Race and the Relationship to Juvenile Adjudication Boris Miranda Lynchburg College Department of Criminology April 2017

Statement of the Problem Non-minorities make up the majority of the prison population and it seems as though race among adults is a contributing factor on the severity of one’s punishment. The purpose of this research is go determine if juveniles also face these discrepancies when it comes to adjudication.

Background on Issue of Race and Adjudication “Black and Latino offenders sentenced in state and federal courts face significantly greater odds of incarceration than similarly situated white offenders and receive longer sentences than their white counterparts in some jurisdictions.” (American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, 2014, p. 1) “Sentences that are given to African Americans in the federal system are 20% longer than those imposed on white males convicted of similar crimes.” (Saris, William, Ketanji, 2015)

Literature Review on Race and Adjudication “The Society for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency established the New York House of Refuge to house juvenile delinquents in 1825.” (American Bar Association n,d. pg. 2) “Cases were treated as civil (noncriminal) actions, and the ultimate goal was to guide a juvenile offender towards a life as a responsible, law-abiding adult.” (American Bar Association, n.d., pg. 3)

Literature Review on Race and Adjudication One study suggested that race does indeed play a role in how a juvenile is punished. “1 out of every 8 African-American youth who are convicted of killing someone will be sentenced to life without parole; however, this is only the case for 1 out of every 13 white youth convicted of murder.” (Human Rights Watch & Amnesty International., 2005) “45% of all incarcerated youth are African-American, 30% are White and one-quarter (25%) are Hispanic.” (West, H.C. & Sabol, W.J., 2009)

Literature Review on Race and Adjudication “In criminal courts in these 40 counties, juveniles (64%) were more likely than adults (24%) to be charged with a violent felony. This change in mindset has resulted in juveniles being treated worse than adults regarding sentencing.” (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2016) “These juvenile defendants were generally treated as serious offenders, as 52% did not receive pretrial release, 63% were convicted of a felony, and 43% of those convicted received a prison sentence.” (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2016). In these 40 counties, 62% of the juvenile felony defendants were African- American, 20% were White, 16% were Hispanic, and almost 2% were of another race.”

Court Case Impact In Kent v. United States (1966), for example, Morris Kent was charged with rape and robbery. This delinquency case was transferred to an adult criminal court in order to prosecute Morris Kent as an adult defendant. Such a change ultimately resulted in a harsher punishment for Kent. The main focus of the judicial system in this court case was not rehabilitation but rather punishment.

Theoretical Foundation Labeling Theory Accountability (race) Labeling juveniles as adults Holding juveniles accountable for their actions Holding minorities more accountable then whites Getting tough on crime Labeling juveniles as criminals Seeing juveniles as criminals not children Focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation “Indeed, the relationship between self-identification as deviant and actual deviant behavior cannot be overlooked. However, it is possible that the relationship between identity and behavior is mediated by social influences.” (Chiricos, Barrick and Bales 2007)

Methodology Research Design: Retrospective Lynchburg Regional Juvenile Detention Center from the years 2010 and 2015 Variables measured: age, sex, race, offense, judge order and adjudication of juvenile Sample: over 600 Juveniles from LRJDC in 2010 and 2015 T-Test and Chi-Square were used to determine whether there was significant difference among juvenile adjudication based on sex, race, location, offense, judge order and age.

Demographics of Sex and Race Variable Number (2010) Percent (2010) Number (2015) Percent (2015) Sex: Male 302 76.5 206 78.0 Female 93 23.5 58 22.0 Race: White 199 50.4 115 43.6 Black 181 45.8 133 Other 15 3.7 16 6.0

Demographics of Location Variable Number (2010) Percent (2010) Number (2015) Percent (2015) Location: Amherst County 48 12.2 38 14.4 Appomattox County 19 4.8 24 9.1 Bedford 2 0.51 Bedford County 93 23.5 51 19.3 Campbell County 63 15.9 29 11.0 Charlotte County 12 3.0 14 5.3 Lynchburg 147 37.2 97 36.7 Nelson County 9 2.3 3.4 Roanoke County 1 0.25 Smyth County Prince William County 0.76

Demographics of Age and Judge Order Variable Number (2010) Percent (2010) Number (2015) Percent (2015) Age: 11-14 354 89.6 32 12.1 15-18 41 10.4 232 87.88 Judge Order: Yes 207 52.41 96 36.36 No 188 47.59 168 63.63

Demographics of Adjudication Variable Number (2010) Percent (2010) Number (2015) Percent (2015) Detention Status: Pre-Dispositional 198 50.1 174 65.91 Post-Dispositional (No Program) 144 36.5 69 26.13 (Program) 17 4.30 15 5.68 Committed State 26 6.58 5 1.89 Transferred to Circuit Court 4 1.01 1 0.38 Removed from Post-Dispositional 2 0.51 Awaiting Placement

Demographic Characteristics of Juvenile’s Race Compared to Offense (2010 vs. 2015) Variable Nonviolent (2010) Percent Violent Race: White 139 70.9 57 29.1 Black 115 64.6 63 35.4 Other 10 71.4 4 28.6 Variable Nonviolent (2015) Percent Violent Race: White 78 69.0 35 31.0 Black 82 62.1 50 37.9 Other 15 93.8 1 6.2

Demographic Characteristics of Juvenile’s Race Compared to Detention Status (Adjudication) (2010 vs. 2015) Variable Less Harsh (2010) Percent Harsh (2010) Race: White 170 85.4 29 14.6 Black 165 91.2 16 8.8 Other 13 86.7 2 13.3 Variable Less Harsh (2015) Percent Harsh (2015) Race White 104 90.4 11 9.6 Black 124 93.2 9 6.8 Other 15 93.8 1 6.2

Chi-Square Results for Difference in Year (n=659) Variable Chi-Square P-Value Sex .222 .637 Race 2.950 .086 Location .015 .902 Offense .095 .758 Judge order 16.394 .000

T-test Results for Difference in Age (2010 vs. 2015) (n=659) Variable T-statistic P-value Age 2.057 .040

Results No significant difference in _____ by year Sex Race Location Judge Order (2015) 63% of juveniles did not get a judge order Age (2010) 89% of the population was ages 11-14 (2015) 87% of the juvenile population were ages 15-18

Limitations Retrospective data Limited years Data from only one juvenile detention center Not much data on minorities other than blacks No data on whether the juvenile reoffended No data on if the juveniles have multiple offense

Conclusion Race did not seem to play a factor in whether a juvenile in LRJDC received a harsher punishment. However, there seemed to be a difference in age, judge order by year. Recommendation More years than 2010 and 2015 Attempt to determine if juvenile adjudication is based on offense rather than race See how many times a juvenile must offend to be sent to the adult criminal justice system

Questions?