Life-sentenced juveniles: Public perceptions of risk and need for incarceration

Pursuant to recent United States Supreme Court decisions in Miller v. Alabama (2012) and Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016), individuals convicted of crimes committed when they were younger than 18 and for which they received mandatory life sentences are entitled to new sentencing hearings. This study examined public perceptions of such individuals (life-sentenced juveniles, or LSJs). Study participants were 663 adults (52.3% male) ages 22-71years (M=36.00, SD=11.46) recruited using Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Each participant received one of a possible four vignettes about a man who was incarcerated for a crime that occurred when he was 17years old and subsequently sentenced to mandatory life in prison following conviction. Two variables (risk of harming others if released to the community, and circumstances of the crime) were manipulated in a 2x2 between-subjects design. Each participant read one vignette and then answered questions relating to appropriateness for release from prison. Results indicate that risk, but not circumstances of the crime, strongly influenced participants' views regarding resentencing. When the individual in the vignette was labeled as high risk, participants described him as less appropriate for release, more deserving of punishment, needing more rehabilitation, and more appropriate for specific and general deterrence. The circumstances of the crime had no effect on participants' responses. This may be important for various reasons, as applicable law does not explicitly identify risk as a consideration in juvenile resentencing. The nonetheless noteworthy empirical influence of risk on perceptions regarding LSJs is discussed in their implications for research, policy, and practice.