Juror decision making for juveniles tried as adults: The effects of defendant age, crime type, and crime outcome

Psychology, Crime and Law

Volumn 17, Issue 8, 2011, Pages 659-675

  Walker, Charity M ^a   Woody, William D ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DENVER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

Age; Crime severity; Juror bias scale; Juror decision making; Juvenile offenders

Indexed keywords

EID: 80052534636     PISSN: 1068316X     EISSN: 14772744     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10683160903493471     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Albonetti, C.A. (1997). Sentencing under the federal sentencing guidelines: Effects of defendant characteristics, guilty pleas, and departures on sentencing outcomes for drug offenses, 1991-1992. Law & Society Review, 31, 789-823.
2. American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060-1074.
3. Barnett, N.J., & Field, H.S. (1978). Character of the defendant and length of sentence in rape and burglary crimes. Journal of Social Psychology, 104, 271-278.
4. Bilchik, S. (1999). Juvenile justice: A century of change. 1999 National Report Series: Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, US Department of Justice.
5. Bornstein, B.H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75-91.
6. Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.
7. Cooper, D.K. (1997). Juveniles' understanding of trial-related information: Are they competent defendants? Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 15, 167-181.
8. Criminal Code, 18 CO Rev. Stat. §§ 1-402 (2004).
9. Criminal Code, 18 CO Rev. Stat. §§ 1.3-401 (2004).
10. Criminal Code, 18 CO Rev. Stat. §§ 4-302 (2004).
11. Criminal Code, 18 CO Rev. Stat. §§ 4-201-203 (2004).
12. Crosby, C.A., Britner, P.A., Jodl, K.M., & Portwood, S.G. (1995). The juvenile death penalty and the Eighth Amendment: An empirical investigation of social consensus and proportionality. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 245-261.
13. Furnham, A., & Alison, L. (1994). Theories of crime, attitudes to punishment and juror bias amongst police, offenders, and the general public. Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 35-48.
14. Ghetti, S., & Redlich, A.D. (2001). Reactions to youth crime: Perceptions of accountability and competency. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 19, 33-53.
15. Greene, E., & Dodge, M. (1995). The influence of prior record evidence on juror decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 67-77.
16. Grisso, T. (1997). The competence of adolescents as trial defendants. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 3, 3-32.
17. Heilbrun, K., Leheny, C., Thomas, L., & Huneycutt, D. (1997). A national survey of U.S. statutes on juvenile transfer: Implications for policy and practice. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 15, 125-149.
18. Kassin, S.M., & Wrightsman, L.S. (1983). The construction and validation of a juror bias scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 17, 423-442.
19. Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 86 S.Ct. 1045 (1966).
20. Levesque, R.J. (1996). Is there still a place for violent youth in juvenile justice? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1, 69-79.
21. Levine, M., Williams, A., Sixt, A., & Valenti, R. (2001). Is it inherently prejudicial to try a juvenile as an adult? Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 19, 23-31.
22. Nunez, N., Dahl, M.J., Tang, C.M., & Jensen, B.L. (2007). Trial venue decisions in juvenile cases: Mitigating and extra-legal factors matter. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 12, 21-39.
23. Report to the Colorado General Assembly. (1998). Research publication no. 452: Chapter 3 - Colorado's adult sentencing laws.
24. Reynolds, D.E., & Sanders, M.S. (1975). Effect of defendant attractiveness, age, and injury on severity of sentence given by simulated jurors. Journal of Social Psychology, 96, 149-151.
25. Rudebeck, J.K., & Woody, W.D. (2002, March). Juveniles tried as adults: Age and fairness. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Austin, TX. Oral Paper session: Juvenile Justice.
26. Scott, E.S., & Grisso, T. (1997). The evolution of adolescence: A developmental perspective on juvenile justice reform. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 88, 137-190.
27. Sickmund, M. (1994). How juveniles get to criminal court. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.
28. Snyder, H.N., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 national report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
29. Steinberg, L., & Scott, E.S. (2003). Less guilty by reason of adolescence: Developmental immaturity, diminished responsibility, and the juvenile death penalty. American Psychologist, 58, 1009-1018.
30. Tang, C.M., & Nunez, N. (2003). Effects of defendant age and juror bias on judgment of culpability: What happens when a juvenile is tried as an adult? American Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 37-52.
31. Warling, D., & Peterson-Badali, M. (2003). The verdict on jury trials for juveniles: The effects of defendant's age on trial outcomes. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 21, 63-82.
32. Witt, P.H. (2003). Transfer of juveniles to adult court: The case of H.H. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 9, 361-380.