Do They Deserve a Second Chance? Public Perceptions of Responsibility and Rehabilitative Potential in Sentencing Emerging Adults Convicted of Homicide in the United States

• In Event: Rehabilitation and trust in the judiciary

Abstract

Emerging adults (aged 18 to 25 years old) are disproportionately represented in the United States criminal justice system. Although some jurisdictions have begun to respond differently to justice-involved individuals in this unique stage of development, emerging adults can still receive the most punitive sentences that provide no opportunity for release—life without parole and the death penalty. The United States Supreme Court recognized youths’ lesser culpability and greater capacity for change based on neuroscientific evidence of the developing brain in banning the death penalty and reducing the use of life without parole for juveniles. However, the Court has not specifically ruled on emerging adult culpability or rehabilitative potential in sentencing, although they too are still developing and may be more vulnerable to environmental factors than older adults. The public generally supports rehabilitation, especially for youth, but less is known about the public’s perceptions and opinions in sentencing emerging adults. To explore this line of inquiry, survey data collected from a sample of college students was analyzed quantitatively to examine public perceptions of responsibility and rehabilitative potential in sentencing emerging adults convicted of homicide. The survey’s experimental component included a two-by-three between-subjects vignette in which a biopsychosocial factor and the age of the defendant being sentenced for murder were randomly assigned to respondents. Further understanding the public's perceptions of these factors and emerging adults' responsibility and capacity for change can inform sentencing policy and practice.

Author

• Victoria Rivera Laugalis, Loyola University New Orleans