sixteen and seventeen year-olds have a higher overall cast rate when compared to younger juveniles in every type of juvenile delinquency (Puzzanchera & Hockenberry, 2013, pp. 10-11).  Generally speaking, in 2010 sixteen year-old juvenile delinquency case rates increased 88.7 percent and 99.5 percent for seventeen year-old juveniles, yet the majority of juveniles in the system are less than sixteen or seventeen years-old (Puzzanchera & Hockenberry, 2013, pp. 10-11). 

Earlier reports demonstrate similar disparities occurred in the early 1990s; specifically, and in collaboration with the OJJDP, Strom and Smith (1998) posited that youths from 75 of the largest counties in the United States, and who were sixteen and seventeen years old, had the highest percentages of being arrested and placed into a criminal court, as well as similar percentages for youths who were involved with a juvenile court when compared to younger offenders (p. 2).  Moreover, recent statistics from the OJJDP claim that the majority of juvenile offenders in 2011 who entered a detention facility were between the ages of sixteen and seventeen years-old; specifically 11,884 youths (Sickmund, Sladky, Kang, & Puzzanchera, 2013).  Whereas, 6,403 youths who are under fifteen years-old were sent to a detention center (Sickmund, Sladky, Kang, & Puzzanchera, 2013).

Essentially, many scholars suggest that age is synonymous with culpability and thus is the major reason for the older youthful offenders being sentenced more severely when compared to younger juvenile offenders.  However, the type of offense that a juvenile performs is another serious factor in sentencing procedures within the American juvenile justice system.  Furthermore, a juvenile’s prior record is another topic that many scholars have studied and, in turn, suggest that having such a background does contribute to legal-based discrimination.  Accordingly, the next section will convey information about how a juvenile’s record and type of offense does become an element that fosters sentencing disparities in the juvenile courts.     

     Juvenile Court Sentencing Disparities and Severity of Offense and Prior Record

Severity of the juvenile's offense is also a popular disparity topic for many juvenile justice scholars.  Plenty of literature suggests that the type of offense that a juvenile is responsible for is a mitigating factor for the sentencing process.  Specifically, Rainville and Smith (2004) infer that juveniles who are waived to adult court are more likely to receive a harsher sentence when compared to young adults (p. 5).  More precisely, and in respect to their study, they posit that 63.6 percent of the juveniles who were waived to adult court were more likely to receive sentences of incarceration while only 59.6 percent of adults received a similar or same sentence (Rainville & Smith, 2003, pp. 5-6).  In addition, Rainville and Smith (2003) infer that culpability and seriousness of injury to the victim was the most important factor for such disparate contrivances (p. 491).  Other researchers have presented similar statistics and, in turn, demonstrated how liability and type of offenses are part of the renditions of sentencing disparities in the American juvenile justice system.  In the late 1990s, the OJJDP (1996) discovered that adult criminal courts sentenced 32 percent of juveniles to terms of incarceration, while the juvenile courts only sentenced 24 percent of violent youths to terms on incarceration (pp. 4-5).  These statistics demonstrate that violent youths who are waived to adult courts are more likely to be sentenced to terms of imprisonment, and that these types of offenders are singled out in juvenile courts. 

More scholars have postulated similar disparities; more recently, Applegate and King Davis (2008) performed a study about juvenile murderers and found that public perceptions, which can influence sentencing in juvenile courts, were more in favor of stiff sentences when compared to offenders who have less severe offenses and status offenses (pp. 62-63).  Moreover, they found that that the public was more in favor of severe sentences when the juvenile had a prior record (p. 65).  In addition, the OJJDP reported in 2011 that there was a total of 7,131 youths who were committed to a detention center for serious crimes against a person; whereas, only 3,629 youths were sent to a detention center for property offenses (OJJDP, 2013).  Controversy arrives in the aforementioned statistics because of the nature of the crimes; however, when a juvenile has a prior record then the likelihood of them being sentenced differently when compared to youths who have no prior record, or have minor offenses on their record, give the disparity issues that are being discussed more merit.  For instance, Funk (1999) noted a study conducted by the Harvard School of Government that suggested that 25 violent juvenile offenders who were surveyed had between seven and nine prior offenses, and thus were sentenced more punitively when compared to other youths with no such prior record or a record with status offenses (p. 283).  Lastly, Sanborn’s (1998) work presented the trend of adult courts to utilize a juvenile’s criminal record during sentencing processes as an adult and, in turn, demonstrated how juvenile offenders, who later became adults, are sentenced more severely when compared to offenders who have no such juvenile record (pp. 208-213).

In short, the severity of the crime and a juvenile’s prior record does influence the sentencing processes in the American juvenile courts (D’Angelo, 2002; D’Angelo, 2007; Harris, 2008).  Additionally, juveniles who commit serious offenses, with or without a prior record, are certainly given a more punitive sentence when compared to offenders who have no prior record or commit a less serious offense.  Yet, the contradiction of disparity arises when juveniles participate in serious criminal offenses because of the culture that the United States.  Nonetheless, sentencing biases in this area are occurring and many scholars attribute the deviancy of juveniles to many environmental factors.  With that being said, the following section will include information about sentencing biases and youths who are considered to be associated with parents who do not implement proper guidance.

Poor Parenting and Juvenile Court Sentencing Disparities

Every scholarly study presents extra-legal factors that cause sentencing disparities in the American juvenile justice system.  More specifically, some scholars have focused on parental guidance and how it contributes to legal-based discrimination during the sentencing contrivances in juvenile courts.  D’Angelo (2002) posited that children who come from single-parent households have less of a chance of receiving rehabilitation when compared to typical two-parent households (pp. 49-51). 

Moreover, Mrug and Windle (2009) conducted a study of 500 boys and girls and discovered that styles of parenting and implementing discipline when necessary does have an effect on an adolescent’s deviancy (p. 521).  In respect to the statistics that were presented in the study, it was suggested that parents who reported low levels of their child’s disruptive behavior, as well as low levels of negative parenting, that future deviancy occurred less often (pp. 532-533).  In contrast, Mrug and Windle (2009) also posited that parents who reported high levels of positive parenting, and low levels of disruptive behavior by their child, were less likely to engage in deviant activities or associate themselves with deviant youths or have court-related problems (pp. 532-533).  Burnette, Oshri, Lax, Richards, and Ragbeer (2012) verified the hypothesis of poor parenting and juvenile delinquency in their study as well.  Particularly, they performed a cohort study and discovered that harsh parenting, such as verbal, sexual, and physical abuse, was positively associated with a juvenile’s anti-social behavior (p. 866).  Although both of these studies do not directly affiliate themselves with juvenile court sentencing disparities the results do posit that poor or harsh parenting does lead to juvenile delinquency which, in turn, can become an extra-legal factor during juvenile court processes and confirms the notions about juveniles who have such issues are sentenced differently when compared to youths who do not have such issues.

Schaffner (1997) presented more detailed information about poor parenting and the sentencing disparities in the American juvenile courts.  Specifically, she analyzed court-ordered parenting courses; moreover, the examination was centered on parents who had a child that was involved in the California juvenile justice system (p. 412).  In respect to the disparity theme in this literature review, Schaffner (1997) suggested that parents who are lax, as well as too strict, were considered to be the main reason for their child’s delinquency (pp. 418-423).  In turn, the court sentenced children from these types of families differently when compared to youths who do not have parents with such characteristics (Schaffner, 1997, pp. 422-423).

More recent studies have shown that juveniles with violent parents are more likely to enter to the juvenile system, and thus be sentenced differently when compared to youths who do not have violent guardians.  Specifically, Farrington (1998) performed a study and found that boys who had a parent arrested before their tenth birthday were 2.2 times more likely to commit violent crimes when compared to those without violent parents (p. 440).  Moreover, he also reported other variables that predicted the likelihood of a juvenile committing violent acts and thus being sentenced differently when compared to youths with parents that have no such characteristics.  Specifically, youths who had poor supervision were 1.1 times more likely to commit a violent act, youths who suffered harsh maternal discipline were 1.6 times more likely to commit a violent act, youths who experienced low parental reinforcement were 1.1 times more likely to engage in violence, juveniles experiencing parental conflict were 2.0 times more likely than those who did not experience such problems, juveniles with a broken family were 3.1 times more likely to commit a violent act, and juveniles with a single mother were 2.3 times more likely to participate in violent acts when compared to youths who did not experience parenting problems (p. 440). 

Because poor parenting and juvenile delinquency are correlated other issues arise and, in turn, create different topics of study for the sentencing disparity issues in the American juvenile courts.  In particular, because juveniles experience some form of disturbance in their household many scholars have suggested that cognitive problems are another factor in the legal-based discrimination that occurs in the juvenile justice system.  Therefore, the following section will include information about juveniles with mental illnesses and how they are sentenced disproportionately when compared to juveniles who do not have mental health issues. 

Juveniles with Cognitive Problems and Sentencing Disparities

Mental health issues are commonplace in the juvenile justice system and thus bring difficulties when processing a juvenile who has such problems.  Nevertheless, sentencing guidelines and other legal parameters force juvenile court judges to administer the law to youths with cognitive or other biological characteristics.  With that being said, some studies have suggested that cognitive or behavior problems are seen as deliberate acts of deviancy.  However, many other scholars and professionals have presented information that claim that some youths are simply a victim of their biological features. 

Stoddard-Dare, Mallet, and Boitel (2011) suggest that 20 percent of juveniles have some form of mental health problem (p. 209).  In addition, they posit that 15 to 20 percent of juveniles who are involved with the juvenile court system have been diagnosed with depression or dysthymia, 13 to 30 percent have been diagnosed with ADHD, and 3 to 7 percent have been diagnosed with bipolar disorder (p. 209).  Specifically, this study included a large sample and suggested that youths with mental health issues do act out in ways that, at some point, involves the juvenile justice system, and because of the nature of the offenses the juveniles with mental health issues are sentenced or adjudicated differently when compared to youths who do not have such issues (p. 210).  More specifically, it was posited that youths with bipolar disorder are 8 times more likely to be detained when compared to youths who do not have the disorder (p. 210).  The scholars go on further and imply that youths with such a disorder are unable to control their issues if they are not medicated and, in turn, experience “high highs and low lows” which contributes to disruptive behavior and juvenile court intervention (p. 211).

Pullman, Kerbs, Koroloff, Veach-White, Gaylor, and Sieler (2006) posited very similar statistics that Stoddard-Dare, Mallet, and Boitel (2011) projected.  Particularly, these scholars performed a study and found that most juvenile legal systems are not properly equipped with dealing with youths who have such issues, and when they are adjudicated as delinquent the courts rely on the inadequate services that are within the correctional facilities that the youths are sentenced to (p. 378).  Additionally, because of the improper treatment and forced incapacitation many juveniles never receive proper care and, in turn, end up committing further offenses, which does suggest that these youths are treated much differently when compared to youths who are not suffering from such cognitive issues (p. 377).

McGarvey (2012) extends the numbers from the two aforementioned studies and suggests that nearly two-thirds of juveniles who are involved with the American juvenile justice system have mental illnesses that are considered to be severe (p. 97).  Additionally, he states that even with the evolution of treatment courts, other rehabilitative processes, and mental health evaluations that judges use, the juvenile courts, and entire juvenile justice system, is ill-equipped to handle such issues and thus sentences juveniles with cognitive problems more severely, or with more restrictions, when compared to juveniles who do not have these biological characteristics (p. 97).  Hoge (2012) posited similar issues within his publication, and thus stated that mental health assessments of juveniles in some cases are performed by unlicensed professionals who diagnose a child who come into contact with the legal system (p. 1256).  In turn, he states that some assessments disregard a juvenile’s issues because of their level of intelligence and thus inappropriate diagnoses are given that lead to a youth having more culpability than they should have (p. 1257).  Finally, Stout and Holleran (2012) verify the previously mentioned statistics and concluded that mental illnesses are at times unidentified or misdiagnosed, as well as contribute to sentencing biases because of the inability of the juvenile justice system to properly administer services for such issues (p. 447-449).  Specifically, Stout and Holleran’s (2012) study included juveniles with mental health disorders and a treatment program that was designed to reduce recidivism after being sentenced to out-of-home placement by a juvenile court judge (p. 460).  Moreover, after their analyses was completed the scholars found that not much of a reduction occurred with the juveniles after they received the alleged treatment (pp. 460-461).

Due to array sentencing disparities that have been identified, there is obviously a need for better policies in the juvenile courts and, more generally, in the entire juvenile justice system.  Even with the array of statistics and studies that have been completed there is still room for improvement and, therefore, the final section of this essay will include policy implementations so that better judicial procedures can be established. 

Policy Implications

Socioeconomic Status and Inadequate Legal Defense as Variables in Juvenile Court Sentencing Disparities

First, a better understanding of the causes and stresses that are associated with low socioeconomic status needs to be better identified by juvenile court practitioners and other law enforcement personnel (Bazemore & Senjo, 1997; Belknap, Morash, & Trojanowicz, 1987; McLoyd, 1998).  Second, more training for defense attorneys should be a priority if reduced sentencing disparities in the juvenile court is a goal (Burns, 1998; Detrick, 1996).  Also, defense attorneys should assigned based on their availability and knowledge of a juvenile’s particular offense; which in turn brings up the notion that more public defenders should be readily available and trained to deal with such matters.  By implementing better trained and less stressed attorneys, the imbalanced sentencing procedures in the juvenile courts could be diminished and thus uphold fair legal contrivances. 

Lastly, socioeconomic status and inadequate legal defense could be resolved by creating a system that is based on a larger selective lottery of attorneys (Wright, 2010; Wright & Thomas, 2003).  Meaning that every juvenile-legal specialist should have an equal opportunity to be selected and to represent indigent youthful offenders.  Again, this would eliminate the overwhelmed attorneys and, in turn, reduce the imbalanced sentencing that is currently ongoing. 

Race, Ethnicity, Sentencing Guidelines, and Political Climate

Race and ethnic sentencing disparities could be counteracted by hiring more minority professionals, as well as training street-level law enforcement and juvenile court judges on the particularities of the many cultures that are abundant in the United States (Bishop, Leiber, & Johnson, 2010; Chew & Kelly-Chew, 2010).  In addition, community meetings between legal practitioners and leaders from specific groups could be organized and thus foster a better understanding of the dilemmas that the youths and parents are dealing with in order to reduce deviancy and legal intervention (Belknap, Morash, & Trojanowicz, 1987; Palmiotto, Birzer, & Prabha Unnithan, 2000). 

Sentencing guidelines and political climate could augmented for the better through similar means.  By reaching out to the community and better comprehending the particularities of communities and cultures in a jurisdiction than more informal procedures could be ascertained, as well as establish new policies that are less punitive (Carmichael & Burgos, 2012; Shaffer, 2002).  Furthermore, political representatives and community members should routinely meet to discuss which laws need to changed and which policies are best for the youth and community in general. 

Educational Variables and Juvenile Court Sentencing Disparities

More quality environments within scholastic settings need to be made certain, as well as improved conditions within schools that are within poorer communities.  Secondly, educators should implement training seminars that are taught by social workers, psychologists, and medical professionals.  By doing so, behavioral issues could be identified prior to juvenile court intervention and, in turn, allow parents to address the problems as well. 

Moreover, strict zero-tolerance policies need to be amended and more specific internal regulations should be created.  Rather than having broad-based policies each school, and district, should implement policies that are tuned to their student body.  Less suspensions and expulsions are also necessary if sentencing disparities in the juvenile courts are attempting to be reduced (Soifer, 2010; Thornberry, Moore, & Christenson, 1985).  Other than disciplining an unruly juvenile it would be best for school officials to identify the problems and foster better community resources so that legal intervention does not occur (Meiners, 2011; Soifer, 2010).  Finally, meetings that include parents or guardians should be mandated more often in a group and individual setting.  Every meeting should include what the current problems are and the steps that are necessary to resolve the issues.       

Gender and Juvenile Court Sentencing Disparities

To address the gender discrimination in the American juvenile courts there should be more gender neutrality and education about gender-based issues for the professionals in the environment.  Specifically, more females should be appointed, elected, and hired, and specialists who assist the court should follow the same structure (Jepsen & Rodwell, 2012; Mallicoat, 2012).  Juveniles who find themselves in the juvenile court system should have more opportunity to be represented by the same gender, as well as regulated by the same sex.  In addition, by encompassing training or educational settings for court personnel the legal-based discrimination could be diminished even if gender neutrality is not possible. 

Better gender-based social services should offered too.  Males and females have different problems because of their biology, and thus by administering gender-based services there would be more plausible discourses in the juvenile courts as well as more opportunities for issues to be identified and resolved in a fair and impartial manner (Erez, 1989; Ganzer & Sarason, 1973; McKim, 2014; Sanger, Hux, & Ritzman, 1999).  Finally, gender discrimination in the juvenile courts could be reduced by allocating better tuned psychological assessments (Ganzer & Sarason, 1973; Sanger, Hux, & Ritzman, 1999).  This would provide the courts with better information in respect to gender issues and, in turn, would create an environment that is more knowledgeable of gender-based issues.

Age of Offenders and Juvenile Court Sentencing Disparities

The restructuring of sentencing guidelines in respect to age of culpability is a necessity if the juvenile courts are trying to reduce age disparities (Burke, 2011; Delmage, 2013; Lamb & Sim, 2013; McDiarmid, 2013).  Furthermore, by raising the age of adulthood the juvenile courts would be able to assist more individuals rather than simply waiving them to an adult court.  Prosecutors and judges need to be regulated as well; by working in a competitive society there is a tendency to procure convictions and waive juveniles to adult court so that occupational retention occurs (Green, 2012; Williams, 1999).  With that being said, a shift from punitive juvenile court processes needs to happen and better established rehabilitative procedures should be initiated.  Community services that are geared toward a juvenile’s age must be a priority in order to reduce the sentencing disparities that occur within the juvenile courts.  Moreover, by offering age-based treatment the courts could better understand behavioral issues in regards to a youth’s maturity and, in turn, foster more appropriate sentences rather than using incarceration or probation (Mallicoat, 2012; Schwartz, 2012). 

Juvenile Court Sentencing Disparities and Severity of Offense and Prior Record

Again, sentencing procedures need to be augmented if disparity issues within this topic are attempting to be reduced.  Nevertheless, pre-established social services and better training that would allow individuals to identify characteristics or behaviors that may lead to particular offenses is a reasonable consideration when discussing policy implementations for this area of concern (Hoge, 2012; Stout & Holleran, 2012).  Additionally, depending on the offenses juveniles should have more opportunities to receive conditional discharges for prior offenses.  Through proper treatment, as well as successful completion of the treatment, juveniles should have the right to have prior offenses dismissed or expunged (Funk, 1996; Hochberg, 1996; Sussman, 1971).  Judges and prosecutors should implement better strategies so that juveniles are not caught up in the legal system, as well as provide more possibilities to create a long-lasting prosperity for the juveniles who they encounter.   

Poor Parenting and Juvenile Court Sentencing Disparities

Community-based parenting courses need to be implemented in numerous facets besides the courts and agencies who specialize in such a concentration.  More specifically, by offering training seminars via other means and for free many of the disparity issues in this area could be greatly reduced (Burnette, Oshri, Lax, Richards, and Ragbeer. 2012; Cooley, 2011; Larzelere & Patterson, 1990; Schaffner. 1997; Sharp & Simon, 2004).  Other than group or individual meetings, information on better parenting should become similar to mainstream media processes, which would allow for the information to be better attained and established in a juvenile’s life.  Schools, community centers, religious organizations, and child protective service agencies should present better parenting information in more facets via the local media so that adults have more access to learning the particularities on what encompasses proper guidance for a juvenile (O’Barr, 2012; Schaffner, 1997).  Moreover, communal networking with school officials, ordinary members of society, law enforcement agencies, and community leaders should be encouraged so that parenting skills could be enhanced, but also to notify an adult if their actions are not in compliance to established standards.  This, in turn, could eliminate or greatly reduce sentencing disparities in the juvenile court system and create better communities overall (Haynie, 2009; Schaffner, 1997).

Juveniles with Cognitive Problems and Sentencing Disparities

More clinical psychologists and medical practitioners need to be implemented into the juvenile court system, as well as in external agencies in society.  By having more specialists involved in the juvenile legal system, conjecture and inadequate assessments could be eliminated or reduced (Hoge, 2012; Stout & Holleran, 2012).  In addition, by allowing these professional to have more worth in the juvenile court system the processes could have more understanding and practicality in respect to delinquent behavior and proper remedies to reduce juvenile court or law enforcement intervention (Bisgard, Fisher, Adubato, & Louis, 2010; Borduin et al., 1997).  Preemptive strategies that involve medical or psychological specialists should be deployed as well.  Meaning that by providing communities with better availability to medical professionals, particularly in scholastic settings and poor communities, could diminish the sentencing disparities within juvenile courts and, in turn, would enable more effective communication between parents, communities, public and private organizations, and most importantly with the professionals within the juvenile justice system and street-level law enforcement agencies.

Conclusion

The statistics and decades of information posit that juvenile court sentencing disparities are occurring more often then they should be, and that minimal effort has been made to counteract the biases in the juvenile justice system for the better.  All types of minorities are disenfranchised and forced to endure haphazard treatment agendas or callous forms of punishment when they enter the justice system, particularly in the juvenile courts.  Augmenting the court system, and entire juvenile justice system, comes with great difficulties because of the already established criteria in our culture, yet the possibility of positive change does exists and is certainly being called for by many professionals and ordinary citizens. 

Strict sentencing guidelines and conservative ideologies have plagued the juvenile justice for far too long, and with the current legal recourse that is ongoing in the United States it makes the opportunity to procure better standards harder to achieve.  Yet, when dealing with juveniles there is more hope when compared to the adult criminal justice system.  Juveniles are able to be better reformed because they are not yet fully developed, and thus the mentioned policy implications can be become a reality.  Punitive discourses can be replaced with more rehabilitation and, more specifically, well-established treatment that, in turn, would allow for a juvenile to not reenter the system or enter it all. 

Overall, the abundance of research and statistics illustrate how an enormous change in the juvenile court system, as well in contemporary society, is necessary.  Utilizing the proper resources and professionals would generate reasonable legal or social interventions when dealing with children.  Until then, the youths who enter American juvenile courts are shaped and labeled into being a delinquent for much of their lives, if not their entire lives which, in turn, creates a perpetuating cycle of recidivism and personal and societal demises.     

References

Altheide, D. L. (2009).  Moral panic: From sociological concept to public discourse.  Crime,

Media, Culture: An International Journal, 5(1), 79-99.  doi: 10.1177/1741659008102063

Alexander, M. (2012).  The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindedness.

            United States: The New Press.

American Bar Association (1995).  A call for justice:  An assessment to counsel and quality

            representation in delinquency proceedings. Washington, D.C.: ABA Juvenile Justice

            Center. 

Applegate, B. K., & King Davis, R. (2008).  Public views on sentencing juvenile murderers: The

impact of offender, offense, and perceived maturity. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4(1), 66-74. doi: 10.1177/1541204005282312

Armstrong, G. S., & Kim, B. (2011).  Juvenile penalties for “lawyering up”: The role of counsel

and extra-legal case characteristics.  Crime & Delinquency, 57(6), 827-848.  doi: 10.1177/0011128711420101 

Atkins, T., Bullis, M., & Yovanoff, P. (2007).  Wealthy and wise? Influence of socioeconomic

status on the community adjustment of previously incarcerated youth. Behavior Disorders, 32(4), 254-266.

Bazemore, G., & Senjo, S. (1997). An exploratory study of themes and styles in community

policing. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 20(1),

60-82. doi: 10.1108/13639519710162015  

Becker, H. S. (1963).  Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance.  New York, NY: Free

Press. 

Belknap, J., & Holsinger, K. (2006).  The gendered nature of risk factors for delinquency.

Feminist Criminology, 1(1), 48-71.

Belknap, J., Morash, M., & Trojanowicz, R. (1987). Implementing a community policing model

for work with juveniles: An exploratory study. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 14(2), 211

-245. doi:10.1177/0093854887014002006

Benekos, P. J., & Merlo, A. V. (2008).  Juvenile justice: The legacy of punitive policy.  Youth

Violence and Juvenile Justice, 6(1), 28-46.  doi: 10.1177/1541204007308423   

Bernard, T. J., & Kurlycheck, M. C. (2010).  The cycle of juvenile justice. New York, NY:

Oxford University Press.

Bisgard, E. B., Fisher, S., Adubato, S., & Louis, M. (2010). Screening, diagnosis, and

intervention with juvenile offenders. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 38(4), 475-506.

Bishop, D. M., Leiber, M., & Johnson, J. (2010). Contexts of decision making in the juvenile

justice system: An organizational approach to understanding minority overrepresentation.

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 8(3), 213-233. doi: 10.1177/1541204009361177

Bishop, D. M. (2004).  Juvenile transfer.  Criminology & Public Policy, 3(4), 599-649.

Bontrager, S., Barrick, K., & Stupi, E. (2013). Gender and sentencing: a meta-analysis of

contemporary research.  Journal of Gender, Race and Justice, 16(2), 349. 

Borduin, C. M., Mann, B. J., Cone, L. T., Heggeler, S. W., Fucci, B. R., Blaske, D. M.,

& Williams, R. A. (1995).  Multisystemic treatment of serious juvenile offenders: long-term prevention of criminality and violence.  Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63(4), 569-578. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.63.4.569

Boyd, T. M. (2009). Confronting racial disparity: legislative responses to the school-to-prison

pipeline. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 44(4), 571-580.

Burke, A. S. (2011).  Under construction: Brain formation, culpability, and the criminal justice

System. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 34(6), 381-385. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2011.10.001

Burns, E. H. (1998). A training course for juvenile court judges. Crime & Delinquency, 8(2),

            182-187. doi: 10.1177/001112876200800211   

Burns, R., & Crawford, C. (1999).  School shootings, the media, and public fear: Ingredients for

a moral panic.  Crime Law and Social Change, 32(2), 147-168.  

Butts, J. A., Snyder, H. N., Finnegan, T. A., Aughenbaugh, A. L., Poole, R. S. (1995).  Juvenile

court statistics, statistics report 1993.  Retrieved from http://www.ncjj.org/pdf/jcsreports/ncj93.pdf. 

Butts, J. A., Snyder, H. N., Finnegan, T. A., Aughenbaugh, A. L., Poole, R. S. (1996).  Juvenile

court statistics, statistics report 1994.  Retrieved from http://www.ncjj.org/pdf/jcsreports/163709.pdf.

Brown, J., & Stewart-Brown, S. (2001). Understanding parenting programmes: Parents’ view.

Primary Health Care Research and Development, 2(2), 117-130. doi: 10.1191/146342301678787067

Brunette, M. L., Oshri, A., Lax, R., Richards, D., & Ragbeer, S. N. (2012).  Pathways from harsh

parenting to adolescent antisocial behavior: A multidomain test of gender moderation. 

 Development and Psychopathology, 24(3), 857-870. doi: 10.1017/S0954579412000417     

Carr, N. T., Hudson, K., Hank, R. S., & Hunt, A. N. (2008).  Gender effects along the juvenile

justice system: Evidence of a gendered organization.  Feminist Criminology, 3(1), 25-43. doi:10.1177/1557085107311390 

Carmichael, J. T. (2010).  Sentencing disparities for juvenile offenders sentenced to adult

prisons: An individual and contextual analysis.  Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4), 747-757. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.05.001

Carmichael, J. T., & Burgos, G. (2012).  Sentencing juvenile offenders to life in prison: The

political sociology of juvenile punishment. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(4), 602-629. doi: 10.1007/s12103-011-9135-1

Chesney-Lind, M., & Pasko, L. (2004).  The female offender: Girls, women, and crime.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Chesney-Lind, M., & Sheldon, R. (2004).  Girls, delinquency, and juvenile justice.  Belmont,

CA: Wadsworth.

Chew, P. K., & Kelly-Chew, L. T. (2010). The missing minority judges.  Journal of Gender,

Race and Justice, 14(1), 179.

Christle, C. A., Nelson, C. M., Jolivette, K., & Riney, M. D. (2002).  A publication of the

national center on education, disability, and juvenile justice.  EDJJ Notes, 2(1), 1-9.  Retrieved from http://www.edjj.org/edjjnotes/volume2number1.pdf.  

Cole, H. A., & Vasquez Helig, J. (2011).  Developing a school-based youth court: A potential

alternative to the school to prison pipeline.  The Journal of Law and Education, 40(2), 305-321.

Corley, C. J., Cernkovich, S., & Giordano, P. (1989).  Sex and the likelihood of sanction.

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 80, 540-556. 

Cooley, V. A. (2011).  Community-based sanctions for juvenile offenders: Issues in policy

implementation.  Criminal Justice Policy Review, 22(1), 65-89. doi: 10.1177/0887403410369826

D’Angelo, J. M. (2002). Juvenile court judges’ perception of what factors affect juvenile

offenders’ likelihood of rehabilitation.  Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 53(3), 43-55. doi:10.1111/j.1755-6988.2002.tb00067.x

D’Angelo, J. M. (2007). The complex nature of juvenile court judges’ transfer decisions: A study

of judicial attitudes. The Social Science Journal, 44(1), 147-159.  doi: 10.1016/j.soscij.2006.12.011

D’Angelo, J. M., Brown, M. P., Strozewski, J. (2013).  Missouri: An examination of the

relationship between the source of referral to juvenile court and severity of sentencing outcomes.  Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24(4), 395-421. doi:10.1177/0887403412437408

Darensburg, A., Perez, E., & Blake, J. J. (2010).  Overrepresentation of African American males in
               exclusionary discipline: The role of school-based mental health professionals in                                   dismantling the school to prison pipeline.  Journal of African American Males in                                  Education, 1(3), 196-211.

Delmage, E. (2013). The minimum age of criminal responsibility: A medico-legal perspective.

            Youth Justice, 13(2), 102-110. doi:10.1177/1473225413492053

Denno, D. (1994).  Gender, crime, and the criminal law defenses.  The Journal of Criminal Law

and Criminology, 85(1), 80-180.  doi: 10.2307/1144115

Detrick, S. (1996). Inadequate legal representation of juvenile offenders in the United States.

            The International Journal of Children's Rights, 4(3), 311-314. 

Ellis, L. (2005).  Restorative justice programs, gender, and recidivism.  Public Organization

Review, 5(4), 375-389.  doi: 10.1007/s11115-005-5097-4 

Embry, R., & Lyons, P. M. (2012).  Sex-based sentencing: Sentencing discrepancies between

male and female sex offenders.  Feminist Criminology, 7(2), 146-162.  doi: 10.1177/1557085111430214

Erez, E. (1989). Gender, rehabilitation, and probation decisions. Criminology, 27(2), 307-327.

            doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1989.tb01034.x

Erikson, K. T. (1966).  Wayward puritans: A study in sociology of deviance.  New York, NY:

John Wiley.   

Fagan, J. (2010).   The contradictions of juvenile crime & punishment.  Daedulus, 139(3), 43-61.

            doi: 10.1162/DAED_a_00022

Farrington, D. P., Osborn, S. G., & West, D. J. (1978). The persistence of labelling effects. 

British Journal of Criminology, Delinquency and Deviant Social Behaviour, 18(3), 277-284.

Farrington, D. P. (1998). Predictors, causes, and correlates of male youth violence.  Crime and

Justice, 24, 421-475.

Fearn, N. E. (2005). A multilevel analysis of community effects on criminal sentencing. Juvenile

            Quarterly, 22(4), 452-487. doi: 10.1080/07418820500364668 

Feld, B. C. (2003).  The politics of race and juvenile justice: The due process revolution and the

conservative reaction.  Justice Quarterly, 20(4), 765-800.  doi: 10.1080/07418820300095691

Feld, B. C. (2009). Violent girls or relabeled status offenders? An alternative interpretation of the

data.  Crime and Delinquency, 55(2), 241-265. 

Fording, R. C., Soss, J., Schram, S. F. (2011). Race and the local politics of punishment in the

new world of welfare.  The American Journal of Sociology, 116(5), 1610-1656.  

Freiburger, T. L., & Jordan, K. L. (2011). A multilevel analysis of race on the decision to

petition a case in the juvenile court.  Race and Justice, 1(2), 185-201. doi: 10.1177/2153368710383869

Funk, T. M. (1996). A mere youthful indiscretion? Reexamining the policy of expunging

juvenile delinquency records. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform,

29(4), 885.

Funk, T. M. (1999).  Considering juvenile crime records in criminal sentencing.  Federal Sentencing              Reporter, 10(2), 135-154. doi: 10.1177/1541204011418991

Ganzer, V. J., & Sarason, I. G. (1973). Variables associated with recidivism among juvenile

delinquents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40(1), 1-5. doi:

10.1037/h0034012

Garcia, C. A., & Lane, J.  (2009). What a girl wants, what a girl needs:  Findings from a gender

specific focus group study. Crime and Delinquency, 59(4), 536-561. doi: 10.1177/0011128709331790   

Garland, D. (2008). On the concept of moral panic.  Crime, Media, Culture: An International

Journal, 4(1), 9-30. doi: 10.1177/1741659007087270

Geronimo, I. (2011).  Systemic failure: the school-to-prison pipeline and discrimination against

poor minority students.  Journal of Law in Society, 13(1), 281-299. 

Goodkind, S., Shook, J. J., Kim, K. H., Pohlig, R. T., & Herring, D. J. (2013).  From child

welfare to juvenile justice: Race, gender, and system experiences.  Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 11(3), 249-272. doi: 10.1177/1541204012463409 

Goldschieder, C., & Simpson, J. E. (1968).  Religious affiliation and juvenile delinquency.

Sociological Inquiry, 37(2), 297-310. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-682X.1967.tb00660.x 

Gonzalez, T. (2012).  Keeping kids in schools: restorative justice, punitive discipline, and the

school to prison pipeline.  The Journal of Law and Education, 41(2), 281-335.

Guevera, L., Herz, D., Spohn, C. (2008).  Race, gender, and legal counsel: Differential outcomes

in two juvenile courts.  Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 6(1), 83-104. doi:

101177/1541204007303939   

Grasmick, H. G., & McGill, A. L. (1994).  Religion, attribution style, and punitiveness toward

            juvenile-offenders.  Criminology, 32(1), 23-46.  doi: 10.1111/j.17459125.1994.tb01145.x 

Green, B. A. (2012). Prosecutors and professional regulation. (Symposium on the conscience and

culture of prosecution). Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 25(4), 873.

Harris, A. (2008). The social construction of “sophisticated” adolescents: How judges integrate

juvenile and criminal justice decision-making models.  Journal of Contemporary

Ethnography, 37(4), 469-506. doi:10.1177/0891241607309886

Haynie, D. L. (2001). Delinquent peers revisited: Does network structure matter?.

            Sociological Forum, 23(3), 575-601. doi:10.1086/320298

Heeren, J., & Shicor, D. (1984).  Mass media and delinquency prevention: The case of “scared

straight.” Deviant Behavior, 5, 375-386.

Hessick, C. B., (2010).  Race and gender as explicit sentencing factors.  Journal of Gender, Race

and Justice, 14(1), 127. 

Higgins, G. E., Ricketts, M. L., Griffith, J. D., & Jirard, S. A. (2013). Race and              
               juvenile incarceration: A propensity score matching examination.  American Journal of 
               Criminal Justice, 38(1), 1-12. doi: 10.1007/s12103-012-9162-6

Hochberg, J. W. (2004). Should juvenile adjudications count as prior convictions for apprendi

purposes?. William and Mary Law Review, 45(3), 1159.

Hodges, J., Giuliotti, N., & Porpotage, F. M. (1994).  Improving literacy skills of juvenile

detainees. Juvenile Justice Bulletin, 1-5. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/lit.pdf.

Hoge, R. D. (2012). Forensic assessments of juveniles: Practice and legal considerations.

Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(9), 1255-1270. doi: 10.1177/0093854812444024

           

Hudson, K., Hanks, R.S., Hunt, A. N. (2008).  Gender effects along the juvenile justice system.

            Feminist Criminology, 3(1), 26-43.  doi: 10.1177/1557085107311390

Jepsen, D. M., & Rodwell, J. (2012). Female perceptions of organizational justice. Gender, Work

& Organization, 19(6), 723-740. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2010.00538.x

Jordan, K. L., & Freiberger, T. L. (2010).  Examining the impact of race and ethnicity on the

sentencing of juveniles in the adult court.  Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21(2), 185-

201. doi: 10.1177/0887403409354738

Kerbs, J. J. (1999).  (Un) equal justice: Juvenile court abolition and African Americans.  Annals

of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 564(1), 109-125.  doi:

10.1177/0002716299564001007

Kitsuse, J. I. (1964). Societal reaction to deviant behavior: Problems of theory and method.  In H.

Becker (Ed.), The other side (pp. 87-102).  New York, NY: Free Press.

Koyaman, P. R. (2012).  The status of education in pre-trial juvenile detention.  Journal of

Correctional Education, 63(1), 35-67. 

Kupchik, A., & Harvey, A. (2007).  Court context and discrimination: Exploring biases across

juvenile and criminal courts.  Sociological Perspectives, 50(3), 417-444.  doi: 10.1525/sop.2007.50.3.417 

Juszkiewicz, J. (1998).  Youth crime/adult time: Is justice served?.  Building Blocks for Youth.

Retrieved from http://www.cclp.org/documents/BBY/Youth_Crime_Adult_Time.pdf.  

Lamb, M. E., & Sim, M. (2013). Developmental factors affecting children in legal contexts.

            Youth Justice, 13(2), 131-144. doi: 10.1177/1473225413492055

Larzelere, R. E., & Patterson, G. R. (1990). Parental management: Mediator of the effect of

socioeconomic-status on early delinquency.  Criminology, 28(2), 301-324.  doi: 10.1111/j.17459125.1990.tb01327.x 

Leiber, M. J. (2000).  Gender, religion, and correctional orientations among a sample of juvenile

justice personnel.  Women & Criminal Justice, 11(2), 15-44.  doi:

10.1300/J012v11n02_02 

Leiber,, M. J., & Mack, K. Y. (2008).  The individual and joint effects of race, gender, and

family status on juvenile decision making.  Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 40(1), 34-70.  doi: 10.1177/0022427802239253 

Leiber, M. J., Woodrick, A. C., & Roudebush, E. M. (1995).  Religion, discriminatory attitudes

and the orientations of juvenile justice personnel – a research note.  Criminology, 33(3), 431-449. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1995.tb01185.x 

Lemert, E. M. (1972).  Human deviance, social problems, and social control.  Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice Hall.   

Levitt, S. (1998). Juvenile crime and punishment. Journal of Political Economy, 106(6), 1156

1185. doi: 10.1086/250043

Mallicoat, S. (2012). Women and crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

MacDonald, J. M., & Chesney-Lind, M. (2001).  Gender bias and juvenile justice revisited: A

multiyear analysis.  Crime & Delinquency, 47(2), 173-195.  doi:10.1177/0011128701047002002

Mays, G. L., & Ruddell, R. (2008).  Making sense of criminal justice: Policies and practices.

New York, New York: Oxford University Press.

McGarvey, S. (2012). Juvenile justice and mental health: Innovation in the laboratory of human

behavior. Jurimetrics Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 53(1), p. 97.

McCord, J., Spatz-Widom, C., Bamba, M. I., & Crowell, N. A. (2001).  Education and

delinquency: Summary of workshop.  National Research Council, Institute of Medicine. 1-46. 

McDermott, M. J., & Laub, J. H. (1986). Adolescence and juvenile justice policy. Criminal

Justice Policy Review, 1(4), 438-454. doi: 10.1177/088740348600100405

McDiarmid, C. (2013). An age of complexity: Children and criminal responsibility in law.

            Youth Justice, 13(2), 145-160. doi: 10.1177/1473225413492056

McKim, A. (2014). Roxanne'’s dress: Governing gender and marginality through addiction

treatment. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 39(2), 433-458. doi:

10.1086/673089

McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American

Psychologist, 53(2), 185-204. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.53.2.185  

Mears, D. P. (2002).  Sentencing guidelines and the transformation of juvenile justice in the 21^st

            century.  Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 18(1), 6-19. doi:

10.1177/1043986202018001002  

Meiners, E. R. (2011).  Ending the school-to-prison pipeline/building abolition futures.  The

Urban Review, 43(4), 547-565.  doi: 10.1007/s11256-011-0187-9

Merton, R. K. (1938).  Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3, 672-682. 

Merton, R. K. (1968).  Social theory and social structure. New York, NY: Free Press. 

Moak, S. A., Moak, S. C., & Walker, J. T. (2013).  The contingent effect of race in juvenile court

detention decisions: The role of racial and symbolic threat.  Race and Justice, 3(3), 239-265. doi: 10.1177/2153368712468862 

Moore, L. D., & Padavic, I. (2010). Racial and ethnic disparities in girls’ sentencing in the

juvenile justice system. Feminist Criminology, 5(3), 263-285. doi: 10.1177/1557085110380583

Mrug, S., & Windle, M. (2009).  Moderators of negative peer influence on early adolescent

externalizing behaviors: Individual behavior, parenting, and school connectedness. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 29(4), 518-540. doi: 10.1177/0272431608324473  

Myers, D. L., Lee, D., Giever, D., & Gilliam, J. (2011).  Practitioner perceptions of juvenile

transfer in Pennsylvania.  Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 9(3), 222-240. doi:

10.1177/1541204010391216

O’Barr, W. M. (2012). Public service advertising and propaganda. Advertising & Society Review,

            13(2).  Retrieved May 4, 2014, from Project MUSE database

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (1996). Combating violence and

delinquency: The national juvenile justice action plan (Report). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

(2011). Office of Justice Programs Fact Sheet.  Retrieved from

http://ojp.gov/newsroom/factsheets/ojpfs_indigentdefense.html. 

Osgood, D. W., & Weichselbaum, H. F. (1984). Juvenile diversion: When practice matches

theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 21(1), 33-56.  doi:

10.1177/0022427884021001003

Osher, D., Coggshall, J., Colombi, G., Woodruff, D., Francois, S., & Osher, T. (2012).  Building

school and teacher capacity to eliminate the school-to-prison pipeline.  Teacher Education and Special Education, 35(4), 309-319.  doi: 10.1177/0888406412453930

Palmiotto, M. J., Birzer, M. L., &  Prabha Unnithan, N. (2000).  Training in community policing.

            Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 23(1), 8-21.

            doi:10.1108/13639510010314580

Platt, A., Schechter, H., Tiffany, P. (1967).   In defense of youth: A case study of the public

defender in juvenile court.  Indiana Law Journal, 43, 619-640.

Poe-Yamagata, E., & Butts, J. A. (1996). Female offenders in the juvenile justice system. U.S.

Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (Check and fix this)

Pratt, T. C. (1998).  Race and sentencing.  Journal of Criminal Justice, 26(6), 513-523.  doi:

10.1016/S0047-2352(98)00028-2

Provine, D. M. (2007). Unequal under law: Race in the war on drugs. London and Chicago:

The University of Chicago Press. 

Pullman, M. D., Kerbs, J., Koroloff, N., Veach-White, E., Gaylor, R. & Sieler, D. (2006).

Juvenile offenders with mental health needs: Reducing recidivism using wraparound.  Crime & Delinquency, 52(3), 375-397.  doi: 10.1177/0011128705278632

Puritz, P., & Shang, W. (2000).  Juvenile indigent defense: Crisis and solutions.  Criminal

Justice, 15(1), 22-29. 

Puzzanchera, C. (2013). Juvenile offenders and victims: National report series.

Puzzanchera, C., Stahl, A. L., Finnegan, T. A., Snyder, H. N., Poole, R. S., & Tierney, N. T.

(2000). Juvenile court statistics 1997, Report.  Retrieved from

http://www.ncjj.org/pdf/jcsreports/180864.pdf.

Puzzanchera, C., Adams, B., & Hockenberry, S. (2012).  Juvenile court statistics 2009, report.

Pittsburg, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.  Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/239114.pdf.      

Puzzanchera, C., & Hockenberry, S. (2013). Juvenile court statistics 2010.  Pittsburgh, PA:

National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Rainville, G. A., & Smith, S. K. (2003).  Juvenile felony defendants in criminal courts.  Bureau

of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.  Washington D.C.

Redding, R. E. (2003).  The effects of adjudicating and sentencing juveniles as adults: Research

and policy implications. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 1(2), 128-155. doi:

10.1177/1541204002250875

Rodriguez, S. F., Curry, T. R., & Lee, G.  (2006). Gender differences in criminal sentencing: Do

effects vary across violent, property, and drug offenses?.  Social Science Quarterly, 87(2), 318-339.  doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2006.00383.x 

Roy-Stevens, C. (2004).  Overcoming barriers to school reentry.  OJJDP Fact Sheet. Retrieved

from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/fs200403.pdf. 

Russell, B. L. (2012).  Perceptions of female offenders: How stereotypes and social norms

affect criminal justice responses.  New York: Springer.     

Sanborn, J. (1998).  Second-class justice, first-class punishment: The use of juvenile records in

sentencing adults. Judicature, 81(5), 206-213.

Sanger, D. D., Hux, K., & Ritzman, M. (1999). Female juvenile delinquents' pragmatic

awareness of conversational interactions. Journal of Communication Disorders,

32(5), 281-295. doi: 10.1016/S0021-9924(99)00003-9

Schwartz, I. M. (1989). (In) justice for juveniles: Rethinking the best interests of the child.

Lanham, MD: Lexington. 

Schwartz, R. G. (2012). Age-appropriate charging and sentencing. Criminal Justice, 27(3),

            49.

Schmalleger, F. (2008).  Criminal justice: A brief introduction.  Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson.

Shaffer, C. S. (2002).  Inequality within the United States sentencing guidelines: The use of

sentences given to juveniles by adult criminal court as predicate offenses for the career offender provision. Roger Williams University Law Review, 8(1), 163-192.

Schaffner, L. (1997).  Families on probation: Court-ordered parenting skills classes for parents of

juvenile offenders.  Crime & Delinquency, 43(4), 412-437. doi: 10.1177/0011128797043004002   

Sharp, C. & Simon, J. (2004). Girls in the juvenile justice system: The need for more gender-

            responsive services. Washington, D.C.: Child Welfare League of America, Inc.

Shepherd, S. M., Luebbers, S., & Dolan, M. (2013).  Gender and ethnicity in juvenile risk

assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(4), 388-408.  doi: 10.1177/0093854812456776 

Sickmund, M. (2004).  Juveniles in corrections.  Juvenile Offenders and Victims: National

Report Series.

Sickmund, M., Sladky, T. J., Kang, W., & Puzzanchera, C. (2013).  Easy access to the census of

juveniles in residential places.  Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp.

Sickmund. M., Stahl, A. L., Finnegan, T. A., Snyder, H. N., Poole, R. S., & Butts, J. A. (1998).

            Juvenile court statistics 1995, Report.  Retrieved from

http://www.ncjj.org/pdf/jcsreports/170607.pdf.  

Short, J, & Sharp, C. (2005).  Disproportionate minority contact in the juvenile justice system.

Washington, D. C.: Child Welfare League of America, Inc.

Smith, K. (2004). The politics of punishment: A model of punishment. Journal of Politics, 66(3),

            925-938. 

Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2006).  Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 national report.

            Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/nr2006/downloads/NR2006.pdf. 

Soifer, D. (2010).  Education strategies for reducing juvenile crime in the nation’s capital.

Retrieved from

http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/library/resources/documents/Education/EducationStrategiesForReducingJuvenileCrime.pdf. 

Stahl, A. L., Sickmund, M., Finnegan, T. A., Snyder, H. N., Poole, R. S., & Tierney, N. (1999). 

            Juvenile court statistics 1996, report.  Retrieved from

http://www.ncjj.org/pdf/jcsreports/168963.pdf. 

Stahl, A. L., Puzzanchera, C., Livsey, S., Sladky, A., Finnegan, T. A., Tierney, N. & Snyder, H.

N. (2007). Juvenile court statistics 2003-2004, Report.  Retrieved from

http://www.ncjj.org/pdf/jcsreports/218587.pdf.  

Steffensmeier, D., & Demuth, S. (2001).  Ethnicity and judges’ sentencing decisions: Hispanic

Black-White comparisons.  Criminology, 39(1), 145-178.

Steffensmeier, D., Ulmer, J., & Kramer, J.  (1998). The interaction of race, gender, age in

            criminal sentencing:  The punishment cost of being young, black, and male. Criminology,

            36(4), 763-798.  doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01265.x 

Stoddard-Dare, P., Mallet, C. A., & Boitel, C. (2011). Association between mental health

disorders and juveniles' detention for a personal crime.  Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 16(4), 208-213. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-3588.2011.00599.x

Stout, B. D., & Holleran, D. (2012).  The impact of mental health services implementation on

juvenile court placements: An examination of New Jersey’s SOC initiative.  Criminal Justice Policy Review, 23(4), 447-464. doi: 10.1177/0887403411414408 

Strom, K. J., & Smith, S. K. (1998).  Juvenile felony defendants in criminal courts. Bureau of

Justice Statistics: Special Report.  Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/jfdcc.pdf.  

Sullivan, M. L. (2005).  Maybe we shouldn’t study “gangs.” Does reification obscure youth

violence. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(2), 170-190.  doi: 10.1177/1043986204272912

Sussman, A. (1971). The confidentiality of family court records. The Social Service Review,

            45(4), 455-481. doi:10.1086/642766

Tannebaum, F. (1938). Crime and the community. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Taylor, A., Guevara, L., Boyd, L. M., & Brown, R. A. (2012).  Race, geography, and juvenile

justice: An exploration of the liberation hypothesis.  Race and Justice,

Thornberry, T. P. (1973).  Race, socioeconomic status and sentencing in the juvenile justice

system. Criminology, 64(1), 90-98. doi: 10.2307/1142660

Thornberry, T. P. (1979).  Sentencing disparities in the juvenile justice system.  The Journal of

Criminal Law and Criminology, 70(2), 164-171.

Thornberry, T. P., Moore, M., & Christenson, R. L. (1985). The effect of dropping out of high

school on subsequent criminal behavior. Criminology, 23(1), 3-18. doi: 10.1111/j.1745

9125.1985.tb00323.x 

Urban, L. S., St. Cyr, J. L., & Decker, S. H. (2003).   Goal conflict in the juvenile court: The

evolution of sentencing practices in the United States.  Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 19(4), 454-479.  doi: 10.1177/1043986203259484

U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights Civil Rights Data Collection: Data

Snapshot (School Discipline) March 21, 2014.  Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc-discipline-snapshot.pdf.  

Unnever, J. D., & Hembroff, L. A. (1988).  The prediction of racial/ethnic sentencing disparities:

An expectation states approach.  Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 25(1), 53-82. doi: 10.1177/0022427888025001004

Vilgeon, J. L., Klaver, J., & Roesch, R. (2005).  Legal decisions of preadolescent and adolescent

defendants: predictors of confessions, pleas, communication with attorneys, and appeals. 

Law and Human Behavior, 29(3), 253-277.  doi: 10.1007/s10979-005-3613-2 

Vito, G. F., Tewksbury, R., & Wilson, D. G. (1998).  The Juvenile justice system: Concepts and

issues. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc. 

Walker, S., Spohn, C., and DeLone, M. (2004). The color of justice: Race, ethnicity, and crime

in America.  Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.   

Warren, P., Chiricos, T., & Bales, W. (2012). The imprisonment penalty for young Black and

Hispanic males: A crime-specific analysis.  Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 49(1), 56-80. doi: 10.1177/0022427810397945 

Welch, M., Price, E. A., & Yankey, N. (2002).  Moral panic over youth violence: Wilding and

the manufacturing in the media.  Youth & Society, 34(1), 3-30. doi: 10.1177/0044118X02034001001 

Welch, M., Price, E. A., & Yankey, N. (2004).  Youth violence and race in the media: The

emergence “wilding” as an inventor of the press.  Race, Gender & Class, 11(2), 36. 

Weitzer, R., & Kubrin, C. E. (2004).  Breaking news: How local TV news and real-world

conditions affect fear of crime.  Justice Quarterly, 21(3), 497-520.  

Williams, L. E. (1999). The civil regulation of prosecutors. Fordham Law Review, 67(6),

            3441.

Wolf-Harlow, C. (2003). Bureau of justice statistics special report: Educational and

correctional populations.  Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ecp.pdf.

Wright, R. F. (2010).  Public defender elections and popular control over criminal justice.

            Missouri Law Review, 75(3), 803.

Wright, R., & Thomas, W. (2003). Disproportionate representation: Communities of color in the

domestic violence, juvenile justice, and child welfare systems.  Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 54(4), 87-95.  doi: 10.1111/j.1755-6988.2003.tb00088.x

Wu, E., El-Bassel, N., Gilbert, L., Hess, L., Lee, H. N., Rowell, T. L. (2012).  Prior incarceration

and barriers to receipt of services among entrants to alternative to incarceration programs: A gender-based disparity.  Journal of Urban Health, 89(2), 384-395.  doi: 10.1007/s11524-011-9665-3

Zimring, F. E. (1998).  American youth violence. United States: Oxford University Press.