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

2. 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.

3. 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)

4. 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)

5. 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)

6. 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.”

7. 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.

8. 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)

9. Methodology Research Design: Retrospective
Lynchburg Regional Juvenile Detention Center from the years 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.

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. Questions?