Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

When is it efficient to treat juvenile offenders more leniently than adult offenders?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Economics of Governance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper provides a rationale for two characteristics of juvenile justice systems. First, juvenile justice systems tend to be more lenient in terms of both incarceration rates and time incarcerated. Second, higher expenditures are made to incarcerate a juvenile offender than an adult prisoner. It does this by examining the effect juvenile incarceration has on human capital acquisition and in turn, later incentives to commit crime as adults. In the process, it also offers an explanation of the empirical finding that individuals arrested as juveniles are more likely to be arrested as adults.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrams LS (2006) Listening to juvenile offenders: can residential treatment prevent recidivism?. Child Adolesc Soci Work J 23(1): 61–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker GS (1968) Crime and punishment: an economic approach. J Polit Econ 76(2): 169–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bushway SD (2004) Labor market effects of permitting employer access to criminal history records. J Contemp Crim Justice 20(3): 276–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen MK, Shapiro JM (2007) Do harsher prison conditions reduce recidivism?: a discontinuity-based approach. Am Law Econ Rev 9(1): 1–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chu CY, Hu S, Huang T (2000) Punishing repeat offenders more severely. Int Rev Law Econ 20(1): 127–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen MA (1998) The monetary value of saving a high-risk youth. J Quantit Crim 14(1): 5–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Committee of Public Accounts (2006) Eighth interim report on the 2003 report of the comptroller and auditor general (Committee Hearings October 2004 to July 2005). Department of Education and Science, Dublin

  • Ehrlich I (1982) The optimum enforcement of laws and the concept of justice: a positive analysis. Int Rev Law Econ 2: 3–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fabel Oliver, Meier Volker (2002) Rational probation decisions for juvenile delinquents. Econ Gov 3: 249–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feld BC (1999) The honest politician’s guide to juvenile justice in the twenty-first century. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 564: 10–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman D (1999) Why not hang them all: the virtues of inefficient punishment. J. Polit Econ 107: S259–S269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friehe Tim (2008) Optimal sanctions and endogeneity of differences in detection probabilities. Int Rev Law Econ 28(2): 150–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funk P (2004) On the effective use of stigma as a crime-deterrent. Eur Econ Rev 48(4): 715–728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funk TM, Polsby DD (1998) The problem of lemons and why we must retain juvenile crime records. Cato J 18(1): 75–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Gannon M, Mihorean K, Beattie K, Taylor-Butts A, Kong R (2005) Criminal justice indicators 2005. Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada, Ottawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Garoupa N (1997) The theory of optimal law enforcement. J Econ Surv 11(3): 267–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grogger J (1998) Market wages and youth crime. J Labour Econ 16(4): 756–791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz AW, Trivitt JR (2007) Does child labour reduce youth crime. Kyklos 60(4): 559–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irish Prison Service (2006) Annual Report 2005. Stationary Office, Dublin

  • Jacob BA, Lefgren Lars (2003) Are idle hands the devil’s workshop? Incapacitation, concentration, and juvenile crime. Am Econ Rev 93(5): 1560–1577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalb G, Williams J (2003) Delinquency and gender. Appl Econ Lett 10: 425–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalb G, Williams J (2002) The Relationship between juvenile and adult crime. Melbourne Institute Working Paper No. 4/02

  • Katz L, Levitt SD, Shustorovich E (2003) Prison conditions, capital punishment, and deterrence. Am Law Econ Rev 5(2): 318–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Klick J, Stratmann T (2008) Abortion access and risky sex among teens: parental involvement laws and sexually transmitted diseases. J Law Econ Organ 24(1): 2–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lash B, Watson F (2006) Conviction and sentencing of offenders in New Zealand: 1995 to 2004. Ministry of Justice, Wellington

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee DS, McCrary J (2005) Crime, punishment and myopia. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper #11491

  • Levitt SD (1998) Juvenile crime and punishment. J. Polit Econ 106(6): 1156–1185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lochner L (2004) Education, work and crime: a human capital approach. Int Econ Rev 45(3): 811–843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lochner L, Moretti E (2001) The effect of education on crime: evidence from prison inmates, arrests, and self-reports. Am Econ Rev 94(1): 155–189

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarrell EF (2001) Restorative justice conferences as an early response to young offenders. OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin. August, US Department of Justice, Washington DC

  • McLellan A (1997) Justice priorities: speech to the Canadian Bar Association, August 23, 1997. Department of Justice Canada, Ottawa

  • Miceli TJ, Bucci C (2005) A simple theory of increasing penalties for repeat offenders. Rev Law Econom 1(1): 71–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Mocan NH, Rees DI (2005) Economic conditions, deterrence and juvenile crime: evidence from micro data. Am Law Econ Rev 7(2): 319–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (2004) Criminal neglect: substance abuse, juvenile justice and the children left behind. National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, New York

  • Ontario (2000) Office of the Provincial Auditor Special report of the Provincial Auditor of Ontario to the Legislative Assembly: A ccountability and value for money. Office of the Provincial Auditor, Toronto

  • Pager D (2003) The mark of a criminal record. Am J Soc 108(5): 937–975

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer JP, Henderson J (1998) The economics of cruel and unusual punishment. Eur J Law Econ 5: 235–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintoff R (2006) Do arrest and incarceration affect high school graduation? Discussion paper. University of Maryland

  • Polinsky AM, Shavell S (2007) Public enforcement of law. In: Polinsky AM, Shavell S (eds) Handbook of law and economics, vol 1. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Polinsky AM, Shavell S (1998) On offense history and the theory of deterrence. Int Rev Law Econ 18: 305–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyne D (2004) Can making it harder to convict criminals ever reduce crime?.  Eur J Law Econ 18(2): 191–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redondo S, Sanchez-Meca J, Garrido V (1999) The influence of treatment programmes on the recidivism of juvenile and adult offenders: an European meta-analytic review. Psychol Crime Law 5(3): 251–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rock N (2005) Child protection and Canadian law: a service perspective. Emond Montgomery, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez N (2007) Restorative justice at work: examining the impact of restorative justice resolutions on juvenile recidivism. Crime Delinq 53(3): 355–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seiffge-Krenke I, Gelhaar T (2008) Does successful attainment of developmental tasks lead to happiness and success in later developmental tasks? A test of Havighurst’s (1948) theses. J Adolesc 31(1): 33–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sentencing Guidelines Council (UK) (2007) The Sentence: The sentencing guidelines newsletter 06

  • Shavell S (1991) Specific versus general enforcement of law. J Polit Econ 99(5): 1088–1108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice (2005) Adult Correctional Services in Canada 2003–2004. Statistics Canada, Ottawa

  • Stigler GJ (1970) The optimal enforcement of laws. J Polit Econ 78: 526–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Kingdom Parliament (2003) Prison statistics England and Wales 2002. Cm 5996

  • U.S. Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics (2004) State prison expenditures 2001. GPO, Washington

  • Waldfogel J (1994) Does conviction have a persistent effect on income and employment?. Int Rev Law Econ 14(1): 103–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Western B (2006) Punishment and inequality in America. Russell Sage Foundation, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Western B, Kling JR, Weiman DF (2001) Labor market consequences of incarceration. Crime Delinq 47(3): 410–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams J, Sickles RC (2002) An analysis of the crime as work model: evidence from the 1958 Philadelphia birth cohort study. J Hum Res 37(3): 479–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, British Columbia, V2C 5N3, Canada

    Derek Pyne

Authors
  1. Derek Pyne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Derek Pyne.

Additional information

Derek Pyne: This paper benefited significantly from the comments of two anonymous referees, Robert Dur, Vassilios Bardis and participants at the 2007 Canadian Law and Economic Association conference. Part of this paper was completed during a visit to Staffordshire University made possible by research support from the European Commission’s Erasmus Mundus program.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pyne, D. When is it efficient to treat juvenile offenders more leniently than adult offenders?. Econ Gov 11, 351–371 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10101-010-0086-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10101-010-0086-7

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation