Serious and Violent Young Offenders’ Decisions to Recidivate: An Assessment of Five Sentencing Models

Five models of sentencing were assessed with respect to their impact on the decisions of young offenders to recidivate. The five sentencing models tested were fairness, deterrence, chronic offender lifestyle, special needs, and procedural rights. A sample of 400 incarcerated young offenders from the...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Crime and delinquency 2003-04, Vol.49 (2), p.179-200
Hauptverfasser: Corrado, Raymond R., Cohen, Irwin M., Glackman, William, Odgers, Candice
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 200
container_issue 2
container_start_page 179
container_title Crime and delinquency
container_volume 49
creator Corrado, Raymond R.
Cohen, Irwin M.
Glackman, William
Odgers, Candice
description Five models of sentencing were assessed with respect to their impact on the decisions of young offenders to recidivate. The five sentencing models tested were fairness, deterrence, chronic offender lifestyle, special needs, and procedural rights. A sample of 400 incarcerated young offenders from the Vancouver, British Columbia, metropolitan area were asked questions regarding their attitudes toward these sentencing models and their intentions to recidivate after serving a period of incarceration. Principal components analyses suggested that although these models do not function independently, two composite models do shed some light on the issues that young offenders consider when contemplating their decisions and intentions to recidivate. Despite the ability of these models to predict half of the explained variance in young offenders’ decisions regarding recidivism, a majority of the sample appeared to not be affected exclusively by cost-benefit analysis, punishment, or reintegrative motivations. The authors conclude that without additional variables and even higher predictive validity, it is premature for policy makers to focus on any single model of sentencing in constructing juvenile justice laws.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/0011128702251043
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_60470900</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_0011128702251043</sage_id><sourcerecordid>320211611</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c430t-d5b83ea93dc81f10f580668bdedb8b3183a298bb507930408a4fb8e782c6c8083</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU1rFEEQhhsx4Jp499h48Damqj9marwt0RghEkhU9DT0zNQsHWa74_RswJt_I3_PX2IPKwgB2boURT3vS30I8RLhDWJVnQIgoqIKlLIIRj8RK7RWFZqqb0_FamkXS_-ZeJ7SLeTQNa7E5oYnH3dJutDLrz6OHGb5Pe7CRl4NA4eep_T714N8x51PPoYk5yivc9H7ezfzW7kOcp0Sp7RdlHGQ5_6e5U0uOHQ-23yKPY_pRBwNbkz84m8-Fl_O338-uygurz58PFtfFp3RMBe9bUmzq3XfEQ4IgyUoS2p77ltqNZJ2qqa2tVDVGgyQM0NLXJHqyo6A9LF4vfe9m-KPHae52frU8Ti6wHnNpgRTQZ2XPwTaurZoSR8GKyyNNYdBTUaT0jaDrx6Bt3E3hXyWRik0CpCW-WAPdVNMaeKhuZv81k0_G4Rm-Xjz-ONZUuwlyW34n-d_-T_6G6nY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>221420180</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Serious and Violent Young Offenders’ Decisions to Recidivate: An Assessment of Five Sentencing Models</title><source>Access via SAGE</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Corrado, Raymond R. ; Cohen, Irwin M. ; Glackman, William ; Odgers, Candice</creator><creatorcontrib>Corrado, Raymond R. ; Cohen, Irwin M. ; Glackman, William ; Odgers, Candice</creatorcontrib><description>Five models of sentencing were assessed with respect to their impact on the decisions of young offenders to recidivate. The five sentencing models tested were fairness, deterrence, chronic offender lifestyle, special needs, and procedural rights. A sample of 400 incarcerated young offenders from the Vancouver, British Columbia, metropolitan area were asked questions regarding their attitudes toward these sentencing models and their intentions to recidivate after serving a period of incarceration. Principal components analyses suggested that although these models do not function independently, two composite models do shed some light on the issues that young offenders consider when contemplating their decisions and intentions to recidivate. Despite the ability of these models to predict half of the explained variance in young offenders’ decisions regarding recidivism, a majority of the sample appeared to not be affected exclusively by cost-benefit analysis, punishment, or reintegrative motivations. The authors conclude that without additional variables and even higher predictive validity, it is premature for policy makers to focus on any single model of sentencing in constructing juvenile justice laws.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0011-1287</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-387X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0011128702251043</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CRDLAL</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Administration of justice ; British Columbia ; Canada ; Correction (penology) ; Crime ; Crime and criminals ; Criminal justice ; Criminal sentencing ; Criminology ; Decision making ; Deterrence ; Equity ; Juvenile delinquency ; Juvenile delinquents ; Juvenile detention homes ; Juvenile Justice ; Juvenile Offenders ; Law enforcement ; Offenders ; Prisoners ; Recidivism ; Sentences (law) ; Sentencing ; Sex offenders ; Vancouver, British Columbia ; Violence ; Violent young offenders</subject><ispartof>Crime and delinquency, 2003-04, Vol.49 (2), p.179-200</ispartof><rights>Copyright SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC. Apr 2003</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c430t-d5b83ea93dc81f10f580668bdedb8b3183a298bb507930408a4fb8e782c6c8083</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c430t-d5b83ea93dc81f10f580668bdedb8b3183a298bb507930408a4fb8e782c6c8083</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0011128702251043$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0011128702251043$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21819,27865,27924,27925,31000,33774,33775,43621,43622</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Corrado, Raymond R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cohen, Irwin M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Glackman, William</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Odgers, Candice</creatorcontrib><title>Serious and Violent Young Offenders’ Decisions to Recidivate: An Assessment of Five Sentencing Models</title><title>Crime and delinquency</title><description>Five models of sentencing were assessed with respect to their impact on the decisions of young offenders to recidivate. The five sentencing models tested were fairness, deterrence, chronic offender lifestyle, special needs, and procedural rights. A sample of 400 incarcerated young offenders from the Vancouver, British Columbia, metropolitan area were asked questions regarding their attitudes toward these sentencing models and their intentions to recidivate after serving a period of incarceration. Principal components analyses suggested that although these models do not function independently, two composite models do shed some light on the issues that young offenders consider when contemplating their decisions and intentions to recidivate. Despite the ability of these models to predict half of the explained variance in young offenders’ decisions regarding recidivism, a majority of the sample appeared to not be affected exclusively by cost-benefit analysis, punishment, or reintegrative motivations. The authors conclude that without additional variables and even higher predictive validity, it is premature for policy makers to focus on any single model of sentencing in constructing juvenile justice laws.</description><subject>Administration of justice</subject><subject>British Columbia</subject><subject>Canada</subject><subject>Correction (penology)</subject><subject>Crime</subject><subject>Crime and criminals</subject><subject>Criminal justice</subject><subject>Criminal sentencing</subject><subject>Criminology</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Deterrence</subject><subject>Equity</subject><subject>Juvenile delinquency</subject><subject>Juvenile delinquents</subject><subject>Juvenile detention homes</subject><subject>Juvenile Justice</subject><subject>Juvenile Offenders</subject><subject>Law enforcement</subject><subject>Offenders</subject><subject>Prisoners</subject><subject>Recidivism</subject><subject>Sentences (law)</subject><subject>Sentencing</subject><subject>Sex offenders</subject><subject>Vancouver, British Columbia</subject><subject>Violence</subject><subject>Violent young offenders</subject><issn>0011-1287</issn><issn>1552-387X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2003</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkU1rFEEQhhsx4Jp499h48Damqj9marwt0RghEkhU9DT0zNQsHWa74_RswJt_I3_PX2IPKwgB2boURT3vS30I8RLhDWJVnQIgoqIKlLIIRj8RK7RWFZqqb0_FamkXS_-ZeJ7SLeTQNa7E5oYnH3dJutDLrz6OHGb5Pe7CRl4NA4eep_T714N8x51PPoYk5yivc9H7ezfzW7kOcp0Sp7RdlHGQ5_6e5U0uOHQ-23yKPY_pRBwNbkz84m8-Fl_O338-uygurz58PFtfFp3RMBe9bUmzq3XfEQ4IgyUoS2p77ltqNZJ2qqa2tVDVGgyQM0NLXJHqyo6A9LF4vfe9m-KPHae52frU8Ti6wHnNpgRTQZ2XPwTaurZoSR8GKyyNNYdBTUaT0jaDrx6Bt3E3hXyWRik0CpCW-WAPdVNMaeKhuZv81k0_G4Rm-Xjz-ONZUuwlyW34n-d_-T_6G6nY</recordid><startdate>200304</startdate><enddate>200304</enddate><creator>Corrado, Raymond R.</creator><creator>Cohen, Irwin M.</creator><creator>Glackman, William</creator><creator>Odgers, Candice</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K7.</scope><scope>WZK</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200304</creationdate><title>Serious and Violent Young Offenders’ Decisions to Recidivate: An Assessment of Five Sentencing Models</title><author>Corrado, Raymond R. ; Cohen, Irwin M. ; Glackman, William ; Odgers, Candice</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c430t-d5b83ea93dc81f10f580668bdedb8b3183a298bb507930408a4fb8e782c6c8083</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2003</creationdate><topic>Administration of justice</topic><topic>British Columbia</topic><topic>Canada</topic><topic>Correction (penology)</topic><topic>Crime</topic><topic>Crime and criminals</topic><topic>Criminal justice</topic><topic>Criminal sentencing</topic><topic>Criminology</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Deterrence</topic><topic>Equity</topic><topic>Juvenile delinquency</topic><topic>Juvenile delinquents</topic><topic>Juvenile detention homes</topic><topic>Juvenile Justice</topic><topic>Juvenile Offenders</topic><topic>Law enforcement</topic><topic>Offenders</topic><topic>Prisoners</topic><topic>Recidivism</topic><topic>Sentences (law)</topic><topic>Sentencing</topic><topic>Sex offenders</topic><topic>Vancouver, British Columbia</topic><topic>Violence</topic><topic>Violent young offenders</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Corrado, Raymond R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cohen, Irwin M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Glackman, William</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Odgers, Candice</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Crime and delinquency</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Corrado, Raymond R.</au><au>Cohen, Irwin M.</au><au>Glackman, William</au><au>Odgers, Candice</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Serious and Violent Young Offenders’ Decisions to Recidivate: An Assessment of Five Sentencing Models</atitle><jtitle>Crime and delinquency</jtitle><date>2003-04</date><risdate>2003</risdate><volume>49</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>179</spage><epage>200</epage><pages>179-200</pages><issn>0011-1287</issn><eissn>1552-387X</eissn><coden>CRDLAL</coden><abstract>Five models of sentencing were assessed with respect to their impact on the decisions of young offenders to recidivate. The five sentencing models tested were fairness, deterrence, chronic offender lifestyle, special needs, and procedural rights. A sample of 400 incarcerated young offenders from the Vancouver, British Columbia, metropolitan area were asked questions regarding their attitudes toward these sentencing models and their intentions to recidivate after serving a period of incarceration. Principal components analyses suggested that although these models do not function independently, two composite models do shed some light on the issues that young offenders consider when contemplating their decisions and intentions to recidivate. Despite the ability of these models to predict half of the explained variance in young offenders’ decisions regarding recidivism, a majority of the sample appeared to not be affected exclusively by cost-benefit analysis, punishment, or reintegrative motivations. The authors conclude that without additional variables and even higher predictive validity, it is premature for policy makers to focus on any single model of sentencing in constructing juvenile justice laws.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/0011128702251043</doi><tpages>22</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0011-1287
ispartof Crime and delinquency, 2003-04, Vol.49 (2), p.179-200
issn 0011-1287
1552-387X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_60470900
source Access via SAGE; PAIS Index; HeinOnline Law Journal Library; Sociological Abstracts; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Administration of justice
British Columbia
Canada
Correction (penology)
Crime
Crime and criminals
Criminal justice
Criminal sentencing
Criminology
Decision making
Deterrence
Equity
Juvenile delinquency
Juvenile delinquents
Juvenile detention homes
Juvenile Justice
Juvenile Offenders
Law enforcement
Offenders
Prisoners
Recidivism
Sentences (law)
Sentencing
Sex offenders
Vancouver, British Columbia
Violence
Violent young offenders
title Serious and Violent Young Offenders’ Decisions to Recidivate: An Assessment of Five Sentencing Models
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T12%3A04%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Serious%20and%20Violent%20Young%20Offenders%E2%80%99%20Decisions%20to%20Recidivate:%20An%20Assessment%20of%20Five%20Sentencing%20Models&rft.jtitle=Crime%20and%20delinquency&rft.au=Corrado,%20Raymond%20R.&rft.date=2003-04&rft.volume=49&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=179&rft.epage=200&rft.pages=179-200&rft.issn=0011-1287&rft.eissn=1552-387X&rft.coden=CRDLAL&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0011128702251043&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E320211611%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=221420180&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0011128702251043&rfr_iscdi=true