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: 192953 Find in a Library
Title: Blended Sentencing in American Juvenile Courts (From The Changing Borders of Juvenile Justice: Transfer of Adolescents to the Criminal Court, P 145-180, 2000, Jeffrey Fagan and Franklin E. Zimring, eds. -- See NCJ-192949)
Author(s): Richard E. Redding; James C. Howell
Date Published: 2000
Page Count: 36
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: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Format: Book (Hardbound)
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This chapter discusses the variety of ways in which juvenile courts have been given expanded punishment powers in modes of "blended jurisdiction" and the justification that can be put forward for these hybrid systems.
Abstract: "Blended sentencing" allows juvenile courts to impose adult sentences or extend their sentencing jurisdiction into early adulthood. Blended sentencing laws typically cover the same class of serious or violent juvenile offenders as do their various transfer provisions; blended sentencing may remove transfer-eligible juveniles from the negative consequences of transfer to the "permanently disfiguring" criminal justice system. Blended sentencing also carries a number of possible disadvantages and challenges to the juvenile justice system, including the potential for widening the net of juvenile offenders at risk of receiving adult sanctions. After reviewing blended sentencing in the juvenile court and in the criminal court, this chapter considers blended sentencing in both courts in Colorado and Michigan. This is followed by a discussion of legal standards and procedures for blended sentencing in juvenile court and a legal analysis of blended sentencing laws. Other issues examined are the constitutionality of blended sentencing, the effects of blended sentencing laws, the effects of blended sentencing on the juvenile justice system, and preferred blended sentencing schemes. The authors recommend having blended sentencing in juvenile court rather than the criminal court. They argue that the best blended sentencing schemes maintain jurisdiction in the juvenile court, with the adult or extended juvenile sentence conditionally suspended provided the juvenile is successfully rehabilitated and does not commit a new offense. Further, under blended sentencing, the juvenile court judge should be vested with the decision-making authority about whether to transfer a juvenile to the criminal justice system. Finally, if blended sentencing systems are to serve as an alternative to transfer, then they should be structured to have maximum impact on habitual offenders, who are responsible for as much as 75 percent of the violent crimes committed by adolescents. 81 references and 38 notes
Main Term(s): Juvenile court waiver
Index Term(s): Juvenile court jurisdiction; Juvenile court procedures; Juvenile court reform; Juvenile court trends; Juvenile courts; Juvenile sentencing; Serious juvenile offenders
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.