Juvenile penalties for "lawyering up"

The role of counsel and extralegal case characteristics

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The presence of counsel for juveniles in the courtroom seems advantageous from a due process perspective, yet some studies suggest that juveniles receive harsher dispositions when represented by an attorney. This study tested whether a "counsel penalty" existed regardless of attorney type and, guided by prior sentencing literature, used a more comprehensive model to determine the influence of extralegal and contextual factors that may amplify the counsel penalty. Utilizing official data from a Northeastern state in a multilevel modeling strategy, this study found that regardless of the type of counsel retained, harsher sentences were received as compared with cases in which a juvenile was not represented by counsel even after controlling for offense type. Moreover, minority youth with public defenders and males with private counsel received harsher sentences while community characteristics did not appear to have a significant influence on sentencing decisions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)827-848
Number of pages22
JournalCrime and Delinquency
Volume57
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2011

Fingerprint

Lawyers
penalty
disposition
Civil Rights
minority
offense
community
literature

Keywords

  • attorney representation
  • juvenile detention
  • sentencing

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine
  • Law

Cite this

Juvenile penalties for "lawyering up" : The role of counsel and extralegal case characteristics. / Armstrong, Gaylene; Kim, Bitna.

In: Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 57, No. 6, 01.11.2011, p. 827-848.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{69fd6e2447374e99993515657f73c52d,
title = "Juvenile penalties for {"}lawyering up{"}: The role of counsel and extralegal case characteristics",
abstract = "The presence of counsel for juveniles in the courtroom seems advantageous from a due process perspective, yet some studies suggest that juveniles receive harsher dispositions when represented by an attorney. This study tested whether a {"}counsel penalty{"} existed regardless of attorney type and, guided by prior sentencing literature, used a more comprehensive model to determine the influence of extralegal and contextual factors that may amplify the counsel penalty. Utilizing official data from a Northeastern state in a multilevel modeling strategy, this study found that regardless of the type of counsel retained, harsher sentences were received as compared with cases in which a juvenile was not represented by counsel even after controlling for offense type. Moreover, minority youth with public defenders and males with private counsel received harsher sentences while community characteristics did not appear to have a significant influence on sentencing decisions.",
keywords = "attorney representation, juvenile detention, sentencing",
author = "Gaylene Armstrong and Bitna Kim",
year = "2011",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0011128711420101",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "57",
pages = "827--848",
journal = "Crime and Delinquency",
issn = "0011-1287",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Juvenile penalties for "lawyering up"

T2 - The role of counsel and extralegal case characteristics

AU - Armstrong, Gaylene

AU - Kim, Bitna

PY - 2011/11/1

Y1 - 2011/11/1

N2 - The presence of counsel for juveniles in the courtroom seems advantageous from a due process perspective, yet some studies suggest that juveniles receive harsher dispositions when represented by an attorney. This study tested whether a "counsel penalty" existed regardless of attorney type and, guided by prior sentencing literature, used a more comprehensive model to determine the influence of extralegal and contextual factors that may amplify the counsel penalty. Utilizing official data from a Northeastern state in a multilevel modeling strategy, this study found that regardless of the type of counsel retained, harsher sentences were received as compared with cases in which a juvenile was not represented by counsel even after controlling for offense type. Moreover, minority youth with public defenders and males with private counsel received harsher sentences while community characteristics did not appear to have a significant influence on sentencing decisions.

AB - The presence of counsel for juveniles in the courtroom seems advantageous from a due process perspective, yet some studies suggest that juveniles receive harsher dispositions when represented by an attorney. This study tested whether a "counsel penalty" existed regardless of attorney type and, guided by prior sentencing literature, used a more comprehensive model to determine the influence of extralegal and contextual factors that may amplify the counsel penalty. Utilizing official data from a Northeastern state in a multilevel modeling strategy, this study found that regardless of the type of counsel retained, harsher sentences were received as compared with cases in which a juvenile was not represented by counsel even after controlling for offense type. Moreover, minority youth with public defenders and males with private counsel received harsher sentences while community characteristics did not appear to have a significant influence on sentencing decisions.

KW - attorney representation

KW - juvenile detention

KW - sentencing

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80053937250&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80053937250&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0011128711420101

DO - 10.1177/0011128711420101

M3 - Article

VL - 57

SP - 827

EP - 848

JO - Crime and Delinquency

JF - Crime and Delinquency

SN - 0011-1287

IS - 6

ER -