Attitudes Towards Juvenile Offenders in Serbia: An Exploratory Study

Tijana Karić

doi:10.47152/ziksi2021013

Authors

Tijana Karić Institute of Criminological and Sociological Research, Belgrade, Serbia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47152/ziksi2021013

Abstract

In this study, we explored the attitudes of the general public towards juvenile offenders. Participants (N = 1264), aged 18–87 (M = 34), responded to a 17-item scale created based on public comments to news about juvenile offending on news portals and social media. Socio- demographic characteristics were also collected. The analysis revealed three interpretable factors: Fatalistic view, Accountability, and Family factors. The highest scores were obtained on the Accountability, and the lowest on the Fatalistic view factor. Older participants, participants who are married, those who are parents, men, lower educated, and participants from rural areas hold harsher attitudes towards juvenile offenders. Those who have not had contact with juvenile offenders tend to attribute more responsibility to family factors. Of those who have been in contact with juvenile offenders, those who have higher scores on the Fatalistic view and Accountability describe the contact as more negative.

References

Allen, T. T., Trzcinski, E., & Kubiak, S. P. (2012). Public attitudes toward juveniles who commit crimes: The relationship between assessments of adolescent development and attitudes toward severity of punishment. Crime & Delinquency, 58(1), 78–102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128711420104

Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, J. S. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime & Delinquency, 52(1), 7–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128705281756

Baker, T., Cleary, H. M., Pickett, J. T., & Gertz, M. G. (2016). Crime salience and public willingness to pay for child saving and juvenile punishment. Crime & Delinquency, 62(5), 645–668. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128713505487

Bernburg, J. G., Krohn, M. D., & Rivera, C. J. (2006). Official labeling, criminal embeddedness, and subsequent delinquency: A longitudinal test of labeling theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43(1), 67–88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427805280068

Bradshaw, W., Roseborough, D., & Umbreit, M. S. (2006). The effect of victim offender mediation on juvenile offender recidivism: A meta-analysis. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 24(1), 87–98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.159

Braman, D. (2007). Doing time on the outside: Incarceration and family life in urban America. University of Michigan Press.

Brown, E. (2014). Expanding carceral geographies: Challenging mass incarceration and creating a “community orientation” towards juvenile delinquency. Geographica Helvetica, 69(5), 377–388. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/gh-69-377-2014

Calley, N. G. (2012). Juvenile offender recidivism: An examination of risk factors. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 21(3), 257–272. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2012.668266

Campregher, J., & Jeglic, E. L. (2016). Attitudes toward juvenile sex offender legislation: The influence of case-specific information. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 25(4), 466–482. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2016.1153558

Cauffman, E., & Steinberg, L. (2012). Emerging findings from research on adolescent development and juvenile justice. Victims & Offenders, 7(4), 428–449. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2012.713901

Chaffin, M., Letourneau, E., & Silovsky, J. F. (2002). Adults, adolescents, and children who sexually abuse children: A developmental perspective. U J. E. B. Myers, L. Berliner, J. Briere, C. T. Hendrix, C. Jenny, & T. A. Reid (Eds.), The APSAC handbook on child maltreatment (2nd ed., pp. 205–232). Sage Publications.

Cohen, A., & Casey, B. J. (2013). Rewiring juvenile justice: The intersection of developmental neuroscience and legal policy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 63–65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.11.002

Cuervo, K., & Villanueva, L. (2015). Analysis of risk and protective factors for recidivism in Spanish youth offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59(11), 1149–1165. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X14557917

Cullen, F., Pealer, J., Fisher, B., Applegate, B., & Santana, S. (2002). Public support for correctional rehabilitation in America: Change or consistency. U J. V. Roberts & M. Hough (Eds.), Changing attitudes to punishment: Public opinion, crime and justice (pp. 128–147). Routledge.

Denver, M., Pickett, J. T., & Bushway, S. D. (2017). The language of stigmatization and the mark of violence: Experimental evidence on the social construction and use of criminal record stigma. Criminology, 55(3), 664–690. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12145

Feld, B. (2004). Competence, culpability, and punishment: Implications of Atkins for executing and sentencing adolescents. Hofstra Law Review, 32, 463–552.

Feld, B. C. (1999). Bad kids: Race and the transformation of the juvenile court. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195097870.001.0001

Ghetti, S., & Redlich, A. D. (2001). Reactions to youth crime: Perceptions of accountability and competency. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 19(1), 33–52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.426

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Harvard University Press.

Greene, E., & Evelo, A. J. (2013). Attitudes regarding life sentences for juvenile offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 37(4), 276–289. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000031

Hess, K. M., Orthmann, C. H., & Wright, J. P. (2012). Juvenile justice. Cengage Learning.

Hirschfield, P. J., & Piquero, A. R. (2010). Normalization and legitimation: Modeling stigmatizing attitudes toward ex-offenders. Criminology, 48(1), 27–55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00179.x

Howell, D. C. (2002). Statistical methods for psychology (5th ed.). Duxbury.

Howells, K., & Day, A. (1999). The rehabilitation of offenders: International perspectives applied to Australian correctional systems (Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice No. 112). Australian Institute of Criminology.

Karić, T., Protić, S., Kolaković-Bojović, M., Paraušić, A., & Drndarević, N. (2021). Analiza uticaja primene Zakona o maloletnim učiniocima krivičnih dela i krivičnopravnoj zaštiti maloletnih lica u periodu od 2006. do 2020. godine [Impact analysis of the Law on Juvenile Criminal Offenders and Criminal Protection of Juveniles]. OSCE Mission to Serbia.

Kim, H. J., & Gerber, J. (2012). The effectiveness of reintegrative shaming and restorative justice conferences: Focusing on juvenile offenders’ perceptions in Australian reintegrative shaming experiments. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56(7), 1063–1079. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X11418916

Kingston, P. W., & Finkel, S. E. (1987). Is there a marriage gap in politics? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/352669

Kuran, T., & Sunstein, C. R. (1999). Availability cascades and risk regulation. Stanford Law Review, 51, 683–768. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1229439

Lowenstein, L. (2010). The sorry truth is that most sex offenders can’t be rehabilitated.

Mears, D. P. (2001). Getting tough with juvenile offenders: Explaining support for sanctioning youths as adults. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28(2), 206–226. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854801028002004

Mears, D. P., Hay, C., Gertz, M., & Mancini, C. (2007). Public opinion and the foundation of the juvenile court. Criminology, 45(1), 223–257. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2007.00077.x

Menon, S. E., & Cheung, M. (2018). Desistance-focused treatment and asset-based programming for juvenile offender reintegration: A review of research evidence. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 35(5), 459–476. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-018-0542-8

Moon, M. M., Sundt, J. L., Cullen, F. T., & Wright, J. P. (2000). Is child saving dead? Public support for juvenile rehabilitation. Crime & Delinquency, 46(1), 38–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128700046001003

Salerno, J. M., Najdowski, C. J., Stevenson, M. C., Wiley, T. R., Bottoms, B. L., Vaca, R., Jr., & Pimentel, P. S. (2010). Psychological mechanisms underlying support for juvenile sex offender registry laws: Prototypes, moral outrage, and perceived threat. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28(1), 58–83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.921

Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1997). A life-course theory of cumulative disadvantage and the stability of delinquency. U T. P. Thornberry (Ed.), Developmental theories of crime and delinquency (Vol. 7, pp. 133–161). Transaction Publishers.

Saribay, S. A., & Yilmaz, O. (2017). Analytic cognitive style and cognitive ability differentially predict religiosity and social conservatism. Personality and Individual Differences, 114, 24–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.03.056

Scott, E. S., Reppucci, N. D., Antonishak, J., & DeGennaro, J. T. (2006). Public attitudes about the culpability and punishment of young offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 24(6), 815–832. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.727

Škulić, M. Z. (2011). Maloletničko krivično pravo. Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu.

Tarolla, S. M., Wagner, E. F., Rabinowitz, J., & Tubman, J. G. (2002). Understanding and treating juvenile offenders: A review of current knowledge and future directions. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7(2), 125–143. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(00)00041-0

Truett, K. R. (1993). Age differences in conservatism. Personality and Individual Differences, 14(3), 405–411. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(93)90309-Q

Wu, B. (2000). Determinants of public opinion toward juvenile waiver decisions. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 51(1), 9–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-6988.2000.tb00014.x

Zimring, F. (2000). Penal proportionality for young offenders: Notes on immaturity, capacity, and diminished responsibility. U T. Grisso & R. G. Schwartz (Eds.), Youth on trial: A developmental perspective on juvenile justice (pp. 271–291). University of Chicago Press.