Equal Punishment for All?

Does getting tough on crime mean the justice system is actually getting tougher on some juvenile offenders than on adults who are only a few years older? A March 2012 article in Criminology, “Transferred Juveniles in the Era of Sentencing Guidelines: Examining Judicial Departures for Juvenile Offenders in Adult Criminal Court” by Brian D. Johnson and Megan C. Kurlychek, sheds new light on that question. In fact the study finds that many juvenile offenders tried in adult court face harsher penalties than they would have faced if they had been convicted of the same crime as an adult.

In order to stem what lawmakers saw as a rising tide of violent crime among juveniles, most states have increased the mechanisms available for juveniles to be tried in the adult criminal justice system over the past few decades. Many states created juvenile sentencing guidelines to minimize judicial sentencing discretion and make sentences more uniform. Sentencing guidelines vary depending on the type and severity of a crime and in some states how strictly the guidelines must be followed. In most states with presumptive guidelines, judges may only depart from sentencing guidelines with a written justification that the defendant may instantly appeal. In states with voluntary guidelines the suggested sentences are regularly followed by judges, but the guidelines are not required and, if deviated from, are not subject to appeal.

To get a better sense of how adult courts sentence juveniles, Johnson’s and Kurlychek’s study examines how often judges in Pennsylvania, where guidelines are mandatory, and Maryland, where guidelines are voluntary, choose to depart from their state guidelines. The authors look at sentences of juveniles between 16 and 17 who were convicted in adult court and then compare them to the sentences of young adults between 18 and 19 who were convicted of similar crimes.

Using matching procedures, Johnson and Kurlychek developed regressions that found that in both states juvenile offenders in adult court are more likely than young adult offenders to receive longer sentences than the guidelines recommend.

In Pennsylvania, juveniles were five percent more likely than young adults to receive a harsher sentence than the state guidelines prescribed. However, the study found no statistically significant difference between the proportion of juveniles and young adults who received more lenient sentences than state guidelines.

In Maryland, juvenile offenders in adult court were almost three percent more likely than young adults to receive longer sentences than the guidelines recommend; these sentences were, on average, over 20 percent longer than similar departures from the guidelines for young adults. Maryland juveniles were also 5.6 percent less likely than young adults to receive lesser sentences than the guidelines recommended.

This study is the first look at guideline deviation among juveniles tried in adult court. Their pairing techniques are helping to clarify the additional penalties experienced by juveniles who already face the enhanced consequences of standing trial as an adult. The authors note that there are still limitations to the information they have been able to gather, mostly because sentencing guidelines, court systems, demographics, and local politics vary widely from state to state. However, the work in their study is a critical step towards helping practitioners better understand the potential repercussions of charging juvenile offenders with adult crimes.

Feature photo: cc/Still Burning