Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Access Criminology and Criminal Justice journals now

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Crime & Delinquency
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
Right arrow Citation Map
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fritsch, E. J.
Right arrow Articles by Hemmens, C.
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?

Spare the Needle but Not the Punishment: The Incarceration of Waived Youth in Texas Prisons

Eric J. Fritsch

Tory J. Caeti

Craig Hemmens

The primary purpose of judicial waiver is to impose more severe sanctions on offenders than are available in juvenile court. This article explores two dimensions of sanction severity, sentence length and actual time served, to determine if juveniles waived to adult court do receive more severe sanctions. Data were collected on all youth waived to adult court from 1981-1993 and sentenced to prison (n = 946). Juveniles in this population consistently received longer sentences than are available in juvenile court. When actual time served was taken into consideration, however, these youth rarely served more lengthy sentences than are available in juvenile court, serving an average of only 27% of their original sentence.

Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 42, No. 4, 593-609 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/0011128796042004006
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?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Crime DelinquencyHome page
B. K. Applegate, R. K. Davis, and F. T. Cullen
Reconsidering Child Saving: The Extent and Correlates of Public Support for Excluding Youths From the Juvenile Court
Crime Delinquency, January 1, 2009; 55(1): 51 - 77.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Youth Violence and Juvenile JusticeHome page
K. L. Jordan and D. L. Myers
The Decertification of Transferred Youth: Examining the Determinants of Reverse Waiver
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, April 1, 2007; 5(2): 188 - 206.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Criminal Justice ReviewHome page
A. Kupchik
The Decision to Incarcerate in Juvenile and Criminal Courts
Criminal Justice Review, December 1, 2006; 31(4): 309 - 336.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Youth Violence and Juvenile JusticeHome page
S. I. Singer
Incarcerating Juveniles Into Adulthood: Organizational Fields of Knowledge and the Back End of Waiver
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, April 1, 2003; 1(2): 115 - 127.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Crime DelinquencyHome page
D. P. Mears
Evaluation Issues Confronting Juvenile Justice Sentencing Reforms: A Case Study of Texas
Crime Delinquency, July 1, 1998; 44(3): 443 - 463.
[Abstract]