Sentencing recommendations are insensitive to juvenile offender’s age and maturation

Abstract Research on perceptions of juvenile criminals has long sought to understand what drives punishment of juvenile. While some researchers argue that age influences the punishment of juvenile offenders, others argue that more severe crimes receive harsher punishments. However, in much past research, information about the juvenile and the details surrounding the crime have been manipulated, yielding inconsistent results. In this study, we manipulated age, maturity, crime severity, and offender characteristics and measured blame, sentencing recommendations, and likelihood of a guilty verdict. We expected more severe crimes would garner harsher judgments. We also expected information about the juvenile’s reasons for acting would influence judgments. Results indicate that crime severity explained the largest amount of variance in sentencing. However, age and maturity influenced judgments about blame and guilt. This study helps clarify the effects of age and maturity on punishment-related judgments by demonstrating that crime severity, rather than age, influences punishment of juvenile offenders.


Background
While it may seem intuitive that juvenile offenders receive more leniency in the juvenile justice system, previous research has actually reported mixed findings. The purpose of this research was to investigate whether characteristics of the juvenile offender, such as age, maturity, and background information, are as influential as the severity of the crime in blaming and punishing the juvenile.

Introduction
Juvenile offenders often experience tough sanctions and adult-like punishments (Austin, Johnson, & Gregoriou, 2000;Garberg & Libkuman, 2009) and may easily be transferred to adult court (Redding, 2008). While psychologists have been influential in limiting the punishments available to young offenders (e.g., Roper v. Simmons, Miller v. Alabama), what drives desires to punish juveniles is unclear. Some researchers suggest that age is influential in sentencing decisions, while others suggest that sentencing is driven by moral outrage (Darley, 2009) and the desire to deal harsh punishments to those who commit severe crimes (Carlsmith, Darley, & Robinson, 2002). Here, we argue that crime severity predicts severe punishments above age or perceptions of a juvenile's maturity.
A juvenile's age appears to influence judgments in court cases. However, across studies where age is manipulated, other case factors also vary, such as the severity and impulsivity of the crime, race, and other case details, resulting in inconsistent evidence across studies. For example, Bradley et al. (2012) used a short vignette about a juvenile who committed murder, reporting that perceived competency and responsibility diminished with younger offenders. Additionally, participants indicated that the judge should consider the offender's age in sentencing, but sentencing was not measured. Ghetti and Redlich (2001) manipulated crime severity, age, and the juvenile's impulsivity using short vignettes. They found that, while all factors contributed to perceptions of competency and responsibility, only crime severity influenced sentencing. Semple and Woody (2011) used a detailed case transcript describing a juvenile who committed murder, reporting that younger age reduced the likelihood of a guilty verdict, but not sentencing. Warling and Peterson-Badali (2003) also used detailed case notes describing a juvenile who committed murder, reporting that age reduced sentencing and perceived responsibility, but not guilty verdicts. Finally, another study (Scott, Reppucci, Antonishak, & DeGennaro, 2006) showed participants a video of a robbery and manipulated age via pictures, finding that younger offenders were punished less severely and were less likely to be transferred to adult court.
Overall, these studies seem to suggest that while age works to diminish punishment severity in some research, age appears to be less influential than crime severity. This is consistent with previous research showing that people experience intuitive, negative reactions to transgressions, which evoke a response of moral outrage (Darley, 2009). Therefore, it appears juveniles who commit severe crimes receive harsher punishments and are more likely to be transferred to adult courts than those who commit less severe crimes (Carlsmith et al., 2002;Garberg & Libkuman, 2009;Salekin, Rogers, & Ustad, 2001). What is unclear is whether psychosocial maturity attenuates this effect.
Information about a juvenile's maturity level is important because it may be used to justify transfer to adult court, though there are no studies examining the effect of adolescent maturity on punishment-related judgments for juveniles. Further, adolescent immaturity is a strong predictor of delinquent behavior (Modecki, 2008) and limits an adolescent's self-control and ability to consider the consequences of their behavior (Shulman & Cauffman, 2013)-capacities that are important in criminal court cases.
The amount and type of additional information provided about the juvenile is also important. Research on folk theories of behavior (Malle, 1999) suggests that perceivers piece together information about an actor in an effort to explain their reasons for acting. Specifically, perceivers may not have access to an actor's thoughts, so they use information about the actor's history, personality, and environment to explain others' behavior. Such information is what Malle, Knobe, and Nelson (2007) term a "causal history of reasons." Here, we sought to clarify the effects of age, maturity, crime severity, and reasons for acting on blame, guilt, and sentencing. We expected that crime severity would increase sentencing, but that younger age and immaturity would reduce blame and guilt. Following research on folk theories of behavior (Malle et al., 2007), we expected that causal history information could help perceivers explain the action and influence blame, guilt, and sentencing judgments. Here, we reasoned that certain characteristics about the juvenile would interact with crime severity to produce ostensible reasons for acting. For example, an abused child who damages his father's property should warrant less blame and punishment than a drug user who attacks his father. However, we made no specific predictions regarding interactions.

Materials and procedures
Participants were randomly assigned to one of 16 conditions in a 2(Age: 11 vs. 16) × 2(Severity: attempted murder vs. vandalism) × 2(Characteristic: narcotics user vs. abusive parents) × 2(Maturity: mature vs. immature) design. Participants read a scenario 1 about John G and imagined they were jurors in a case where he was charged with "attempted murder for shooting his father" or "property damage for smashing his father's car window." 2 To manipulate causal history information (i.e., Characteristics) about John, participants were told that he was a "narcotics user" or had "abusive parents." 3 Finally, we manipulated maturity by providing mock case notes from a clinician describing indicators of John's maturity or immaturity (Steinberg, 2009).
The order of dependent measures was randomized across participants. To create a blame scale (α = .89), we combined the two questions "How much blame does John deserve?" and "Is John responsible for his behavior?" Participants were also asked to indicate the likelihood of finding John guilty as well as the length of sentencing they would recommend. As a manipulation check of maturity, participants were asked, "How mature is John?" Scale anchors are provided in Tables 1-3. Finally, participants were asked to recall the crime committed and were excluded if the response was incorrect (e.g. killed someone, robbery).

Results
Each dependent measure was analyzed using a factorial ANOVA. Interaction effects were examined using simple effects analysis. Descriptive statistics for main effects are provided in Table 1, two-way interactions are shown in Table 2, and three-way interactions are shown in Table 3. A t-test indicated that the maturity manipulation was effective, t(455) = 25.55, p < .001, d = 2.40. Those in the immaturity condition believed the target was much less mature (M = 1.81, SD = 1.10) than those in the maturity condition (M = 4.89, SD = 1.44).

Blame
There were main effects of Age, F(1, 441)

Sentencing recommendations
Unlike guilt and blame ratings, sentencing recommendations were influenced primarily by the main effect of Crime Severity, F(1, 441)

Discussion
In this study, we found evidence that age, maturity, and offender characteristics were influential in blame, guilt, and sentencing. Consistent with some previous research (Bradley et al., 2012;Semple & Woody, 2011), age reduced guilty verdicts and blame. However, crime severity, rather than age, explained the greatest amount of variance in sentencing, which is consistent with research on emotional reactions to moral violations (e.g., Darley, 2009). We interpret these results to mean that punishment-related beliefs are driven largely by crime severity rather than by age or by an understanding of the relationship between adolescent immaturity. As expected, information about an adolescent's reasons for acting (i.e. causal history reasons; Malle et al., 2007) also influenced blame, guilt, and sentencing. Those who used narcotics were more likely to be blamed and found guilty, and were given longer sentences than those who had been abused. Importantly, while maturity affected blame judgments, there were no differences in judgments about guilt and sentencing as a result of maturity alone. Again, we interpret this finding to mean that perceptions and punishment of juvenile offenders are driven by the severity of the crime rather than by consideration of the age of the juvenile or an understanding of the relationship between immaturity and behavior.
Overall, the data suggest that perceivers use multiple cues when determining the culpability of juvenile offenders, as indicated by the interaction effects. For example, immaturity diminished blame and guilt for narcotics users but not for abused juveniles. Perhaps, immaturity signaled that the narcotics use and crime were less intentional, or both immaturity and narcotics usage are seen as biological factors limiting one's cognitive ability. Further, abused juveniles received shorter sentences than narcotics users for both mild and severe crimes, regardless of maturity level or age. This suggests that one's cognitive ability and character are more important than information about age and crime when attributing blame and guilt. Sentencing recommendations, however, relied mostly on crime severity and inferences about character rather than age or maturity. Perhaps narcotics abuse was perceived as a stronger predictor of future criminal behavior and garnered more severe punishment. Overall, the data suggest that while age and maturity may influence guilty verdicts, the desire to punish wrongdoers may remain strong, motivating perceivers to make judgments aligning with that desire. That is, regardless of the diminished blame attributed to younger offenders, punishment was dealt out to match the severity of the crime.
The current research was strengthened by our use of a community-based sample (AMT), which may provide more compelling evidence given that juries consist of community members rather than students (Weinberg et al., 2014). However, as with most attribution research, we used vignettes which limit ecological validity. While the information provided in our vignettes was limited, this research demonstrates the ease with which culpability judgments are made. For example, jurors in real-life cases may pick up on seemingly innocuous cues and use this information to form beliefs about character and motives, which may persevere despite other evidence.