English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

A small but growing body of research has explored how juveniles transferred to the criminal court are sentenced relative to adult defendants, but the findings from this literature have been complex and inconsistent. A noteworthy line of inquiry that to date has received only limited attention is how crime type might moderate these relationships. Theoretically, according to the liberation hypothesis, primary offense type corresponds closely with the exercise of judicial discretion, and court actors’ decision-making is most likely to be informed by extralegal offender-based attributions in the disposition of less serious cases. The goal of the present study is to extend this literature by exploring the main and interactive effects of juvenile status and crime type on adult court punishment outcomes among defendants sentenced for seven violent felony offenses. Using data from Florida circuit courts ( N  = 198,362), the findings show that, regarding sentencing to prison, transferred youth are consistently punished more severely than adult defendants among the three least serious crime types. However, juveniles receive shorter prison terms than adults for most violent offenses, and these disparities are greatest among murder, manslaughter, and robbery/carjacking cases.

Juvenile transfer status and the sentencing of violent offenders: a test of the liberation hypothesis