International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyJuvenile Offenders’ Perceptions

Youth Court Dispositions: Perceptionsof Canadian Juvenile Offenders

Michele Peterson-BadaliMartin D. RuckChristopher J. Koegl

Abstract: In North America, the approach to youth crime and juvenile offenders has becomeincreasingly punitive, and deterrence is seen as a significant goal of sentencing. Young peo-ple’s views about their sentences can provide insight into the meaning of these experiences andtheir perceived connection to offending behavior. The authors interviewed 53 young maleoffenders about their perceptions of youth court dispositions and explored what offender,offense, and disposition characteristics predicted their beliefs about the specific and generaldeterrent value of their sentences. Juveniles varied in their perceptions about their sentencesas deterrents, but the characteristics examined did not adequately account for this variation.Their perceptions reflected multiple approaches to achieving deterrence, including not onlythe get-tough focus on dispositions as punishments but the role that sentences play in helpingyoung offenders achieve personal change. Implications of the findings for the get-toughapproach to youth justice and study limitations are discussed.

There is a great deal of concern regarding the effectiveness of youth court disposi-tions in Canada (Doob & Beaulieu, 1992) and the United States (Snyder &Sickmund, 1995). Juvenile court sentences are perceived by the public as toolenient and a contributing factor to youth crime (Abramovitch, Peterson-Badali,Delmedico, & Freedman, 1997; Corrado & Markwart, 1992; Doob, Sprott,Marinos, & Varma, 1998; Hartnagel & Baron, 1995; Sprott, 1996). In part, this isbecause alternatives to imprisonment (e.g., probation and community serviceorders) are seen as ineffective (Sprott, 1998). In response, sentences for youngpeople have become increasingly harsh over the past two decades, both within thejuvenile justice system and as a result of increasing rates of transfer to adult crimi-nal court (Snyder & Sickmund, 1995; Torbet, 1997). In Canada, punishment foreven nonviolent offenses has become more severe in recent years (Doob & Meen,1993; Markwart, 1992), and there has been a trend toward increased use of custo-dial sentences (Doob, 1992). An analysis of the use of custody dispositions byCanadian youth court judges suggested that rather than being offense based,judges’ “main concern in this decision was protection of society through controlor deterrence [italics added]” (Carrington & Moyer, 1995, p. 155). Similarly,Snyder and Sickmund (1995) noted that, in increasing punitive approachestoward juvenile offenders in the United States, the juvenile codes of many statesexplicitly mention “effective deterrence” among their goals.

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45(5), 2001 593-605

2001 Sage Publications

593

In contrast to the substantial public outcry for stiffer sentences and the appar-ent use of dispositions for the purpose of crime control, the available research sug-gests that harsher sentences (Bala, 1994; Doob, Marinos, & Varma, 1995) andtransfers to adult court (Bishop, 2000; Redding, 1999) do not serve as deterrentsfor young people. One analysis of this apparent contradiction argues that promot-ing sentencing as a deterrent assumes a rational choice model of decision makingabout engaging in criminal behavior (i.e., that young people will weigh the short-term and long-term risks and benefits of different choices before acting) but thatthe behavior of young people is not consistent with this model (Doob et al., 1995;Steinberg & Cauffman, 1996). The deterrence model also assumes that sentencesare perceived as sufficiently aversive that, should offenders take the time to reflectwhen making choices about criminal behavior, this cost-benefit calculus willfunction to decrease the likelihood that, the behavior will occur. This suggests thatthe effect of a young offender’s sentence on future criminal behavior depends onthe meaning he or she attaches to the experience as well as the availability of thatappraisal at the time that choices about engaging in criminal behavior are made.

An examination of how juvenile offenders perceive their sentences can add toour understanding of the functions that these dispositions serve in their lives andthe extent to which they are perceived to fulfill the goals discussed earlier, that is,crime control through deterrence. The value of this information is not based on thebelief that juveniles can somehow provide us with definitive answers about how,why, and when sentences actually function to prevent reoffending. Rather, weargue that as consumers of these dispositions, young people can provide us withinsight into how the sentences are evaluated and interpreted in relation to theirbehavior. Such information may be useful to those working directly with juvenilesin the context of dispositions (e.g., probation officers, youth workers, and coun-selors) and can also serve as a comparison point for public (e.g., media) portrayalsof young offenders.

However, there is a paucity of research reporting on juvenile offenders’ per-ceptions about dispositions. Heurter and Saltzman (1992) interviewed 24 juve-niles about their experience with the Colorado youth justice system, includingtheir views of probation. Whereas more than half of those with probation experi-ence commented that they had had a helpful probation officer, the majority indi-cated that the experience had resulted in no changes in their behavior or that theirbehavior had actually become worse. In a qualitative study of 5 first- or second-time young offenders in group homes and detention centers in Hong Kong, Chui(1999) found that respondents believed the treatment-oriented programs woulddeter them from reoffending and none had been reconvicted at the time of theinterviews (which ranged from less than 9 months to more than a yearpostrelease). Another study (Fowler, Bray, & Hollin, 1992) used four hypotheticalcase scenarios to compare the perceptions of youthful sex offenders and non-sexoffenders with respect to the causes of the offending behavior and recommendeddispositions. Results indicated that the sex offenders were found to be more treat-ment oriented in their preferred means of disposition than were non-sex offenders,

594 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

although the groups did not differ in terms of their explanations for the offendingbehavior. The study did not address the issue of perceived effectiveness of dispo-sitions in preventing offending.

The goal of the present study was to examine young offenders’ perceptions andexperiences relating to their youth court dispositions and to explore what factorspredict their views about the deterrent value of sentencing. We analyzed a numberof demographic (age and race/ethnicity) and offense (previous contact with theyouth justice system, offense type, and offense severity) variables in relation tojuvenile offenders’ perceptions of their current sentence. For the purposes of thisstudy, two groups of young male offenders were interviewed about their experi-ences and perceptions of their most recent youth court disposition, one serving asupervised term of probation and the second serving a custodial disposition in agroup home. Sampling young offenders from these locations was designed toyield a sufficiently varied sample in terms of the demographic and offense vari-ables outlined earlier.

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

Fifty-three young male offenders from Toronto, Canada, ranging in age from13 to 17 (M = 15.3) participated in the study. Of the participants, 55% were White,28% Black, 7% Asian, 4% Hispanic, and 6% from other racial/ethnic groups.Twenty-one participants (40%) were classified as novices to the system in thatthey had no previous convictions and were serving their first disposition. Theremaining 32 (60%) repeat offenders had 1 to 12 previous convictions (M = 2.4),although half had either one or two priors. Participants had been convicted of arange of offenses from minor thefts to armed robbery.

Participants who were recruited at the probation office were serving termsranging from 6 months to 2 years, with most also serving a community serviceorder ranging from 25 to 225 hours. Participants recruited from the open-custodyfacility were serving dispositions ranging from 2 to 8 months, although some mayhave spent longer in open custody as a result of pretrial detention. Not surpris-ingly, the vast majority of novices were serving probation dispositions (81%),whereas 75% of the repeat offenders were serving open-custody dispositions,χ2(1) = 15.9, p < .0001. This was the only characteristic on which these groupsdiffered.

PROCEDURE

Participants serving probation dispositions were recruited with the coopera-tion of probation officers who informed their clients that a study was taking placeon young people’s knowledge and perceptions of the youth justice system. The

Juvenile Offenders’ Perceptions 595

names of individuals interested in taking part in the study were referred to aresearch assistant, who obtained consent and arranged interviews. Participantsserving open-custody dispositions were approached directly with the cooperationof staff members and management at a group home facility. For both groups, par-ent or guardian consent and respondent assent was obtained for participants youn-ger than the age of 16, whereas participants older than 16 consented on their ownbehalf. Because participants were actively involved in treatment at the time of theinterview, at the discretion of the staff members, we did not interview juvenileswhose participation would have compromised their treatment or supervision. Wealso did not interview those with pronounced cognitive deficits or those whowould pose a potential safety risk to the interviewer. For this reason, exact refusalrates are not known, although periodic discussions with staff members leave usconfident that attrition rates at the two locations were very low.

MATERIALS

Respondents’ perceptions of their sentences were assessed through asemistructured interview consisting of questions assessing perceptions of theirmost recent crime(s) and corresponding youth court sentence. Assessment of par-ticipants’ beliefs about their crime and sentence included questions about gettingcaught by the police (whether they thought they would get caught and why/whynot and what they thought would happen to them if they did get caught), whethertheir sentence was what they expected, and whether their sentence was what theydeserved. Participants also responded to questions about specific and generaldeterrence, including whether their sentence would serve to deter them fromreoffending and why/why not; what the judge should have given them to ensurethat they did not reoffend (specific deterrence); and whether their sentence woulddeter their friends from committing the same offense (general deterrence).

CODING AND DATA ANALYSIS

Responses to a number of the questions were dichotomous. Four open-endedquestions were coded according to content themes and are described in theResults section. Intercoder percentage agreement, calculated on all cases, rangedfrom 74% to 91%, with a mean of 81%.

Logistic regression was used to examine which offender and offense character-istics predicted participants’ views about whether their sentences would act as aspecific deterrent and a general deterrent. Offender characteristics weredichotomized to include age (younger than 16 vs. 16 and older) and race (Whitevs. visible minority). Offense characteristics were dichotomized to include previ-ous convictions (novice vs. repeat offender), offense type (property vs. person),offense severity (low vs. high), and current disposition type (probation vs. cus-tody). Because the previous convictions and disposition type variables werehighly related, these predictors were not included together in the same regression

596 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

analysis. Two parallel analyses were run, one including the previous convictionsvariable together with the other offender and offense predictors and the otherincluding disposition type along with the same variables.

Chi-square tests (corrected for continuity where appropriate) were used toexamine the offender and offense variables described earlier in relation to partici-pants’ beliefs about getting caught, whether their sentence was what theyexpected and deserved, and what sentences they would recommend to ensure spe-cific deterrence. Due to the number of tests performed, the significance cutoff forthe chi-square analyses was set at p = .01.

RESULTS

With respect to juvenile offenders’ beliefs about their crime and sentence, thevast majority of respondents did not believe that they would be caught committingthe offense for which they had been sentenced (see Table 1). When those who didnot believe they would be caught were asked to explain their belief, the largestproportion indicated that they did not consider their behavior to be a crime or to beof a serious enough nature to warrant apprehension (e.g., fights, self-defense, andconsensual sex). Others referred to the degree of planning that had been involvedin the offense events not going according to expectation, the absence of incrimi-nating evidence, or the low probability of being caught based on previous experi-ence. Fifteen percent of participants indicated that they did not even considerwhether they would be caught (see Table 1). Responses did not differ according todemographic or offense characteristics.

Participants were also asked to report what they thought was going to happen ifthey got caught. As Table 1 shows, they mentioned outcomes ranging from nosanctions through probation and arrest/incarceration. Repeat offenders (56%)were more likely than novices (19%) to state that they would be arrested or placedinto custody if they were caught, χ2(1) = 5.8, p = .016.

With respect to beliefs about the sentence, only a small minority of respon-dents indicated that their sentence was more lenient than they expected (19%) ordeserved (14%). None of the belief variables differed according to the demo-graphic or offense characteristics, including the type of disposition being served(i.e., probation vs. custody) (see Table 1).

PREDICTING PERCEPTIONS OF DETERRENCE

When asked whether their sentence would prevent them from reoffending(specific deterrence), 58% of participants responded that it would, whereas 42%stated that it would not. The logistic regression with age, race, previous convic-tions, offense type, and offense severity as predictors resulted in a nonsignificantmodel, χ2(5) = 6.0, p = .30, and none of the variables within the model reached sig-nificance. Similar results were obtained when disposition type (probation vs. cus-

Juvenile Offenders’ Perceptions 597

tody) replaced previous convictions as a predictor. When participants were askedif their sentence would serve to deter their friends from committing the sameoffense (general deterrence), 34% responded yes or maybe, whereas 66% statedthat it would not. Logistic regressions, paralleling those described earlier for spe-cific deterrence, failed to produce a significant model, and none of the predictorswere significantly related to participants’ opinions about the general deterrentvalue of their disposition.

When participants were asked what the judge should have done to ensure spe-cific deterrence, responses included both probation and custody, and some partici-pants expressed the view that there is nothing the system can do to prevent themfrom reoffending (see Table 2). Suggested deterrents differed according to partici-pants’ previous experience with the youth justice system, χ2(4) = 14.8, p < .01. AsTable 2 shows, novices were equally likely to state that probation or custody

598 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

TABLE 1JUVENILE OFFENDERS’ BELIEFS ABOUT

THEIR OFFENSE AND SENTENCE

Belief n %

Did you think you would get caught? (n = 53)Yes 5 9No 48 91

Why did you think you would not get caught? (n = 48)Planning 8 17Evidence 5 10Probability 4 8Not serious/not a crime 12 25Did not even think about it 7 15Vague (“get away with it”) 7 15Other 5 10

What would happen if caught? (n = 53)Arrested/incarcerated 22 41Probation/community service 7 13Nothing 11 21Did not think about getting caught 11 21Don’t know/other 2 4

Sentence what you expected? (n = 47)Harsher than expected 9 11Same as expected 33 70More lenient than expected 5 19

Sentence what you deserved? (n = 50)Harsher than deserved 12 24Same as deserved 31 62More lenient than deserved 7 14

would deter them. In contrast, none of the repeat offenders suggested probation asa deterrent, and a majority stated that custody would deter them. Furthermore,repeat offenders were more likely than novices to say that no sentence acts as aneffective deterrent.

We were also interested in the reasons participants provided as to whether thesentence would deter them from reoffending. Not surprisingly, there was littleoverlap in the kinds of reasons given by respondents who indicated that their sen-tence would deter them and those who believed it would not (see Table 2). Of theformer group, both aversive qualities (e.g., loss of freedom and strict rules) andpositive aspects (i.e., support for personal change) of the sentences were men-tioned by participants. In the latter group, the most common responses were thattheir sentence was “ineffective” (e.g., not aversive enough and failed to focus on

Juvenile Offenders’ Perceptions 599

TABLE 2JUVENILE OFFENDERS’ ATTITUDES

REGARDING THEIR SENTENCES AS DETERRENTS

Group

Novice Repeat Offender Total

n % n % n %

What should the judge give to ensurespecific deterrence? (n = 53)

Social intervention 1 5 1 3 2 4Probation 8 38 0 0 8 15Custody 8 38 20 63 28 53Nothing 2 10 6 19 8 15Other 2 10 5 16 7 13

Belief About Deterrent Value of Sentence

Will Deter Will Not Deter Total

n % n % n %

Why will your sentence work/notwork to ensure specific deterrence?(n = 50)

Disposition aversive/punitive 14 50 0 0 14 28Disposition supports personal change 11 39 0 0 11 22Disposition ineffective 0 0 6 27 6 12Arrest/court process aversive 3 11 1 5 4 8Change is up to the individual 0 0 3 14 6 12“Like home” 0 0 3 14 3 6Other 0 0 3 14 0 6

relevant issues) or that either they or their environmental context had not changedso their behavior was unlikely to change. Several participants stated that only theycould choose whether or not to reoffend and did not relate their disposition to thischoice process. Interestingly, several respondents (all from open-custody facili-ties) mentioned that their disposition was “like home.”

Responses also varied according to whether participants were serving proba-tion or custody sentences, χ2(6) = 21.6, p = .001. Although both custody and pro-bation respondents mentioned aversive and rehabilitative aspects of the sentencesin relation to deterrence, only the probation group complained that their disposi-tion was ineffective or mentioned the arrest/court process itself was a disincentivefor future offending. Responses did not vary as a function of the other demo-graphic or offense variables.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of the present study was to explore (a) young offenders’ percep-tions of their juvenile court sentences, including their views on the effectivenesstheir dispositions in achieving the goals of specific and general deterrence, and(b) what offender and offense variables predict these views. In the following para-graphs, we interpret our findings in relation to the rationale underlying the currentget-tough approach to youth crime, discuss the implications and limitations of thestudy, and suggest directions for future research.

When asked to judge whether their sentence was what they expected anddeserved, most participants indicated that it was an appropriate societal responseto their actions. During the course of the interviews, it became clear that offenderswere not happy having to serve a disposition although most said that it was “fair”that they had to do so. Due to the fact that so few participants indicated that theyreceived a more lenient sentence than they either expected or deserved, we wereunable to test the relationship between perceptions about the harshness of theirsentence and beliefs about its deterrent value. It would be interesting to explorethis relationship in future research. It is important to note, however, that the resultsfrom this study are inconsistent with the media-fuelled perception that young peo-ple perceive their sentences as a slap on the wrist (and therefore of no deterrentvalue) as most offenders stated that their disposition was unpleasant and what theydeserved in light of their actions.

For a sentence to function as a deterrent, an individual must be aware of thepossibility of getting a particular disposition for a given crime. This informationenters into the cost-benefit calculus only if the individual is aware that what he orshe is doing is against the law and believes that there is some likelihood of beingcaught. More than half of the participants did indicate that some form of criminalsanction would follow if they were caught, and experience seems to have played arole in this as repeat offenders were much more likely than novices to state thatcharges and/or incarceration would be likely consequences. However, all but 3

600 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

participants stated that they did not believe they would be caught for committingthe offense for which they had been sentenced. Furthermore, in justifying theirresponse, 40% indicated that they either did not think that what they were doingwas serious enough to warrant police intervention or failed to even consider thepossibility of getting caught. Taken together, these findings suggest that theassumptions underlying the deterrence model of sentencing need to be ques-tioned.

What did juvenile offenders themselves say about the deterrent value of theirsentences? Only half of the participants stated that their sentence would preventthem from reoffending, and even fewer believed that it would function to deterothers, suggesting a lack of widespread support for the effectiveness of deterrenceas a sentencing strategy. Furthermore, if juveniles accept the assumptions under-lying the get-tough approach, participants serving harsher sentences should bemore likely to indicate that their sentence will deter them than those serving morelenient sentences. However, beliefs about the deterrent value of their sentencesdid not vary according to the particular sentence being served or offenders’ priorexperience with the system.

Interestingly, participants with actual experience serving custody (most ofwhom were also repeat offenders) were more likely than those on probation toendorse incarceration as an effective deterrent. In contrast, probation participantswere equally likely to suggest probation or custody as effective deterrents. Thesefindings suggest that a number of juveniles do subscribe to the notion that sen-tences must be punitive to achieve deterrence and that those who have experi-enced harsher sentences such as custody no longer believe in the deterrent value ofless punitive dispositions (i.e., probation). However, this discussion is furthercomplicated by the fact that twice as many repeat offenders explicitly stated thatno sentence would deter them from committing future crimes despite the fact thatmost of the participants portrayed their disposition as aversive or unpleasant.

The rationales underlying participants’ opinions of the deterrent value of theirsentences can shed some light on these findings as they reveal which aspects oftheir sentence were seen as important with respect to deterrence. Some partici-pants focused on the aversive qualities of their disposition when describing whytheir sentence would or would not deter them in future. Of these respondents,those who stated that their sentence would deter them argued that they did notwant to experience the loss of freedom, strict rules, and other punitive aspects oftheir sentence again (e.g., “because of all the time you have to do, wasting time,not being able to see family”), whereas those who did not believe their sentencewould serve as a deterrent argued that it was not aversive enough (e.g., reprobation—“It certainly wouldn’t stop me; you know they’re not going to putyou away”). These perceptions reflect a traditional behavioral approach that isconsistent with the get-tough philosophy that argues for harsher sentences as ameans of crime control.

Another group focused on personal choice and change in discussions of theirsentences in relation to deterrence. For these participants, it was not the aversive

Juvenile Offenders’ Perceptions 601

aspects of the sentence that were connected to their likelihood of reoffending buttheir own behavior and choices. Almost 40% of those who believed that their sen-tence would deter them from reoffending talked about personal changes that hadoccurred as a result of aspects of the disposition such as counseling, anger man-agement, and reflecting on their behavior and choices (e.g., “My anger is calmingdown—this place is teaching you responsibilities, giving you opportunities”).Many of the youth who said that their sentence would not prevent them fromengaging in future antisocial behavior also stressed the importance of personalfactors as critical in determining whether they would reoffend, but they eithermade no connection between these personal factors and their disposition (e.g., “Itdepends on you—if you don’t tell yourself not to do it again, you will”) or explic-itly stated that their sentence had not resulted in any personal changes (e.g., “Youdo your time but you’re the same old person, it doesn’t change you”). Theseresults are consistent with Heurter and Saltzman’s (1992) finding that a majorityof juveniles reporting about their probation experience indicated that their behav-ior had not changed as a result of their sentence.

Thus, both the rehabilitation philosophy that traditionally underpinnedresponses to youth crime in the juvenile justice system and the more recent get-tough approach were reflected in participants’ views about their sentences. Thesepositions were not tied uniquely to the type of disposition being served or towhether respondents had prior experience with the youth justice system. Theseresults suggest that deterrence should not be identified solely with punitivenessbut that juveniles’ responses reflect multiple approaches to achieving deterrence.It should be noted that although respondents chose to focus on particular aspectsof their sentences in response to our questions about deterrence, we did not sys-tematically explore their views about various facets of the dispositions (e.g., lossof freedom, rules, and change interventions) but simply asked about the sentenceas a package. It is very likely that perceptions of sentences vary as a function ofwhich components are present (or absent) in the disposition and that these may bemore important than the type of disposition being served in exploring how youngpeople make meaning of their experience. This should be explored in futureresearch.

None of the offense or offender variables predicted participants’ yes/noresponses regarding whether their sentence would deter them or deter others fromcommitting future offenses. In retrospect, it is not surprising that these “descrip-tive” variables do not capture variation in young people’s perceptions. It is likelyhow juveniles’ experiences are subjectively processed and interpreted that resultsin the meaning they attach to their sentence. Thus, a more fruitful approach mightbe to examine attitudes about the value of juveniles’ sentences as a function oftheir own perceptions of their offense, various aspects of the youth justice process,and specific components of their disposition.

In addition to those already discussed, several limitations to the study shouldbe noted. First, in discussing harshness of the dispositions, we assumed that the

602 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

custody sentence was harsher than probation. In the jurisdiction in which therespondents were sentenced, custody is typically given as a more punitiveresponse (often after the juvenile offender has returned into the system—perhapsseveral times—following dispositions such as probation). However, it would alsobe reasonable to consider length of disposition in relation to punitiveness, and thiswas not considered in the present study. As mentioned earlier, juveniles’ subjec-tive perceptions of the harshness of their disposition would also be important togather in future if we are interested in making connections between how theyexperience their disposition and its effectiveness as a deterrent. In addition, itwould be valuable to know whether the judges who sentenced our participantsintended their dispositions to serve a deterrent purpose. Judges impose sentencesfor many purposes, deterrence being only one possible factor, and although weexplored offenders’ opinions about the deterrent value of their sentences, we donot know whether deterrence was a goal in imposing them. Such an explorationwould require a prospective methodology in which participants are identifiedprior to sentencing and followed through their disposition. Views of judges at thetime of sentencing as well as those involved in implementing the youth’s sentence(e.g., probation officers, youth workers, and counselors) could be gathered alongwith those of the offenders themselves.

Several limitations common to retrospective self-report studies should also benoted. First, because all interviews were based on young offenders’ retrospectiveaccounts, anything the participants reported in terms of what they thought wouldhappen may be influenced by their knowledge of what actually happened. How-ever, the majority stated that they did not think they would be apprehended despitethe fact that they all were. In this case, their knowledge of what they thoughtwould happen does not seem to have been unduly influenced by what actuallytook place. A second limitation of the investigation concerns the credibility ofrespondents’ statements. Self-report data, as in the present study, are subject todistortions arising from factors such as impression management or deception(Hartmann, 1992). A variety of methodologies may be needed in the future toaccurately examine adolescent offenders’ views in this area. Third, whether theviews of the young offenders interviewed were representative of young offendersin general remains to be determined, and thus, caution must be used in generaliz-ing the findings to other populations of juveniles.

However, taken together, the results of this study cast doubt on the validity ofincreasing the punitiveness of sentences (within the youth justice system or viatransfer to adult court) to achieve deterrence. This is not to say that deterrenceshould not be a goal of sentencing. Rather, its application as a sentencing strategyshould be empirically informed. Although there is a growing body of literature onpredictors of recidivism, the role of the disposition experience in this regard needsto be further examined. Young offenders’ perceptions and experiences can pro-vide us with valuable information as we continue to explore this importantquestion.

Juvenile Offenders’ Perceptions 603

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The first author acknowledges the support of a grant from the Social Sciences and HumanitiesResearch Council of Canada. The authors would like to thank Jennifer Crosbie, Susan Elgie, AdaroseArdiel, David Day, Joanna Henderson, the Honourable Brian Weagant, Fran Cappe, and DeneseCoulbeck for their assistance with this study. Thanks also go to the lawyers, probation officers, andcourt personnel who assisted with the data collection process and all the participants who took part inthe study. Special thanks to Anthony Doob for all his advice and support.

REFERENCES

Abramovitch, R., Peterson-Badali, M., Delmedico, L., & Freedman, J. (1997, April). Youth sentenc-ing: More information may lead to less public dissatisfaction. Poster session presented at the bien-nial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Washington, DC.

Bala, N. (1994). What’s wrong with YOA bashing? What’s wrong with YOA?—Recognizing the lim-its of the law. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 36, 247-270.

Bishop, D. M. (2000). Juvenile offenders in the adult criminal justice system. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crimeand justice: A review of research (Vol. 27, pp. 81-168). Chicago: University of Chicago.

Carrington, P. J., & Moyer, S. (1995). Factors affecting custodial dispositions under the YoungOffenders Act. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 37, 127-162.

Chui, W. H. (1999). Residential treatment programs for young offenders in Hong Kong: A report.International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43, 308-321.

Corrado, R., & Markwart, A. (1992). The need to reform the YOA in response to violent offenders:Confusion, reality or myth? Canadian Journal of Criminology, 34, 343-348.

Doob, A. N. (1992). Trends in the use of custodial dispositions for young offenders. Ottawa: CanadianCentre for Justice Statistics.

Doob, A. N., & Beaulieu, L. A. (1992). Variation in the exercise of judicial discretion with youngoffenders. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 32, 35-50.

Doob, A. N., Marinos, V., & Varma, K. N. (1995). Youth crime and the youth justice system in Canada:A research perspective. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Centre of Criminology.

Doob, A. N., & Meen, J. N. (1993). An exploration of changes in dispositions for young offenders inCanada. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 35, 19-29.

Doob, A. N., Sprott, J., Marinos, V., & Varma, K. N. (1998). An exploration of Ontario residents’ viewsof crime and the criminal justice system. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Centre of Crimi-nology.

Fowler, R. S., Bray, D. G., & Hollin, C. R. (1992). Young offenders’ explanations of crime and pre-ferred method of disposition. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Crimi-nology, 36, 31-41.

Hartmann, D. (1992). Design, measurement and analysis: Technical issues in developmental research.In M. H. Bornstein & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental psychology: An advanced text (pp. 59-151). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hartnagel, T. F., & Baron, S. W. (1995). It’s time to get serious: Public attitudes towards juvenile jus-tice in Canada. In J. H. Creechan & R. A. Silverman (Eds.), Canadian delinquency (pp. 47-59).Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Heurter, R. M., & Saltzman, B. E. (1992). What do “they” think? The delinquency court process inColorado as viewed by youths. Denver University Law Review, 69, 345-358.

Markwart, A. (1992). Custodial sanctions under the Young Offenders Act. In R. Corrado, N. Bala,R. Linden, & M. LeBlanc (Eds.), Juvenile justice in Canada: A theoretical and analytical assess-ment (pp. 229-281). Newton, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

604 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

Redding, R. E. (1999). Juvenile offenders in criminal court and adult prison: Legal, psychological, andbehavioral outcomes. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 50, 1-20.

Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (1995). Juvenile offenders and victims: A national report. Washing-ton, DC: Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention.

Sprott, J. (1996). Understanding public views of youth crime and the youth justice system. CanadianJournal of Criminology, 38, 271-290.

Sprott, J. (1998). Understanding public opposition to a separate youth justice system. Crime andDelinquency, 44, 399-411.

Steinberg, L., & Cauffman, E. (1996). Maturity of judgment in adolescence: Psychosocial factors inadolescent decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 249-272.

Torbet, P. (1997). States respond to violent juvenile crime. National Center for Juvenile Justice inBrief, 1, 1.

Michele Peterson-Badali, Ph.D.Assistant ProfessorDepartment of Human Development and Applied PsychologyOntario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto252 Bloor Street West, 9th FloorToronto, OntarioCanada M5S 1V6

Martin D. Ruck, Ph.D.Assistant ProfessorThe Graduate CenterCity University of New York365 Fifth AvenueNew York, New York 10016-4309USA

Christopher J. Koegl, M.A.Researcher, Under 12 Outreach ProjectEarlscourt Child and Family Centre46 St. Clair GardensToronto, OntarioCanada M6E 3V4

Juvenile Offenders’ Perceptions 605