Perceptions of Juvenile Offender SES 1 RUNNING HEAD: Perceptions of Juvenile Offender SES Socioeconomic Status Affects Perceptions of Juvenile Defendants Tried in Adult Criminal Court

I investigated the influence of a juvenile defendant’s socioeconomic status (SES) on mock jurors’ perceptions of a juvenile tried in adult court. In line with the similarity-leniency hypothesis and stereotypes regarding the relationship between poverty and crime, I predicted that the low SES defendant would be found guilty more often and receive more punitive case judgments than a middle or high SES defendant. Many hypotheses were supported. Specifically, participants found the low SES defendant guilty more often than the middle/high SES defendant. Stereotypes about the criminality of low SES juvenile defendants, not a lack of perceived similarity, partially drove this effect. Explanations and implications are discussed. Perceptions of Juvenile Offender SES 5 Socioeconomic Status Affects Perceptions of Juvenile Defendants Tried in Adult Criminal Court Movements in state legislatures to try juveniles in adult court, instead of juvenile court, might have been spurred by a belief that the restorative nature of juvenile court is too often an illfitted punishment for severe juvenile crime (Bishop, 2000). Proponents of this legislative trend view transfers to adult court (which result in harsher punishments) as more proportionate to severe crime, more effective at facilitating deterrence, and more effective at incapacitating juvenile defendants (Bishop, 2000). These views are held despite various studies showing that juveniles tried in adult court receive harsher punishments than comparable juveniles tried in juvenile court as well as young adults tried for similar crimes in adult court (Kurlychek & Johnson, 2004). For instance, not only do juveniles receive harsher punishments in adult courts, but they also tend to receive harsher punishments than adults charged with a similar crime, perhaps because jurors are biased to assume that a juvenile transferred to adult court must be particularly deviant (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). Unfortunately, the severity of the punishment in adult court does not deter juvenile offenders from committing future crimes, nor does it deter juvenile crime in general (Rudman, Hartstone, Fagan, & Moore, 1986; Bishop, 2000). Instead, prosecution in the adult system may actually increase the likelihood that a juvenile will recidivate, as it can expose them to adult offenders, often chronic offenders, which may exacerbate future crime by teaching the juvenile new methods of committing crime (Bishop, 2000). Very little research has been done to examine how jurors perceive juvenile defendants (for a review, see Stevenson, Najdowski, Bottoms, & Haegerich, 2009). Existing research presents mixed results: In some studies, the public views juvenile defendants as committing Perceptions of Juvenile Offender SES 6 serious offenses who deserve severe punishments, while in others the public views juvenile defendants as less serious offenders who are capable of rehabilitation (Crosby, Britner, Jodl, & Portwood, 1995; Haegerich, 2002; Levesque, 1996; Moon, Sundt, Cullen, & Wright, 2000). Specifically, Moon et al. (2000) found that people still believe in “child saving” and think that rehabilitation should continue to be an integral part of the juvenile justice system. In contrast, Crosby et al. (1995) examined participants’ decision to execute a juvenile in a capital case based upon the juvenile’s age (10, 15, 16, or 19). A majority of participants voted to execute the defendant regardless of age, an indication that rehabilitation is not foremost in the minds of society. It is difficult to determine where the majority of society stands on how punitively juveniles should be treated within the criminal justice system. Differences in public opinion and mock juror sentencing may involve the consideration of extralegal—legally irrelevant—factors. Past research has also shown that extralegal factors, particularly race, influences jurors’ perceptions of juvenile offenders (Stevenson & Bottoms, 2009; Stevenson et al., 2009). Specifically, non-Black men, but not women, convicted a Black juvenile defendant are more often than a White juvenile defendant convicted of the same crime. Similarly, when the victim of a crime is White, non-Black jurors are more likely to treat the defendant harsher than if the victim is Black — this was true for men, but not for women (Stevenson & Bottoms, 2009). These studies show that race does affect how jurors perceive juvenile defendants, which illustrates that extra-legal factors play a role in the trials of juvenile defendants. No studies have examined the effect of socioeconomic status (SES) on the perceptions of juvenile defendants. Thus, this study explores the influence of an extralegal factor, specifically SES, on mock jurors’ perceptions of juveniles offenders tried in adult criminal court. Extra-legal Factors: Socioeconomic Status Perceptions of Juvenile Offender SES 7 To be judged by a fair and impartial jury of one’s peers is a right given to every citizen of the United States. During a trial, the jury is asked to listen to and weigh all legally relevant information given to them concerning the case for which they are judging. As a fair and impartial jury, they must only consider legally admissible matters (i.e., evidence presented in court, testimonies) when determining whether or not the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the crime for which they are accused. In a fair and impartial world, legally admissible factors would be the only considerations in jury deliberations; however, many studies have found that extralegal factors, which are legally irrelevant, play a significant role in how people choose to judge and sentence a defendant (for a review, see Devine et al., 2001). Just as juvenile defendant race (an extralegal factor) influences jurors’ perceptions of juvenile offenders (Stevenson et al., 2009; Stevenson & Bottoms, 2009), it is also possible that the socioeconomic status (SES) of the defendant influences jurors’ perceptions of juvenile offenders. Those who are from lower income areas, such as inner cities, are overrepresented in the jails and courts (Entner Wright, Caspi, Moffit, Miech & Silva 1999; Evans, 2004). Decreases in arrest rates of juveniles who move from neighborhoods that are low versus high in socioeconomic status suggest a recognizable influence of SES on crime (Ludwig, Duncan & Hirschfield, 2001). That is, when a family is given the opportunity to move from a high-poverty to a low-poverty area, juvenile arrests for violent crime diminish for the individual juvenile; however, when a family is moved from a low-poverty area to a high-poverty area, arrest rates for the individual juvenile increases (Ludwig, Duncan & Hirschfield, 2001). From 2007 to 2008 there has been an overall decrease in both violent and property crimes for juveniles; however, there have been significant increases in certain areas of crimes for juveniles under the age of 18. Most notably is the modest increase (as indexed by the Uniform Perceptions of Juvenile Offender SES 8 Crime Report) of juvenile arrests for robbery by 2.3%, representing 27% of all robberies occurring during the year (Uniform, 2008). Even though the overall trend for manslaughter/murder decreased by 5.1% in juveniles under the age of 18 from 2007-2008, there were still a higher percentage of juveniles arrested in cities (11%) than in suburban areas (8%) for non-negligent manslaughter/murder. A limitation of the UCR (Uniform Crime Report), however, is under-reporting of crimes committed, which may lead to an overrepresentation of criminals within the lower SES groups because they might be arrested more often than higher SES juveniles(Ruby & Brigham, 1996). Might the overrepresentation of lower income individuals in the prison system contribute to negative stereotypes about the criminality of low income individuals? Some research supports this possibility: On average, people view lower SES individuals, compared to middle or high SES individuals, as more blameworthy, guiltier, and more likely to fit the stereotype of the typical criminal (Mazzella & Feingold, 1994). Does the knowledge of a person’s SES then unfairly bias individuals toward a conviction? Unfortunately, there appears to be some evidence that the SES of a person is an influential extralegal factor in legal decisions. Juveniles who come from families that receive welfare assistance have been found to receive more severe dispositions in courts as compared to juveniles that do not receive welfare assistance, even when controlling for case severity and crime type (Armstrong & Rodriguez, 2005). Those juveniles who received a more severe disposition in juvenile court are more likely to be convicted and given a lengthier sentence, thus creating a disparity in the sentencing of juveniles based on their SES (Armstrong & Rodriguez, 2005). In 2002, the Federal Bureau of Prisons conducted their latest census of the prison inmates and trends. In terms of educational level (a factor many find imperative to identifying a person’s SES), 12.3% had an 8 grade education or less, 31.6% of inmates had Perceptions of Juvenile Offender SES 9 completed only some high school, 25.9% had a high school diploma, and only 2.9% had a college degree (Bureau, 2004). By looking at education level, it is easy to see that the lower the degree of education, the higher the representation in jails, which points to more people of low SES in jail than those of higher SES. The wages of prison inmates before incarceration indicates a disparity in economic status as well; 59.1% made less than $1,000 in the month before their arrest (if they worked full time their average per hour wage would be less than $6.25), 24.4% made between $1,000-$1,999, and 16.4% made $2,000 or more (Bureau, 2004). Currently there is no research that has directly explored the effects of SES on perceptions of juvenile offenders using a true experimental design. With no empirical research on this issue, it is imperative to explore the possibilities that juveniles of lower SES might receive longer sentences and more convictions than their higher SES counterparts. Two possible theoretical approaches might explain this disparity in sentencing. First, negative stereotypes about the criminality of low SES individuals might lead to discriminatory treatment within the justice system. Second, the perceived similarity many jurors have toward middle or high SES individuals might cause discriminatory treatment towards individuals of low SES, known as the similarity-leniency bias. Although no research has explored the effects of SES on juveniles, I will review research on the effects of SES on adult defendants. First, I review studies revealing a consistent bias against low SES adult criminals, followed by competing psychological theories explaining this bias (i.e., negative stereotypes vs. the similarity-leniency bias). Studies Illustrating Bias against Low SES Defendants in the Criminal Justice System Vignette Studies Exploring Effects of Adult Defendant SES Perceptions of Juvenile Offender SES 10 When the severity of a crime (armed robbery versus petty larceny) and the socioeconomic status of the defendant (determined by the defendant’s social class—low, middle, or high) were varied within a newspaper clipping vignette, the typicality of the offender was significantly associated with the defendant’s SES (Hoffman, 1981). The typicality of the offender was constituted by how closely the defendant resembled the typical criminal, on a scale from 0 (did not resemble the typical criminal at all) to 100 (the defendant exactly resembled the typical criminal). Participants also indicated that defendants of low SES were less physically attractive than defendants of high SES, despite no pictures being used to indicate any physical appearance. Thus the defendants of low SES were seen as being a more typical criminal and even less attractive due to their economic status and their physical attractiveness in instances of petty larceny and armed robbery (Hoffman, 1981). This presents evidence of the general bias, based upon criminal stereotypes, given towards low SES individuals in the justice system. Loeffler and Lawson (2002) varied whether a defendant was either 25 or 60 years-old and whether the defendant was a bank manager (high SES) or a convenience store clerk (low SES). The severity and type of crime—assault—was held constant. Participants rated the older defendant with a higher SES as having a brighter future than anyone else. Overall, the high SES defendants were rated as having a better potential future than the defendants of low SES. No effects SES were found regarding the sentence severity or the likelihood of the defendant to recidivate. Given that juries are to be impartial and fair, one would expect law enforcement officers to be the same way when they investigate crimes. Ruby and Brigham (1996) examined the differences between how law enforcement officers and students viewed defendants that were either White or Black and of either high or low SES. Each participant was given a vignette and a Perceptions of Juvenile Offender SES 11 dialogue that occurred between the defendant and another person. Within the dialogue was both exculpatory (the defendant complied with the police and his neighbor vouched for him) and incriminating (the defendant was nervous and had tools which closely resembled those used in the crime) information. Law enforcement officers paid less attention to exculpatory information and saw the defendant as more deceptive when he was Black as compared to when he was White. The students paid more attention to exculpatory evidence and were more likely to view the defendant more innocent of the crime than the law enforcement officers. Law enforcement officers also estimated that approximately 67% of burglars are from low SES; however, there were no significant effects of SES. If law enforcement officers are viewing criminals as being more commonly low SES, then it is possible that they will more often arrest a person that fit these characteristics, which then brings more defendants of low SES to the juries for deliberation. This could reinforce negative stereotypes of low SES criminals which are pervasive in people’s views of crime. Mock Jury Studies and Adult Defendant SES Mock jurors given information on the seriousness of a crime (premeditated or nonpremeditated murder) and the race (White or Black) and SES (Low or High) of the defendant were asked to give a sentence length for the defendant (Osborne & Rappaport, 1985). Those defendants labeled as being a janitor (low SES) received much longer sentences than the advertising executives (high SES), showing that again the lower the SES, the longer the sentence that is given. A defendant’s SES was the only variable that showed an effect, there was no effect