Cited by 50Legal and Social Justice StudiesCrime Patterns and InterventionsCriminal Justice and Penology

THE “TRUE” JUVENILE OFFENDER: AGE EFFECTS AND JUVENILE COURT SANCTIONING

MEARS, DANIEL P., COCHRAN, JOSHUA C., STULTS, BRIAN J., GREENMAN, SARAH J., BHATI, AVINASH S., GREENWALD, MARK A.·2014·Criminology

Abstract

Age is the only factor used to demarcate the boundary between juvenile and adult justice. However, little research has examined how age guides the juvenile court in determining which youth within the juvenile justice system merit particular dispositions, especially those that reflect the court's emphasis on rehabilitation. Drawing on scholarship on the court's origins, attribution theory, and cognitive heuristics, we hypothesize that the court focuses on youth in the middle of the range of the court's age of jurisdiction—characterized in this article as “true” juveniles—who may be viewed as meriting more specialized intervention. We use data from Florida for court referrals in 2008 (N = 71,388) to examine the decision to proceed formally or informally and, in turn, to examine formally processed youth dispositions (dismissal, diversion, probation, commitment, and transfer) and informally processed youth dispositions (dismissal, diversion, and probation). The analyses provide partial support for the hypothesis. The very young were more likely to be informally processed; however, among the informally processed youth, the youngest, not “true” juveniles, were most likely to be diverted or placed on probation. By contrast, among formally processed youth, “true” juveniles were most likely to receive traditional juvenile court responses, such as diversion or probation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1745-9125.12034

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
MEARS, D. P., COCHRAN, J. C., STULTS, B. J., GREENMAN, S. J., BHATI, A. S., & GREENWALD, M. A.
Affiliations
  • Florida State University (US)
  • University of South Florida (US)
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • Maxarth
  • Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (US)
Corresponding author
MEARS, DANIEL P.
Venue
Criminology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-02-21
Volume
52
Issue
2
Pages
169-194
ISSN
  • 0011-1384 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-9125
OpenAlex
W2171827355
Cited by
50
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 2
FWCI
84.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Criminology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Legal and Social Justice Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
Keywords
juvenile offenders, age effects, juvenile justice, attribution theory, cognitive heuristics, court referral, diversion, probation, commitment, transfer to adult court, rehabilitation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review