skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 186295 Find in a Library
Title: Penal Proportionality for the Young Offender: Notes on Immaturity, Capacity, and Diminished Responsibility (From Youth on Trial: A Developmental Perspective on Juvenile Justice, P 271-289, 2000, Thomas Grisso and Robert G. Schwartz, eds.)
Author(s): Franklin E. Zimring
Date Published: 2000
Page Count: 19
Sponsoring Agency: University of Chicago Press
Chicago, IL 60637-1496
Sale Source: University of Chicago Press
Publicity Director
5801 Ellis Avenue
4th Floor
Chicago, IL 60637-1496
United States of America
Type: Issue Overview
Format: Book (Hardbound)
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This chapter considers one set of subjective personal factors that influence the extent to which adolescent defendants deserve punishment for particular blameworthy acts.
Abstract: The author argues that even when a particular juvenile has the cognitive capacities and social controls necessary to be eligible for punishment, immaturity should continue to be a mitigating circumstance for some time. Part I of the chapter constructs mutually exclusive definitions of "capacity" and "diminished responsibility" to avoid a persistent confusion between threshold issues of capacity and issues regarding the proper level of punishment for an immature offender. Part II argues that juveniles courts in the United States have been a recognized part of a punishment system for at least a generation. Part III first distinguishes between two separate reasons for lesser punishment for the immature (penal proportionality and theories of youth as a protected and privileged status). The diminished-responsibility doctrine in penal theory is then developed at some length and contrasted with changes in adolescent punishment based on youth policy. Part IV addresses the relationship between assumptions about immaturity that animate various concepts of diminished responsibility and other legal doctrines that govern adolescence in modern industrial states. 1 figure and 13 references
Main Term(s): Juvenile sentencing
Index Term(s): Criminal responsibility; Diminished capacity defense; Juvenile processing; Sentencing factors; Youth development
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.