Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Access Criminology and Criminal Justice journals now

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Criminal Justice Review
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Greene, E.
Right arrow Articles by Weber, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Teen Court Jurors' Sentencing Decisions

Edith Greene

University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, egreene{at}uccs.edu

Kasey Weber

Colorado Department of Corrections

Teen Courts provide a forum in which juvenile offenders are sentenced by their peers. This system, based on principles of restorative justice, serves as an alternative to the traditional juvenile justice system. Sentencing options typically include restitution, community service, jury duty, apologies, attendance at educational workshops, and tours of correctional facilities. Previous research has examined the effectiveness of Teen Courts but little is known about how sentencing decisions are made. The purpose of this study was to assess how adolescent jurors make such decisions in one Teen Court program. The authors observe 32 Teen Court trials and deliberations and question 98 adolescent jurors about their sentencing choices. Results show that the deliberations are fairly cursory and that jurors have poor recollections of what evidence had been presented. Still, they put more weight on evidentiary information than on extralegal factors, and were motivated by a desire to rehabilitate offenders and set them on a socially acceptable path—goals consistent with restorative justice objectives on which Teen Court programs are based.

Key Words: juvenile justice • teen court • sentencing

Criminal Justice Review, Vol. 33, No. 3, 361-378 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0734016808320339
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?