Assessing the Youthful Offender

Author(s):  
Robert D. Hoge ◽  
D. A. Andrews
Keyword(s):  
NPPA Journal ◽  
1956 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 290-290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert H. Scott
Keyword(s):  

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 498-522
Author(s):  
Megan C Kurlychek

New York State is one of only two states in the nation that processes all 16- and 17-year-old defendants as adults. Contrary to this seemingly punitive stance, the state also maintains a Youthful Offender Statute that requires mitigated punishments for youths up to their 19th birthday upon court designation of youthful offender status. This study empirically examines the individual and combined impact of the social status of being a “minor” and the legally awarded status of being designated a youthful offender, upon adult court sentencing decisions framing the discussion within broader conceptualizations of youthfulness, culpability, and punishment. Utilizing a population of all youths ages 16–21 whose cases were disposed in New York between 2000 and 2006, this study finds the legally defined status of youthful offender to provide much greater mitigation at sentencing than the more general social status of being a minor. Findings are discussed as they relate to categorical and individualized assessments of culpability. In addition, as the study finds individualized assessments of culpability to be related to factors such as gender and race, broader implications for the role of court assigned statuses and mitigation of punishment are offered.


1978 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gideon Fishman

AbstractThis study investigates the legal status and treatment of the youthful offender in Israel. Due to a legal provision, in the case of the youthful offender, the court is required to receive a pre-sentencing report from a probation officer; however, there is no institutionalized indication as to how or to what degree the judges should follow the report. Our findings reveal that both judges and probation officers adhere to high professional standards and make their decisions according to the specific case brought in front of them, and that they are not affected by social class or ethnic stereotypes. In spite of a considerable correspondence between the recommendations made by the probation officers and the decisions made by the judges, one cannot avoid noticing also some discrepancy. This is attributed to the strong therapeutic values which characterize the probation officers' training and which are less evident among the judges. The consequences of this discrepancy are analysed and discussed and a few steps to narrow the gap are suggested.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document