David L. Myers

LOW SELF-CONTROL, RATIONAL CHOICE, AND STUDENT TEST CHEATING

Using scenario-based survey data from a sample of 330 university students, this study examined the effects of low self-control, rational choice variables, and control measures on intentions to cheat on a college exam. A moderate bivariate association was observed between low self-control and cheating intentions. However, a series of multivariate regression equations showed that low selfcontrol did not have a significant effect on intentions to cheat once the influence of other variables, especially anticipated shame, were controlled. Furthermore, findings supported the rational choice framework in explaining student decisions to cheat. Implications regarding these findings are discussed.

The Recidivism of Violent Youths in Juvenile and Adult Court A Consideration of Selection Bias

Contemporary research suggests that increased efforts to transfer juveniles to the adult criminal justice system may backfire because waived youths generally exhibit greater recidivism as compared to similar offenders retained in juvenile court. One concern with this research is the possibility of selection bias, meaning that the findings could be explained as merely a simple consequence of the highest risk youth being transferred. This study examined this issue for 494 violent youths from Pennsylvania, of which 79 were waived to adult court and 415 were retained in juvenile court. The likelihood, seriousness, and timing of their recidivism were analyzed, with a statistical control for selection bias included. The findings still suggest heightened recidivism among the transferred youths.

Adult Crime, Adult Time Punishing Violent Youth in the Adult Criminal Justice System

Contemporary concerns about youth violence and related legislative reforms have resulted in greater numbers of adolescent offenders being handled in the adult criminal justice system. Although some past research suggests that juveniles transferred to adult court often receive somewhat lenient treatment, more recent studies focusing on violent youthful offenders have found the adult system to be more punitive in nature. This study examined this issue for 557 violent youth from Pennsylvania, of which 138 were judicially waived to adult court. Statistical analyses revealed that in terms of punishment certainty, severity, and swiftness, juveniles transferred to adult court were treated more harshly than were those retained in juvenile court, whereas juvenile court processing occurred much more quickly. Corresponding policy implications are discussed.

Juvenile Transfer and Deterrence: Reexamining the Effectiveness of a “Get-Tough” Policy

Although research has examined the effectiveness of juvenile transfer on recidivism, there has been a lack of research done in assessing how well juvenile waiver to adult court meets the criteria necessary for deterrence to occur (i.e., certainty, severity, and swiftness of punishment). The purpose of this study is to assess how well juvenile transfer meets these criteria, using data on 345 youths legislatively waived to adult court in Pennsylvania. The findings indicate that there is greater punishment severity in adult court, but there is no difference in punishment certainty between the two court systems. In addition, court processing occurred more quickly in juvenile court. In other words, only one element of deterrence theory is achieved with juvenile transfer. Implications for subsequent research and policy are discussed.

The Decertification of Transferred Youth: Examining the Determinants of Reverse Waiver

Much of the research on juvenile transfer to adult court examines the predictors of the waiver decision. Few studies, however, have focused on the determinants of decertification, a process whereby certain initially transferred youth are reverse waived to juvenile court. This study sought to examine this underresearched area by focusing specifically on the factors that predict decertification and utilizing quantitative data pertaining to 345 youth initially transferred to adult court in 1996 under Pennsylvanias law that automatically excludes certain youth from juvenile court jurisdiction. The findings indicated that legal factors are the strongest predictors of decertification. The need for further research and policy implications also are discussed.

Public Response to Prison Siting Perceptions of Impact on Crime and Safety

In recent decades, prison populations and prison construction both have increased dramatically bringing issues related to prison siting to the forefront. Although the Not in My Backyard (NIMBY) syndrome often is discussed in prison literature, relatively little empirical research has been devoted to this topic. Based on a survey of residents in a county in which construction of a new prison was just beginning, this article focuses on the perceived impact of the new prison on future crime and personal and community safety. Consistent with the literature, proximity to the prison and several demographic variables were significant predictors of perceptions of prison impact. However, concerns about prison visitors coming into the community had the strongest impact on these perceptions.

Community Member Reactions to Prison Siting: Perceptions of Prison Impact on Economic Factors

Recent increases in prison populations and growth in prison construction have brought issues related to prison siting to the forefront. Although the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) syndrome is often discussed in literature pertaining to prisons and community development, relatively little empirical research has been devoted to this topic. Based on a survey of residents of a county in which construction of a new prison was just beginning, this article focuses on the perceived impact of the new prison on future property values, the economy, and the cost of living. Consistent with the literature, proximity to the prison and several demographic variables were found to be significant predictors of perceptions of prison impact. However, concerns about prison visitors coming into the community and expectations about future crime and safety had the strongest impact on these perceptions.

Offender Reentry and Reintegration Policy and Research

During the past 40 years, at the same time that many new criminal justice system policies and programs emerged, our country greatly increased its reliance on incarceration as a major response to criminal offending. From 1973 to 2009, our nation’s prison population grew by more than 700%, resulting in more than 1 in 100 adults being placed behind bars (Pew Center on the States, 2011). The United States currently leads the world in incarceration rates, with more than 2.26 million adults confined in prisons and jails (Carter, Gibel, Giguere, & Stroker, 2007; Glaze, 2011). In addition to these incarceration figures, nearly 5 million criminal offenders are under some form of community corrections supervision in America (Glaze, 2011). About 500,000 of the 650,000 inmates released from prison each year are placed on parole, while the rest of the 5 million offenders who are under community supervision are serving sentences of probation. In combination with the 2 million-plus offenders who are incarcerated, the 7 million adults who form the total U.S. correctional population represent a tripling of the size of this group since 1980 (Carter et al., 2007). Not only have we incarcerated and supervised an ever-growing number of criminal offenders but we also know that a substantial portion of these individuals will be rearrested and often sent back to prison as repeat offenders. Adult recidivism data from the past 20 years suggest that about two thirds of all inmates released from prison are rearrested within 3 years for a new offense; almost half are reconvicted for a new crime; and about 45% are returned to prison (Langan & Levin, 2002; Pew Center on the States, 2011). In short, America currently faces a situation where ever-growing numbers of offenders are being processed in the criminal justice system, and they present a high likelihood of reoffending once they are returned to the community. Increasing offender populations and the strong threat of recidivism are alarming to many policy makers, practitioners, researchers, and citizens, but another important trend to consider is the rising economic costs associated with crime and delinquency in our country. Given the growth of offenders within the criminal justice system, it should come as no surprise that associated justice system costs and expenditures have surged dramatically as well.

Antecedents and Consequences of Juvenile Case Processing Where Are We Now, and Where Do We Go From Here?

Philosophical and practical changes in the juvenile justice system are influenced by, and have implications for, timely and quality juvenile case processing. Drawing on juvenile case-processing literature published from the late 1970s until present, the antecedents and consequences of juvenile case processing are discussed in an effort to draw attention to possible causal relationships. The authors argue that juvenile case-processing efficiency is, perhaps, one of the more pivotal issues facing juvenile justice today, and further empirical studies and scholarly dialogue on this issue are needed. The current state of knowledge concerning systemic, intra-agency, and interagency barriers to timely and quality juvenile case processing serves as a springboard for suggestive approaches to examining juvenile case processing from a more rigorous, comprehensive, and holistic perspective.

Practitioner Perceptions of Juvenile Transfer in Pennsylvania

Consistent with virtually all other states in the nation, in the mid-1990s legislation was enacted in Pennsylvania to address increasing concerns about serious and violent juvenile offending. This legislation included provisions for facilitating the transfer of violent juvenile offenders to adult criminal court. The current study examines contemporary practitioner perceptions of juvenile transfer to adult court, with regard to the number of juveniles transferred, the effectiveness of this practice, and the appropriate minimum age for transfer to occur. Utilizing statewide survey data, comparisons are made between juvenile court judges, probation officers, prosecutors, and public defenders, and other predictors are assessed. The findings indicate modest overall support for transferring juveniles to adult court, with various significant differences across practitioner groups. Policy implications are discussed.