Full text of DOI:10.1111/j.1755-6988.2003.tb00153.x

Public Opinion of Teen, Classroom,
and Formal Court Styles
BY MARK G. HARMON, B.A., KRISTI M. LEMM, PH.D., AND LOUIS G. LIPPMAN, PH.D.
A B S T R A C T
The present research examined the views of a community sample regard-
ing teen court, classroom court, and formal/traditional court. Participants
read vignettes of teen offenders who had committed crimes of high or low
Teen courts (sometimes
12% use
a
peer jury,
severity and were given relatively severe or mild sentences through one of
the three courts. Results revealed stronger support for teen court than the
other courts, a general preference for harsh sentences, and a preference
for match between crime and punishment. The results of this study indicate
that teen courts are seen as providing an appropriate means to sentence
juvenile offenders and are likely to receive public support for their contin-
ued operation.
T
referred to as youth courts),
10% use a youth tribunal,
and 22% incorporate a
mixed model of one or
more of these components.
Typically, teen courts deal
which were created as an
alternative to traditional juve-
nile court processes, are
young and rapidly evolving
programs. The number of
with
relatively
minor
teen courts has grown in
crimes, although they can
be used for more serious crimes. A recent national
survey indicated that crimes of theft, including shoplift-
ing, are most commonly associated with teen courts
recent years from fewer than 50 in operation in 1991 to
as many as 700 in 2000, with the vast majority in opera-
tion fewer than five years (Butts & Buck, 2000). Teen
courts operate under the theory that a sanction levied
by one’s peers will be more effective than a sanction
that comes from an arbitrary figure. In contrast to tradi-
tional courts where adolescents are sentenced by an
adult judge, teen courts use other youths, as peers, to
participate in the sentencing process.
(Butts & Buck, 2000). Other offenses handled include
minor assaults, disorderly conduct, alcohol and marijua-
na possession, and vandalism. Many teen courts operate
in a traditional court atmosphere, usually held in a
formal county or state courthouse, and usually follow
traditional criminal court procedures.
Previous research into the effectiveness of teen
courts has been mixed. Hissong (1991) found that teen
courts can be an effective tool. His contention is sup-
ported by his findings that teen court youths reported
lower recidivism than youths processed through the tra-
ditional juvenile court. Other research has been less
The structure of specific teen courts varies greatly
from district to district, with some courts using youth
defense and prosecuting attorneys, some using youth
juries,and some using youth judges or a panel of judges.
Butts and Buck (2000) reported that 47% of teen courts
incorporate an adult judge model,9% use a youth judge,
Mark G. Harmon received a B.A. from Western Washington University in 2002, with majors in psychology and sociology.
Kristi M. Lemm, Ph.D. is an assistant professor of social and quantitative psychology at Western Washington University. Her research interests are
primarily in implicit stereotyping and prejudice.
Louis G. Lippman, Ph.D. is a professor of psychology at Western Washington University. His research interests range from mental practice in music
learning to variations of operant conditioning.
Spring 2003 • Juvenile and Family Court Journal 51

Public Opinion of Court Styles
promising,showing a rise in re-offense rates and an over-
all public displeasure with the teen court system (Butts
native court programs (e.g., Cullen, Fisher, & Applegate,
2000; Sigler & Lamb, 1995; Stylianou, 2003; Walker,
1985). Public opinion can have both direct and indirect
impacts on the courts. Indirectly, legislative support for
alternative sanction processes depends largely on com-
munity support. Directly, public opinion can affect how
alternative courts function by influencing who partici-
pates in them and why they do it.It has been shown that
judges often consider public opinion when imposing a
sentence (Doob, 2000; Walker, 1985). Further research
has indicated that, regardless of their effectiveness, sur-
vival of alternative programs depends on the public’s
political and economic support (Flanagan, 1996;
Flanagan,McGarrell,& Brown,1985;VanVoorhis,Cullen,
& Applegate, 1995). Whatcom’s teen court is no differ-
ent; its survival depends on public support. It also
depends on parental support, because teens cannot be
included in the system without parental approval.
The present research is intended to explore public
perception of the effectiveness of teen courts. The
current study goes beyond typical survey research by
assessing public opinion in the context of an experi-
mental research design. Participants read realistic sce-
narios of typical crimes along with different types of
sentences. One group of participants read about offend-
ers processed by teen court, another group read about
traditional juvenile court, and a third group read about
the recently proposed classroom court in which the
teen court process is moved to a classroom rather than
a courthouse. Severity of the crime committed (high
versus low severity) and severity of the sentence (severe
versus mild) were manipulated within participants, so
that each participant read four different scenarios,
representing each of the possible combinations of crime
and sentence severity. We anticipated that citizens
would have relatively favorable attitudes toward teen
courts in general, but we were uncertain how teen
courts would compare to traditional courts in terms of
public support. Consistent with previous research (e.g.,
Bennett, 1991; Cullen et al., 2000; Flanagan et al., 1985;
Butts & Buck, 2000), we predicted that participants
would favor more severe sentences, particularly when
accompanied by more serious crimes.
&
Buck, 2000).
The current study deals specifically with the juve-
nile court system of Whatcom County, Washington.
Whatcom County is located in the northwest corner of
the state, just south of the Canadian border. It is a rela-
tively rural community that includes the small city of
Bellingham, population 67,000.Whatcom County’s teen
court uses adult judges and teen juries.The purpose of
the court is solely to determine a sentence for the youth
offenders; teens who appear before the court have
admitted their guilt and their parents have permitted
them to participate in the teen court process.Teen pros-
ecuting and defense attorneys present the facts of the
case and recommend possible sentences to a jury.The
jury is comprised of youths from local alternative
schools and past teen court defendants.Teens also serve
as clerk and bailiff.An adult volunteer attorney presides
and oversees the action of the participants.The process
takes place one night a week in a traditional courthouse
and handles about four cases a month.Whatcom County
is also currently considering operating teen courts in
local high schools. Classroom courts would follow the
same procedures as teen courts but the courtroom
would be set up in the classroom rather than in
Whatcom County courthouse.
Whatcom’s teen court has enjoyed a relatively
short, but successful career. (Forgays, 2001). Studies into
similar teen courts have indicated that they can be suc-
cessful. However, these studies have typically involved
simple survey measures and non-representative sam-
ples,and thus have been limited in their findings.A large
number of these studies have been primarily descriptive
in nature, intended to describe the functioning of the
court rather than to evaluate it. Research evaluating the
effectiveness of teen courts has been limited mostly to
reporting recidivism rates (Harrison, Maupin, & Mays,
2001;Hissong,1991;Minor,Wells,Soderstrom,Bringham,
&
Williamson, 1990; Reichel & Seyfrit, 1995).
While the actual effectiveness of alternative crimi-
nal justice systems is important to evaluate, public opin-
ion also plays a crucial role in the functioning of alter-
52 Juvenile and Family Court Journal • Spring 2003

Mark G. Harmon, et al.
Method
Participants
of the four offenders reflected criminal offense profiles
required by Whatcom teen court. Requirements include
that the youths be second offenders who participated in
a diversion program for their first offense.All offenders
were described as being male, 15 years old, living at
home with their families, and attending local high
schools. Each offender admitted his guilt and pleaded
guilty to his crime.
Seventy-two Whatcom County residents, ranging in
age from 18 to 80, participated in this study.The sample
was obtained in three locations in Bellingham,
Washington: on the campus of Western Washington
University, at Bellingham International Airport, and at a
local family restaurant. Researchers approached people
individually as they engaged in everyday activities and
asked if they would participate in a short survey. Each
participant was compensated with a free pass to a local
health club. Participants were randomly assigned to one
of three groups. Group one (formal court) consisted of
Independent Variables. Following the descrip-
tion of common offender characteristics, participants
were shown a brief description of one of the three court
processes in question (formal court, teen court, or class-
room court). Court type was manipulated between
participants, so each participant read about only one of
the three court types. Participants then read four
vignettes, each describing a different defendant. In each
case, the damage amount or total worth of the items
stolen was identified as $100.
12 women and 12 men with a mean age of 30.17 (SD =
14.02).Group two (teen court) consisted of 11 men and
13 women with a mean age of 33.54 (SD = 16.95).
Group three (classroom court) consisted of 11 men and
3 women with a mean age of 30.67 (SD = 13.95).
1
Educational level was consistent across all groups. All
but one respondent reported being registered to vote
and 59.72% of the respondents reported being regis-
tered in Whatcom County. Fifty-six respondents (79%)
classified themselves as White or Caucasian, three
The four vignettes varied in the level of crime
committed (low severity versus high severity) and in the
level of sentencing (mild sentence versus severe
sentence).To allow for variety and to reduce the chance
of participant boredom, two different crimes were
described for each crime level (total of four different
crimes). Crime examples were taken from the
Washington State Sentencing Guidelines Commission
(2.77%) were Hispanic or Latino, three (2.77%) were
Black or African American, four (5.55%) were Asian
American or Pacific Islander, and six (6.94%) classified
themselves as other or multiracial.
(
(
2000). High severity crimes were category B crimes
burglary and theft from an automobile) and low sever-
Materials and Design
ity crimes consisted of category E crimes (shoplifting
and vandalism). The mild sentence consisted of $100
restitution to the victim and 10 hours of community
service, while the severe sentence was $100 restitution
to the victim, 50 hours community service, $500 fine,
and one year of probation. Each participant read one
vignette of each of the four combinations of crime
severity by sentence severity.Thus, the full design of the
study was 2 (crime level:high versus low) x 2 (sentence
level: severe versus mild) x 3 (court type: teen,
classroom, and formal) with crime and sentence level
manipulated within participants and court type manip-
ulated between participants.
Booklets were distributed to each participant in the
study.All participants received the same cover page that
consisted of a brief, non-specific explanation of the pur-
poses of this study. It described the study as a look into
public opinions of court processes and sentencing of
youth offenders.The cover page also included a consent
form and authorization to use participant information in
the study.
Written instructions asked participants to read the
common characteristics of four offenders and then
move on to the descriptions of the four offenders’ indi-
vidual characteristics. Vignettes were kept as concise
and simple as possible to maximize respondent return
rate and minimize confusion. Legal language that might
be confusing was limited, and all text was written so
every participant would be able to understand the cases
without any legal background. Common characteristics
Dependent Variables.After reading each vignette,
participants responded to four items, recorded on a
Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6
(strongly agree). Participants indicated: 1) the extent to
Spring 2003 • Juvenile and Family Court Journal 53

Public Opinion of Court Styles
which they believed the sentence was justifiable
punishment for the crime committed; 2) the extent to
which they believed the offender was likely to
re-offend; 3) whether they believed the sentencing
process was fair for the defendant; and 4) whether they
would support legislation that promotes this type of
sentencing procedure.
an overall preference for more punitive sentences (e.g.,
Bennett, 1991; Cullen et al., 2000; Flanagan et al., 1985;
Butts & Buck, 2000). These effects, and all others
reported in subsequent sections,were not moderated by
participant gender or age.
Regarding beliefs about the appropriateness of the
sentence, the main effect described above was qualified
by an interaction of crime type by sentence type, col-
lapsing across the three court styles, F(1, 69) = 4.60, p <
.05.As shown in Figure 1, participants rated harsh sen-
tences as being equally appropriate in response to
severe crimes as mild crimes. Mild sentences, in con-
trast, were rated as less appropriate when they were
given in response to severe crimes than to more mild
crimes.With regard to mild sentences, this is consistent
with previous research indicating that sentences are
rated as more fair when they are seen as being propor-
tional to the crime (Ashworth & Hough,1996).No other
interaction effects were present in the study.
The final page of the packet was a questionnaire to
assess demographic information including age, gender,
ethnicity, educational level, and voter registration status.
After the packet was completed,participants were given
a written debriefing form that described the full pur-
pose of the study.
Procedure
Participants were approached at one of the three
sampling points and asked to participate. They were
informed that they would receive compensation for par-
ticipation in the form of a pass to a health club and told
that they had no obligation to participate. Those who
chose to participate were given a pass and a booklet and
given as much time as needed to answer all the questions.
Effects of Court Type
As shown in Table 2, participants indicated that they
would support legislation for teen court over formal
court, as indicated by a significant main effect of court
style collapsing across all crime and sentence variables.
Tukey post-hoc comparisons (with alpha = .05) indicated
that teen court received significantly greater support than
formal court,indicating that the public is ready to support
this alternative form of criminal justice. However,because
classroom court received no more support than formal
court, it is possible that the public believes that transfer-
ring teen court to the schools is going one step too far.
Public support for teen court was not moderated by
either crime or sentence severity. Additionally, no main
effects of court type or interactions with court type and
crime or sentence severity were observed on partici-
pants’ ratings of the appropriateness of the sentence or
fairness of the process for the defendant.
Results
Effects of Crime and Sentence Severity
Across all four questions and all three court styles,
participants consistently gave higher ratings in response
to reading about the harsher of the two possible
sentences. Independent analyses of variance (ANOVA)
on each of the four questions revealed significant main
effects of punishment severity.As shown in Table 1, par-
ticipants rated the sentence as more appropriate when
it was severe than when it was mild.Youths were rated
as less likely to re-offend when they had received a
severe sentence than when they had received a mild
sentence. Likewise, the court process was rated as fairer
for the youths who received harsh sentences than for
those who received mild sentences. Last, participants
indicated greater support for legislation for the court
when defendants received harsh sentences than when
they received mild sentences, regardless of the type of
court in which defendants were tried. These main
effects of sentence severity are consistent with a large
body of previous research indicating that the public has
An unexpected result, shown in Table 2, was that
although teen court received the most support for leg-
islation,it also was rated as the court from which youths
were most likely to re-offend, as indicated by a main
effect of court type. Overall, participants thought that
youths were relatively likely to re-offend (irrelevant of
54 Juvenile and Family Court Journal • Spring 2003

Mark G. Harmon, et al.
T A B L E
1
Mean Ratings in Response to Severe Versus Mild Sentences
SEVERE SENTENCE
MILD SENTENCE
F(1,69)
Sentence appropriateness
Likelihood to re-offend
Fairness of court process
Support for legislation
3.91
4.43
4.19
3.93
3.00
3.78
3.70
3.58
31.62***
18.08***
9.92**
6.02*
Note: Higher scores indicate greater agreement with item. *p< .05, **p < .01, ***p< .001.
T A B L E
2
Mean Ratings as a Function of Court Type
TEEN
COURT
CLASSROOM
COURT
FORMAL
COURT
F(2,69)
Support for legislation
Likelihood to re-offend
4.07a
4.35a
3.72a,b
3.95b
3.48b
4.01b
3.56*
5.85**
Note: Higher scores indicate greater agreement with item. Means in the same row with different subscripts are
significantly different, p<.05.
*p< .05, **p < .01, ***p< .001.
F I G U R E
1
Severe Sentence
Mild Sentence
High Severity
Crime Severity
Low Severity
Figure 1. Mean ratings of sentence appropriateness as a function of crime severity and sentence severity.
Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals for the mean.
Spring 2003 • Juvenile and Family Court Journal 55

Public Opinion of Court Styles
court type),but teen court was rated higher than formal
court or classroom court. This effect was unpredicted
and does not lend itself to easy explanation. It is possi-
ble that the public is interested in supporting develop-
ment of alternative justice systems for teens even
though they are as yet uncertain about the long-term
effectiveness of these courts.
raised in this study, because without support, teen
courts, regardless of their effectiveness, will not survive.
Public support has both direct and indirect effects on
the court. Indirectly, funding for these courts comes
from both state legislatures and county appropriated
money.If the public is not in favor of these courts,politi-
cians are less likely to fund them. This is true even if
politicians believe that the courts are effective or that
current data support them (Oliver, 1988;Van Voorhis et
al.,1995).Directly and specifically toWhatcom County’s
teen court, the parents of teen defendants determine
whether or not their child participates in the teen court
process. Parents must sign a waiver allowing their child
to be a teen court defendant (as opposed to formal
court), or to participate as a court officer or jury mem-
ber.If public support for teen court declines,the decline
is likely to lead to a shortage of youth participants, thus
jeopardizing teen court’s continued operation.
In sum,these results provide evidence that the pub-
lic is likely to support teen courts, particularly when
courts administer harsh, crime-appropriate sentences.
Discussion
Public opinion research has shown a growing dis-
satisfaction with the current criminal justice system in
recent years (Ashworth & Hough, 1996, Flanagan et al.,
1985; Roberts, 1996; Sprott, 1999;Warr, 1995).The pub-
lic feels that crime is on the rise and courts are not
doing enough to help curb this rise, a view that persists
even though it is not supported by actual crime statis-
tics (Bennett, 1991; Cullen et al., 2000). In particular,
research has continually shown that the public believes
that the courts are not handing out appropriate
sentences. Longer prison terms, larger fines, and closer
monitoring of convicted criminals are seen as the most
effective ways to reduce crime. Media coverage helps
fuel public misperceptions about the juvenile crime rate
For teen courts to survive, the public must be
shown that the court can be effective. Compared with
formal court, teen court may provide greater education-
al benefits to the youth participants.Teens who partici-
pate in the court as court officers and jury members
gain valuable insight into how the courts operate and
what can happen to a person who is convicted of a
crime. This insight is particularly valuable for the jury
members who are students from the local alternative
high schools.These teens are considered at a higher risk
to become criminal offenders, and jury service may
teach them about the consequences of criminal activity.
One unexpected result of the study was the partici-
pants’ belief that youths who participate in teen court
are at higher risk to re-offend than offenders in either
classroom or formal court. Analysis revealed no signifi-
cant difference between respondents’ mean scores of
classroom and formal court, but significant differences
between teen court and both classroom and formal
court.It is not clear why this effect was present;it is pos-
sible that it is due to extremely low variability in
responses within each court type,or it may indicate that
the public supports alternative court systems for rea-
sons unrelated to recidivism.
(Bennett, 1991).The public is tired of seeing crime on
TV, in the paper, and in their neighborhoods and
believes that handing out harsher sentences will send a
message to criminals.
Therefore, it is not surprising that the participants
in the present study favored more severe sentences.
Whatcom County residents who participated in this
study mirrored the national and international trends
towards harsher sentences (Stylianou,2003;Warr,1995).
The support for the harsher of the two sentences was
not indiscriminate, however. According to deterrence
theory, the goal of criminal sanction is to punish the
offender with just enough sanction to stop that crime.
The results of this study indicate that the public sup-
ports this philosophy.The public wants the punishment
to fit the crime.When the crime is serious and the court
hands out a disproportionally mild sentence, the con-
stituency is less likely to support the court.
Equally surprising was the extent to which teens
were seen as likely to re-offend.Across the three court
styles, the likelihood of re-offending was rated as 4.10
Support for legislation is the most important issue
56 Juvenile and Family Court Journal • Spring 2003

Mark G. Harmon, et al.
out of a possible 6.This high rating could be explained
by a possible bias created in the design.The vignettes’
text informed participants that all defendants were sec-
ond offenders who had gone through diversion on their
first offense. Because all defendants were identified as
second-time offenders, the participants could have con-
cluded that these teens are on a path to become career
criminals. Other research has supported this assertion
by indicating that the public feels that teens who do not
stop offending after their first or second offense are like-
ly to continue to re-offend (Roberts, 1996). Future work
may want to focus on removing this possible bias in the
design. This change could help to explain the higher
than expected scores on the re-offend question.
is that participants were recruited using a pseudo-ran-
dom procedure, thus the sample may not be fully repre-
sentative of the general population.The present sample
closely resembled the population ofWhatcom County in
both gender and education and was only slightly
younger than the county average, however, suggesting
that it is a reasonably good representation of the gener-
al population.
Public support is vital to the survival of the nation’s
teen courts.Alternative programs will go as far the pub-
lic will let them and no further.The present study sug-
gests that the public is willing to support alternatives to
formal court for teen offenders.Teen court is perceived
as being even more effective than formal court, and is
expected to receive continued public support.
An additional concern regarding the present study
A U T H O R S ’
A D D R E S S E S :
All authors can be reached
by contacting:
Kristi M. Lemm, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
Western Washington University
5
16 High Street, MS 9089
Bellingham, WA 98225
Spring 2003 • Juvenile and Family Court Journal 57

Public Opinion of Court Styles
REFERENCES
Ashworth,A. & Hough, M. (1996). Sentencing and the climate
of opinion. Criminal Law Review, 776-787.
Oliver, D. (1988). Politicians and the courts. Parliamentary
Affairs, 41, 13-33.
Bennett, L. A. (1991). The public wants accountability.
Reichel, P. & Seyfrit, C. (1995). A peer jury in juvenile court.
Corrections Today, 13, 92-95.
Crime and Delinquency, 30, 423-438.
Butts, J.A. & Buck, J. (2000).Teen courts:A focus on research.
Roberts, J. V. (1996). Public opinion, criminal record, and the
Juvenile Justice Bulletin, October, 1-15.
sentencing process. American Behavioral Scientist, 39(4),
488-499.
Cullen, F.T., Fisher, B. S.,Applegate, B. K. (2000). Public opinion
about punishment and corrections. Crime and Justice, 27,1-79
Sigler, R.T., & Lamb, D. (1995). Community-based alternatives
to prison: How the public and court personnel view them.
Federal Probation, 59(2), 3-9.
Doob,A. N. (2000).Transferring the punishment environment:
Understanding public views of what should be accomplished
at sentencing. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 32, 323-
Sprott,J.B.(1999).Are members of the public tough on crime?
The dimensions of public“punitiveness .” Journal of Criminal
Justice, 27(5), 467-474.
340.
Flanagan, T. J. (1996). Community correction in the public
mind. Federal Probation, 60(3), 3-9.
Stylianou,S.(2003).Measuring crime seriousness perceptions:
What have we learned and what else do we want to know.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(1), 37-56.
Flanagan,T. J., McGarrell, E. F., & Brown, E. J. (1985). Public per-
ceptions of the criminal courts:The role of demographic and
related attitudinal variables. Journal of Research in Crime
and Delinquency, 22(1), 66-83.
Van Voorhis, P., Cullen,T. C., & Applegate, B. (1995). Evaluating
interventions with offenders:A guide for practitioners and pol-
icymakers. Federal Probation, 59(2), 17-27.
Forgays, D. K. (2001). Evaluation of Whatcom County Teen
Court. Olympia, WA: Governor’s Juvenile Justice Advisory
Committee.
Walker, N. (1985). Sentencing by English magistrates as a
human process. Sentencing: Theory, Law, and Practice.
London: Butterworth and Co.
Harrison, P., Maupin, J. R., & Mays, G. L. (2001).Teen court:An
examination of processes and outcomes. Crime and
Delinquency, 47(2), 243-264.
Warr,M.(1995).The polls-poll trends:Public opinion on crime
and punishment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 59, 296-310.
Hissong R. (1991).Teen court—is it an effective alternate to
traditional sanctions? Journal of Juvenile Justice and
Detention Services, 6, 14-23.
Washington State Sentencing Guidelines Commission. (2000).
Juvenile disposition manual. Olympia: Washington State
Press.
Minor, K. I., Wells, J. B., Soderstrom, I. R., Bringham, R., &
Williamson, D. (1990). Sentence completion and recidivism
among juveniles referred to teen court. Crime and
Delinquency, 45(4), 467-480.
58 Juvenile and Family Court Journal • Spring 2003