| Sumario: | A study was conducted to examine juvenile sentencing reform in Texas in order to highlight the theoretical, empirical, and methodological limitations of such research that preclude adequate description, prediction, or assessment of decision-making processes and outcomes. Data were drawn from interviews and surveys, and an analytical framework for improved description, modeling, and assessment of sentencing was outlined. This framework emphasizes how various theories fail to identify certain patterns, exaggerate or minimize the importance of certain patterns or the factors believed to be responsible for these patterns, or distort the meaning or importance of identified patterns in sentencing. Using this framework, the common ground shared by juvenile and adult sentencing research will be highlighted. The exact contours of this common ground will, ideally, be clarified in future research, leading to more general sociological theories of sentencing and, eventually, to accumulation of knowledge about decision making in general.
|
|---|