bishop - the myth that harsh punishments reduce juvenile crime

Section 3

Chapter 17The MythThat HarshPunishmentsReduce JuvenileCrimeDonna M. Bishop

Throughout most of its 100-year history,the juvenile court has been a child-centered institution with a mission to pro-tect and treat, rather than punish, youngoffenders. Cultural ideas about youth thatprevailed from the Progressive Era (latenineteenth to early twentieth century)until very recently evoked compassionateresponses to adolescents who committedcrimes or other forms of misbehavior. So-ciety has long embraced the notion thatadolescents are immature in their abilityto reason, to make judgments, and to fullyappreciate the consequences of their ac-tions. Emotionally and socially, they arealso immature: They lack the inner re-sources to cope well with stress and theyare especially vulnerable to peer pressure.Because of their immaturity, juvenile of-fenders have traditionally been viewed asundeserving of adult-type punishments(Zimring 1981, 1998a, 1998b; Forst andBlomquist 1991; Scott and Grisso 1997).

Adolescence is also a period of rapidchange, a time of transition from child-hood to adulthood when significant cog-nitive, emotional, and social development

takes place. During this period, youngpeople are especially malleable. Com-pared to adults, who are more or less fixedin their ways, young people are more re-ceptive to efforts to guide them in positivedirections (Scott and Grisso 1997).

These ideas about young people helpedto shape a specialized juvenile court. Priorto 1899, juveniles were tried in criminalcourts and subjected to the same punish-ments as adults. In that year, the juvenilecourt was created to stand as a bulwarkagainst subjecting youth to harsh sanc-tions and to provide them with programsand services that would help them makethe transition to lives as law-abiding andproductive adults.

This is not to suggest that the juvenilecourt’s humanitarian ideals have rou-tinely been realized in practice. Tools fordiagnosis and assessment have histori-cally been crude, and efforts to providegood interventions have often been mis-guided. For example, residential pro-grams have sometimes been so under-funded, understaffed, and overcrowdedthat little in the way of “treatment” couldbe provided. Deservedly, the juvenile jus-tice system has at times come under heavycriticism. At least until recently, however,criticism has most often led to reinvigo-rated efforts to achieve the system’s reha-bilitative mission (through innovationslike intensive probation supervision, af-tercare, institutional reform, and theadoption of more promising therapeutictechniques).

The MythOver the past three decades, a radical

shift has taken place in American juvenilejustice policy. Instead of focusing on pro-tection and treatment, legislators andpublic officials have increasingly advo-cated punishment of young offenders to

140

162D:\jobs\roxbury\dcc\dcc 4th pass 01.vpThursday, August 18, 2005 9:02:48 PM

Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profileComposite Default screen

deter them from reoffending. They haveimplemented many strategies thatthreaten the nature and, ultimately, per-haps even the existence of the juvenilecourt. These include the displacement ofprobation services by an explicit focus onsurveillance and accountability (Beyer2003), the adoption of determinate andmandatory minimum sentencing (“onesize fits all” punishments that are linkedto the offense rather than the needs of theoffender), the endorsement of punish-ment-oriented programming (e.g., housearrest, electronic monitoring, military-style boot camps), and the adoption oflaws that permit or require the transfer oflarge numbers of youth (including pre-teens) to criminal court for prosecutionand punishment as adults. All of theseshifts rest on the myth that harsh punish-ments are effective in producing positivebehavioral change.

This myth arose for a number of rea-sons, three of which are especially impor-tant. In the 1970s, a series of evaluationswas published that were critical of treat-ment programs. Especially influential wasthe widely publicized Martinson Report,which drew the conclusion that “nothingworks” (Martinson 1974; Lipton, Martin-son, and Wilks 1975). Critics of the reportresponded that the negative results couldbe explained by methodological problemsand weak evaluations, rather than by theabsence of effective treatments; but theseresponses—and even the subsequent re-traction of the report’s conclusion by itsauthors—fell on deaf ears. Instead, thepublic and policy makers became skepti-cal about the very idea of rehabilitation.

Rising juvenile crime rates also contrib-uted to punitive reforms. Juvenile arrestsincreased substantially from the mid-1960s until 1980, which reinforced theview that rehabilitation programs were in-effective. Although juvenile crime rates

declined in the early 1980s, another up-swing followed later in the decade, thisone marked by sharp increases in inner-city violence, including homicides com-mitted disproportionately by minorityyouth (Snyder and Sickmund 1995; Cookand Laub 1998). Images of African Ameri-can youths wielding guns tapped into ra-cial stereotypes, fueled public fears, andgenerated what has been described as a“moral panic” (Feld 1977, 2003; Chiricos2004). Although juvenile violence has de-clined sharply since 1992 to its lowestlevel in decades (Snyder 2003), nearlytwo-thirds of the public falsely believes se-rious juvenile crime continues to rise(Gallup Poll 2003).

Due in no small part to the explosion ofnewspaper, magazine, and television cov-erage of youth violence (Chiricos 2004),ideas about adolescent offenders alsoshifted (Scott and Grisso 1997). Publicperceptions are shaped largely by localtelevision news (Gross and Aday 2003),and both television and the print mediagive excessive coverage to violent youthcrime (especially when the offender is aminority), even when rates are declining(Dorfman and Schiraldi 2001). More im-portant than the volume of stories is theirsensationalist nature. Best-selling maga-zines have printed cover stories with titlessuch as “Children Without Pity” (Time Oc-tober 26, 1992), “Teen Violence: Wild inthe Streets” (Newsweek August 2, 1993),“Heartbreaking Crimes: Kids Without aConscience” (People June 23, 1997), “BigShots: An Inside Look at the Deadly LoveAffair Between America’s Kids and TheirGuns” (Time August 2, 1993), and “TheMonsters Next Door” (Time May 3, 1999).This kind of reporting conflicts with theimage of juvenile offenders as misguidedand immature, portraying them instead asthugs with little or no moral feeling orhuman regard. Although only a few schol-

Chapter 17 ✦ The Myth That Harsh Punishments Reduce Juvenile Crime 141



ars have subscribed to this view, thosewho have were prominently featured inthe media. DiIulio and his colleagues, forexample, described adolescent offendersas vicious and remorseless “superpreda-tors” (DiIulio 1996; Bennett, DiIulio, andWalters 1996) and warned of the comingof “the youngest, biggest, and baddestgeneration any society has ever known”(Bennett, DiIulio, and Walters 1996:206).The portrayal of juvenile offenders—evenpreadolescent ones—as adult-like andevil, legitimated the adoption of harsh,punitive policies.

The Kernel of TruthWhen people panic about crime, “com-

mon sense” suggests harsh punishment asthe solution (Cohen 1972; Gendreau et al.2002; Chiricos 2004). A recent Gallup pollshowed that more than 70 percent of thepublic believed that toughening penaltiesfor juvenile offenders would make a“major difference” in reducing violentcrime (Moon et al. 2000:41). There isclearly some truth to the idea of deter-rence. After all, speeding drivers slowdown when they see patrol cars. But con-sider how quickly they speed up againwhen the threat has passed. When thethreat of punishment is clear and immi-nent, we tend to obey the law. But thethreat of punishment is seldom clear andimminent. It is obviously impossible (andundesirable) to have police officers ob-serving us at all times. So the threat ofpunishment is most often vague and un-certain. It should be no surprise, then,that research provides little support forthe idea that threats of even severe pun-ishment are effective in reducing crime.

If the threat of punishment does notdeter, common sense still indicates thatactually being punished can change peo-ple’s behavior. Most can recall learning

important behavioral lessons as childrenas a result of being scolded, spanked, ordenied privileges by parents. Researchshows that parental monitoring and pun-ishment indeed play a vital role in produc-ing prosocial children and adults. So thereis clearly some truth to this idea. However,we need to be careful not to generalizefrom the positive effect that punishmentmay have had on us while we were grow-ing up, to draw sweeping conclusionsabout the effectiveness of punishment.The truth is that punishment does not al-ways have the positive consequences wetend to assume.

The Truth or FactsThe effectiveness of punishment de-

pends a great deal on the context in whichit is administered (see, for example,Braithwaite 1989, 2000; Braithwaite andBraithwaite 2001). Braithwaite and otherscaution that the effect of punishment isdependent on who is doing the punishing,what message is communicated to the in-dividual who is punished, and how thepunishment is delivered.

Punishment is most effective when it isadministered by persons whom we loveand respect, and whose opinions andjudgments about us matter (Braithwaite2001:11). Punishment delivered by a po-lice officer, judge, or correctional officerwith whom we have no relationship (andtoward whom we may have negative atti-tudes) is much less likely to produce thedesired results.

The message communicated to the of-fender is also consequential. It is impor-tant to punish in ways that communicatedisapproval of the behavior but that donot reject the individual (“this is a goodperson who has done a bad act” or “this isa not-so-good person who has done a badact, but can change”). Effective punish-

142 Section 3 ✦ Administration of Justice



ment sends a message that the behavior iswrong, but at the same time teaches andencourages more appropriate behaviorand communicates confidence in the indi-vidual’s capacity to change (Braithwaiteand Braithwaite 2001:9). The model of ef-fective punishment is the loving parent:He or she does not threaten to banish thechild from the family or suggest that thechild is worthless and unforgivable.

Punishment that is ineffective commu-nicates not only that the act is bad, butalso that the individual who committedthe act is bad. When our whole person-hood is attacked, we feel humiliated andtend to defend ourselves by denying the le-gitimacy of what is being said (not onlyabout us, but about our behavior). We arealso apt to react with anger and defiance(see Sherman 1993, 2003). All too fre-quently, punishments imposed by courtsand correctional agencies invoke thesecounterproductive responses becausethey are accompanied by messages ofrejection.

Finally, how the message is communi-cated makes a difference. When we treatpeople with respect, they feel valued.When we afford them an opportunity tobe heard, they are more likely to feel theyare being treated fairly. When we belittle,nag, insult, when we are blunt and harshin communicating disapproval, the re-sults are often contrary to what we intend.One of the most consistent findings incriminological research is that children ofparents who reject and degrade, and whopunish their children harshly, are likely tobehave aggressively and violently (Ahmed2001; Baumrind 1978; Farrington 1989;McCord 1979; McCord, McCord, and Zola1959; Power and Chapieski 1986; Samp-son and Laub 1993; Smith and Thorn-berry 1995; Stouthamer-Loeber et al.2001; Strassberg et al. 1994; Wells and

Rankin 1988; Widom 1992; Widom andMaxfield 2001).

If harsh, unreasoning, and punitive dis-cipline has negative effects within thefamily, similar strategies used by the stateare likely to backfire as well. A number ofstudies have shown that offenders aremore likely to re-offend if justice officialstreat them in ways they perceive as unfairor disrespectful. Paternoster and associ-ates (1997), for example, found that sus-pects who were treated with respect bypolice and permitted to relate their ver-sion of events, not only felt they had beentreated more fairly, but were significantlyless likely to reoffend than suspects whowere not so treated (see also Sherman1993). Pfeiffer (1994) reported that defen-dants randomly assigned to judges whoscolded offenders at sentencing had sig-nificantly higher rates of recidivism thandefendants assigned to judges who did notscold.

Evaluations of punitive correctionalstrategies (e.g., surveillance, drug testing,electronic monitoring, detention, ScaredStraight and its derivatives, boot camps,transfer to criminal court) consistentlyshow that they are not effective in reduc-ing juvenile crime (see, for example,Lipsey 1992; Lipsey and Wilson 1998; Pe-ters, Thomas, and Zamberlan 1997; Petro-sino, Turpin-Petrosino, and Finckenauer2000; for a review and discussion, seeHowell 2003). Indeed, many of these pro-grams, especially those in which degra-dation is a central feature, frequentlyincrease the risk of recidivism. Take trans-fer, for example. Contrary to reformers’expectations, research consistently showsthat transferred youth reoffend morequickly and at higher rates, and commitmore serious offenses than similar offend-ers who are retained in the juvenile sys-tem (see, for example, Bishop et al. 1996;Fagan 1995).




Treatment-oriented programs, espe-cially those that incorporate cognitive be-havioral therapy and parent/family inter-ventions, are considerably more effectivethan punishment-oriented ones. There areeffective nonresidential treatment pro-grams for minor and first-time offendersas well as effective residential interven-tions for serious and chronic offenders. Intreatment-oriented institutions, young of-fenders more often develop positive ties tostaff, are more receptive to the idea ofchange, more often learn important socialand problem-solving skills, and are moreoptimistic about remaining law-abidingfollowing release (Street, Vinter, andPerrow 1966; Feld 1977; Poole and Regoli1983). Recent meta-analyses (studies thatexamine the effects of multiple programsof the same type) have shown that certaintreatment strategies produce substantialreductions in recidivism even among veryhigh-risk offenders (Lipsey and Wilson1998:336).

Interests Served by the MythDespite an almost complete lack of evi-

dence to support it, the myth that harshpunishments reduce juvenile crime con-tinues to flourish. It does so in part be-cause commonsense notions about the ef-ficacy of punishment are deeply ingrainedand resistant to change. It does so in partbecause the public and politicians areskeptical about social science research,especially when the research evidencecontradicts popular mythology (Fincken-auer and Gavin 1999). And it does so inpart because there is a communicationgap between criminologists and both pol-icy makers and the media. But there areother reasons for the endurance of themyth. Simply put, the myth serves power-ful political and economic interests.

To understand the interests served bythe myth, recall the discussion above ofthe factors that prompted the punitive re-forms: (1) the idea that effective treatmentprograms do not exist; (2) the idea thatyouth crime, especially violent crime, isincreasing; and (3) the idea that adoles-cent offenders have changed, that they arenot the immature and vulnerable childrenconceived by the founders of the juvenilejustice system, but are instead savvy, vi-cious, and morally impoverished productsof a permissive society. Each of theseideas is also a myth and, the more each isreinforced, the greater is the support forpunishment as a solution.

Crime and the MediaThe myth of rising youth crime and the

myth of the superpredator go hand inhand, and both are sustained by themedia. Violent crimes receive a grosslydisproportionate share of media coverage:More than 25 percent of crime reportingis about murder (Beckett and Sasson2004) but murders constitute less thanone tenth of one percent of all crimesknown to the police (Federal Bureau of In-vestigation 2002). Not only is violenceoverreported, but also the incidence ofparticular kinds of violence is exagger-ated. Violent crimes most often involvepeople who are known to each other(spouses, friends, acquaintances), butstranger crime is much more likely to becovered. There is also racial distortion inthe coverage. Most violent crime is intra-racial, but violent offenses involving blackmale assailants and white victims aremuch more likely to receive saturationnews coverage. These acts of violence“resonate criminal stereotypes and tapinto deeply held racial prejudices” (Chiri-cos 2004:53; see also Beckett and Sasson2004; Dorfman and Schiraldi 2001; Feld2003).




The majority of people depend on themedia, especially local television news, toform opinions about crime and crime-control policies (Dorfman and Schiraldi2001; Gross and Aday 2003). It is littlewonder, then, that people exaggerate thelevel of youth violence or believe the chil-dren of today are more dangerous andruthless than those of the past. It is in theinterest of the media to highlight violentcrime, especially violence committed byyoung black males, because this is thekind of crime that the public fears most.This is not to suggest that the media inten-tionally try to generate fear or champion apunitive crime control agenda, but theyexploit fear and inadvertently promotethat agenda in the interest of profit. Dra-matic accounts of the most feared crimessell newspapers and magazines. They at-tract viewers to television news and othercrime-related programming, and generateadvertising revenues. Violent crime ischeap and easy to report (it does not re-quire in-depth investigative reporting)and it has wide audience appeal (Dorfmanand Schiraldi 2001).

The Politics of CrimeThe myth of effective punishment also

serves political interests. A public that isfrightened about violent youth crime re-sponds positively to conservative politi-cians who propose solutions that appealto commonsense ideas. The punishmentsolution is simplistic, intuitive, and winsvotes. Playing on public fears of violence,reinforcing the myth of adult-like adoles-cents, and advocating punitive solutionswith catchy sound bites like “adult crime,adult time” unfortunately have becomesuccessful strategies for winning elections(Beckett and Sasson 2004).

Advocating a simplistic “get tough”agenda does more than help win elec-tions. Sadly, the “punishment solution” al-

lows politicians to ignore (or remain igno-rant of) the good treatment programmingthat might provide young offenders amuch better chance of becoming produc-tive adults. It also provides powerful resis-tance to dismantling punitive programswhose damaging effects have been dem-onstrated. Empirical evidence that puni-tive programs are ineffective is frequentlyrejected by policy makers because of skep-ticism about social science research andbecause belief in the efficacy of punish-ment is so strong. Finckenauer and Gavin(1999:368) conclude that “It is easier [forlegislators] to continue such programsand avoid angering constituents than it isto stop them.”

More important still, because the “pun-ishment solution” places responsibilityfor crime on the immoral choices of indi-vidual youths, it diverts public attentionfrom the social and economic conditionsthat are the underlying causes of violentcrime and that, ultimately, must be ad-dressed if crime is to be prevented. How-ever, the interests of the wealthy and thepowerful are better served by advocatingpunishment as a solution than they are byaddressing the enduring social and eco-nomic problems—poverty, income in-equality, inadequate inner-city schools,unemployment, urban decline—that con-tribute to youth crime (Chiricos 2004).

Policy Implications of Beliefin the Myth

The United States has endorsed punish-ment of children and adolescent offendersto an unprecedented degree, and blurredtraditional lines of distinction—philo-sophically, programmatically, and juris-dictionally—between the juvenile andadult systems. The myth that harsh pun-ishments are effective in reducing youthcrime has generated policies that are




costly and wasteful. The myth representsa formidable barrier to the developmentof more humane and effective responsesto juvenile crime and, in the end, has donea disservice to victims, offenders, and thepublic.

Exposing the myth that punishment isan effective strategy to reduce youthcrime will depend ultimately on the abilityto destroy the myths that support it. Re-storing less monstrous conceptualizationsof adolescents represents a real challenge.The demonization of youth must be re-placed by the realization that the childrenand adolescents of today are little differ-ent than those of a generation ago. Policymakers and the public also need to bemade aware that youth violence has de-clined to its lowest levels in decades. In-stead of episodic reporting of individualacts of violence as they occur, the cover-age needs to be contextualized to revealbroader crime patterns and trends (CaseyJournalism Center on Children and Fam-ilies 2002). More balanced and responsi-ble media reporting should also includemore noncrime stories about youth, aswell as thoughtful analyses of youth pol-icy. Additionally, policy makers and thepublic need to be educated about thecounterproductive effects of punishmentthat takes place in a context devoid of pos-itive attachment and respect, and aboutthe promise of well-implemented, evi-dence-based treatment programs carriedout by professionals who communicatemessages of hope rather than messages ofrejection. Sadly, because the “punishmentsolution” and the myths that support itserve powerful interests, the prospects forreal change, at least in the short term, ap-pear slim.

ReferencesAhmed, E. 2001. Shame management: Regu-

lating bullying. In Shame management

through reintegration, eds. E. Ahmed, N. Har-ris, J. Braithwaite, and V. Braithwaite.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Baumrind, D. 1978. Parental disciplinary pat-terns and social competence in children.Youth and Society 9:239–276.

Beckett, K., and T. Sasson. 2004. The politics ofinjustice. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: PineForge Press.

Bennett, W., J. DiIulio, and J. Walters. 1996.Body count: Moral poverty and how to winAmerica’s war against crime and drugs. NewYork: Simon and Schuster.

Beyer, M. 2003. Best practices in juvenile account-ability: Overview. Washington, DC: U.S. De-partment of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention.

Bishop, D. M., C. E. Frazier, L. Lanza-Kaduce,and L. Winner. 1996. The transfer of juvenilesto criminal court: Does it make a difference?Crime and Delinquency 42:171–191.

Braithwaite, J. 1989. Crime, shame, and reinte-gration. Melbourne: Cambridge UniversityPress.

. 2000. Shame and criminal justice. Cana-dian Journal of Criminology 42:281–298.

Braithwaite, J., and V. Braithwaite. 2001. Shame,shame management and regulation. In Shamemanagement through reintegration, eds. E.Ahmed, N. Harris, J. Braithwaite, and V.Braithwaite. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Casey Journalism Center on Children and Fam-ilies. 2002. Coverage in context: How thor-oughly the new media report five key children’sissues. College Park, MD: University of Mary-land Press. Available online at http://www.casey.umd.edu.

Chiricos, T. 2004. The media, moral panics, andthe politics of crime control. In The criminaljustice system: Politics and policies, 9th ed.Eds. G. F. Cole, M. C. Gertz, and A. Bunger.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Cohen, S. 1972. Folk devils and moral panics.London: MacGibbon and Kee.

Cook, P., and J. Laub. 1998. The unprecedentedepidemic in youth violence. In Crime and jus-tice: A review of research, vol. 24, eds. M. Tonryand M. Moore. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

DiIulio, J. 1996. Help wanted: Economists,crime, and public policy. Journal of EconomicPerspectives 10:3–23.

Dorfman, L., and V. Schiraldi. 2001. Off balance:Youth, race and crime in the news. Washing-ton, DC: Justice Policy Institute.




Fagan, J. 1995. Separating the men from theboys: The comparative advantage of juvenileversus criminal court sanctions on recidivismamong adolescent felony offenders. In Asourcebook: Serious, violent, and chronic juve-nile offenders, eds. J. C. Howell, B. Krisberg, J.D. Hawkins, and J. J. Wilson. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Farrington, D. P. 1989. Early predictors of ado-lescent aggression and adult violence. Vio-lence and Victims 4:79–100.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). 2002.Crime in the United States. Available online at:http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/.

Feld, B. C. 1977. Neutralizing inmate violence: Ju-venile offenders in institutions. Cambridge,MA: Ballinger.

. 2003. The politics of race and juvenilejustice: The due process revolution and theconservative reaction. Justice Quarterly 20:764–800.

Finckenauer, J. O., and P. W. Gavin. 1999. Scaredstraight: The panacea phenomenon revisited.Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Forst, M., and M. Blomquist. 1991. Crackingdown on juveniles: The changing ideology ofyouth corrections. Notre Dame Journal of Law,Ethics and Public Policy 5:323–375.

Gallup Organization, Inc. 2003. The Gallup poll.January 9. Available online at: http://www.gallup.com/.

Gendreau, P., C. Goggin, F. T. Cullen, and M.Paparozzi. 2002. The common sense revolu-tion and correctional policy. In Offender reha-bilitation and treatment: Effective programmesand policies to reduce re-offending, ed. J.Maguire. Chicester, UK: Wiley.

Gross, K., and S. Aday. 2003. The scary world inyour living room and neighborhood: Usinglocal broadcast news, neighborhood crimerates, and personal experience to test agendasetting and cultivation. Journal of Communi-cation 53:411–426.

Howell, J. 2003. Preventing and reducing juveniledelinquency: A comprehensive framework.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lipsey, M. W. 1992. Juvenile delinquency treat-ment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the vari-ability of effects. In Meta-analysis for explana-tion, eds. T. D. Cook, H. Cooper, D. S. Cordray,H. Hartmann, L. V. Hedges, R. J. Light, T. A.Louis, and F. Mosteller. New York: RussellSage.

Lipsey, M. W., and D. B. Wilson. 1998. Effectiveintervention for serious juvenile offenders: Asynthesis of research. In Serious and violentjuvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful

interventions, eds. R. Loeber and D. P. Far-rington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lipton, D., R. Martinson, and J. Wilks. 1975. Theeffectiveness of correctional treatment: A surveyof treatment evaluation studies. New York:Praeger.

Martinson, R. 1974. What works? Questions andanswers about prison reform. Public Interest35:22–54.

McCord, J. 1979. Some child-rearing anteced-ents of criminal behavior in adult men. Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology 37:1477–1486.

McCord, W., J. McCord, and I. K. Zola. 1959. Ori-gins of crime: A new evaluation of theCambridge-Somerville Youth Study. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Moon, M. M., J. L. Sundt, F. T. Cullen, and J. P.Wright. 2000. Is child saving dead? Publicsupport for juvenile rehabilitation. Crime &Delinquency 46:38–62.

Paternoster, R., R. Brame, R. Bachman, andL. W. Sherman. 1997. Do fair procedures mat-ter? The effect of procedural justice on spouseassault. Law & Society Review 31:163–204.

Peters, M., D. Thomas, and C. Zamberlan. 1997.Boot camps for juvenile offenders. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Ju-venile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Petrosino, A., C. Turpin-Petrosino, and J. O.Finckenauer. 2000. Well-meaning programscan have harmful effects! Lessons from exper-iments of programs such as Scared Straight.Crime and Delinquency 46:354–379.

Pfeiffer, C. 2003. Alternative sanctions in Ger-many: An overview of Germany’s sentencingpractices. Available online at: http://www.uplink.com.au/lawlibrary/Documents/Docs/Doc33.html.

Poole, E. D., and R. M. Regoli. 1983. Violence injuvenile institutions: A comparative study.Criminology 21:213–232.

Power, T. G., and M. L. Chapieski. 1986. Child-rearing and impulse control in toddlers: Anaturalistic investigation. Developmental Psy-chology 22:271–275.

Sampson, R. J., and J. H. Laub. 1993. Crime inthe making: Pathways and turning pointsthrough life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-sity Press.

Scott, E., and T. Grisso. 1997. Adolescent devel-opment and juvenile justice reform. Journal ofCriminal Law and Criminology 88:137–189.

Sherman, L. W. 1993. Defiance, deterrence, andirrelevance: A theory of the criminal sanction.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency30:445–473.




. 2003. Reason for emotion: Reinventingjustice with theories, innovations, and re-search. The American Society of Criminol-ogy 2002 Presidential Address. Criminology41:1–38.

Smith, C., and T. P. Thornberry. 1995. The rela-tionship between childhood maltreatmentand adolescent involvement in delinquency.Criminology 33:451–481.

Snyder, H. N. 2003. Juvenile arrests 2001. Juve-nile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. De-partment of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention.

Snyder, H. N., and M. Sickmund. 1995. Juvenileoffenders and victims: A national report. Wash-ington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and De-linquency Prevention.

Stouthamer-Loeber, M., R. Loeber, D. L. Homish,and E. Wei. 2001. Maltreatment of boys andthe development of disruptive and delinquentbehavior. Development and Psychopathology13:941–955.

Strassberg, Z., K. A. Dodge, G. Pettit, and J. E.Bates. 1994. Spanking in the home and chil-dren’s subsequent aggression toward kinder-garten peers. Development and Psychopath-ology 6:445–461.

Street, D., R. D. Vinter, and C. Perrow. 1966. Or-ganization for treatment. New York: FreePress.

Wells, L. E., and J. H. Rankin. 1988. Direct pa-rental controls and delinquency. Criminology26:263–285.

Widom, C. S. 1992. The cycle of violence (researchin brief). Washington, DC: National Instituteof Justice.

Widom, C. S., and M. G. Maxfield. 2001. An up-date on the “cycle of violence” (research inbrief). Washington, DC: National Institute ofJustice.

Zimring, F. E. 1981. Notes toward a jurispru-dence of waiver. In Issues in juvenile justice in-formation and training, eds. J. Hall , D.Hamparian, J. Pettibone, and J. White. Co-lumbus, OH: Academy for ContemporaryProblems.

. 1998a. American youth violence. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

. 1998b. Toward a jurisprudence of youthviolence. In Youth violence, eds. F. Zimring,M. Tonry, and M. Moore. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. ✦


