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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Crime and delinquency 2003-04, Vol.49 (2), p.179-200 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
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 & 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 & 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 |