Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:10 pm
Time: 9:10 pm
Results for juvenile court transfers
27 results foundAuthor: Redding, Richard E. Title: Juvenile Transfer Laws: An Effective Deterrent to Delinquency? Summary: In an effort to strengthen the sanctions for serious juvenile crimes, a number of States have enacted laws increasing the types of offenders and offenses eligible for transfer from the juvenile court to the adult criminal court for trial and potential sentencing. These laws have lowered the minimum transfer age, increased the number of offenses eligible for transfer, and limited judicial discretion, while expanding prosecutorial discretion for transfers. Among the principal goals of such transfer laws are the deterrence of juvenile crime and a reduction in the rate of recidivism, but what does the research indicate about their effectiveness in addressing these ends? Several studies have found higher recidivism rates for juveniles convicted in criminal court than for similar offenders adjudicated in juvenile courts. The research is less clear, however, in regard to whether transfer laws deter potential juvenile offenders. This Bulletin provides an overview of research on the deterrent effects of transferring youth from juvenile to criminal courts, focusing on large-scale comprehensive OJJDP-funded studies on the effect of transfer laws on recidivism. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2010. 12p. Source: Internet Resource; Accessed August 14, 2010 at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/220595.pdf; Juvenile Justice Bulletin, June 2010 Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/220595.pdf; Juvenile Justice Bulletin, June 2010 Shelf Number: 119607 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersJuvenile CourtsJuvenile OffendersRecidivism |
Author: Duvall, Kate Title: Unlocking the Truth: Real Stories About the Trial and Incarceration of Youth as Adults in Virginia Summary: The report, Unlocking the Truth: Real Stories About the Trial and Incarceration of Youth as Adults in Virginia, is a result of JustChildren’s listening tour with youth convicted as adults, families, community members, and attorneys during the summer and fall of 2010. Key Findings: Adult convictions undermine successful reentry. Youth tried, convicted, and incarcerated as adults in Virginia face numerous obstacles to living productive and crime-free lives upon their return home due to a lack of services and opportunities in the adult correctional system and the barriers associated with an adult conviction; Adult correctional institutions are not safe places for young people. The youth and families JustChildren interviewed recounted numerous stories about victimization and isolation of young people incarcerated with adults; There is a lot of variation in local practice around making certification decisions. The time and attention paid to the decision to try a youth as an adult often varied from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. As a result, similar youth charged with similar offenses face extremely dissimilar outcomes based on the jurisdictions in which they are tried; and Unequal bargaining power produces unjust results. Because Commonwealth’s Attorneys have virtually unlimited authority over certification decisions for a wide array of offenses, they have a tremendous amount of bargaining power when it comes to negotiating pleas. Defense attorneys expressed frustration with how the threat of transfer inhibits their ability to pursue a meaningful defense for their young clients who are facing serious consequences and puts a lot of pressure on youth to plead guilty. Details: Charlottesville, VA: JustChildren, Legal Aid Justice Center, 2010. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 30, 2010 at: http://dontthrowawaythekey.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/final-unlocking-the-truth-report1.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://dontthrowawaythekey.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/final-unlocking-the-truth-report1.pdf Shelf Number: 120314 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersJuvenile Offenders (Virginia)Waiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Arya, Neelum Title: State Trends: Legislative Victories from 2005 to 2010: Removing Youth from the Adult Criminal Justice System Summary: A spike in youth crime during the 1980s and 1990s prompted state policymakers to expand laws to put more children in adult court, implement mandatory sentencing policies for certain crimes, and lower the age at which a child could be prosecuted as an adult. State policymakers believed their efforts would improve public safety and deter future crime. However, studies across the nation have consistently concluded that state laws prosecuting youth in adult court are ineffective at deterring crime and reducing recidivism. The consequences of an adult conviction aren’t minor; they are serious, long-term, life-threatening, and in some cases, deadly. However, awareness of the problem is not enough. Policymakers and the public must have viable alternative solutions. This report, State Trends: Legislative Changes from 2005-2010 Removing Youth from the Adult Criminal Justice System, provides some initial answers by examining innovative strategies states are using to remove and protect youth in the adult criminal justice system. State Trends demonstrates a “turning tide” in how our country handles youth. In the not-so-distant past, politicians have had their careers ruined by a “soft on crime” image. Fortunately, the politics around youth crime are changing. State policymakers appear less wedded to “tough on crime” policies, choosing to substitute them with policies that are “smart on crime.” Given the breadth and scope of the changes, these trends are not short-term anomalies but evidence of a long-term restructuring of the juvenile justice system. In the past five years, 15 states have changed their state laws, with at least nine additional states with active policy reform efforts underway. These changes are occurring in all regions of the country spearheaded by state and local officials of both major parties and supported by a bipartisan group of governors. Details: Washington, DC: Campaign for Youth Justice, 2011. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 16, 2011 at: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/CFYJ_State_Trends_Report.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/CFYJ_State_Trends_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 121043 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Offenders (U.S.)Waiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Deitch, Michele Title: Juveniles in the Adult Criminal Justice System in Texas Summary: The report provides a comprehensive look at Texas’s methods for dealing with the state’s most serious juvenile offenders. It gathers all available Texas data with respect to certified juveniles — those youth who are transferred to adult criminal court — and compares them to the population of determined sentence juveniles who are retained in the juvenile justice system. The report also compares the significant differences in programming and services for the two populations of juvenile offenders — those who get sent to adult jails and prisons, and those who receive placements in the Texas Youth Commission (TYC). The report and its findings are especially timely during the Texas Legislature’s ongoing effort to reform and restructure the state’s juvenile justice system. Among the report’s most significant findings about juveniles transferred to the adult system are these: •Minimal differences exist between certified juveniles in the adult criminal justice system and determinate sentence juveniles in TYC, except for county of conviction. •Certified juveniles do not represent the “worst of the worst”—they are neither more violent nor more persistent in their criminal behavior than those retained in juvenile court and sent to TYC. •While the large majority of certified juveniles have committed violent offenses, only 17% have committed homicide. •About 15% of juveniles transferred to adult court are charged with non-violent felonies, including state jail offenses. •72% of certified juveniles do not have a prior violent criminal history, •29% of certified juveniles are first-time offenders. •89% of certified juveniles have never been committed to TYC, indicating that most certified youth have never had the opportunity to benefit from effective rehabilitative programs in the juvenile justice system, such as TYC’s highly regarded Capital and Serious Violent Offenders Program, which has a 95% success rate. Details: Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs, 2011. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 29, 2011 at: http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/sites/default/files/file/news/juvenilestexas--final.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/sites/default/files/file/news/juvenilestexas--final.pdf Shelf Number: 122171 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice System (Texas)Juvenile Offenders (Texas)Waiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Washington Coalition for the Just Treatment of Youth Title: A Reexamination of Youth Involvement in the Adult Criminal Justice System in Washington: Implications of New Findings about Juvenile Recidivism and Adolescent Brain Development Summary: In passing the Juvenile Justice Act of 1977, Washington’s legislature intended to “[p]rovide for punishment commensurate with the age, crime, and criminal history of the juvenile* offender.” Public policy shifted dramatically in the early 1990s, in response to erroneous predictions of an impending juvenile crime wave. As a result, numerous laws were enacted that allowed adolescents to be tried, sentenced, and incarcerated in the same manner as adults, in many cases without any consideration of their age or development. Although juvenile crime rates have actually decreased since the mid 1990s and many proponents of these changes have now admitted that their predictions regarding juvenile crime were incorrect, these policies remain in effect today. A reexamination of those policies is appropriate for several reasons. First, recent breakthroughs in brain development research have shown that due to anatomical differences in the adolescent brain, youth are less able than adults to assess risks, control impulsive behavior, and engage in moral reasoning. These differences are all relevant to assessing a juvenile’s culpability. This same research also suggests that adolescents are more amenable to rehabilitation than adults because one’s character continues to form as the brain matures. As such, adolescents typically “age out” of delinquent behavior as they move toward adulthood. For this reason, in Roper v. Simmons, the United States Supreme Court explained: “From a moral standpoint it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor’s character deficiencies will be reformed.”4 Second, evidence now exists that these policies threaten, rather than protect, public safety. Recent studies show that subjecting adolescents to the adult criminal justice system may actually increase future criminal behavior. This is likely due to adolescents incarcerated in adult facilities having reduced access to treatment and rehabilitative services while at the same time being exposed to an adult criminal culture rife with violence and antisocial behavior. This experience—known colloquially as “felon finishing school”—results in many youth emerging from incarceration at higher risk of offending than when they entered. In passing the Juvenile Justice Act of 1977, Washington’s legislature intended to “[p]rovide for punishment commensurate with the age, crime, and criminal history of the juvenile* offender.” Public policy shifted dramatically in the early 1990s, in response to erroneous predictions of an impending juvenile crime wave. As a result, numerous laws were enacted that allowed adolescents to be tried, sentenced, and incarcerated in the same manner as adults, in many cases without any consideration of their age or development. Although juvenile crime rates have actually decreased since the mid 1990s2 and many proponents of these changes have now admitted that their predictions regarding juvenile crime were incorrect,3 these policies remain in effect today. A reexamination of those policies is appropriate for several reasons. First, recent breakthroughs in brain development research have shown that due to anatomical differences in the adolescent brain, youth are less able than adults to assess risks, control impulsive behavior, and engage in moral reasoning. These differences are all relevant to assessing a juvenile’s culpability. This same research also suggests that adolescents are more amenable to rehabilitation than adults because one’s character continues to form as the brain matures. As such, adolescents typically “age out” of delinquent behavior as they move toward adulthood. For this reason, in Roper v. Simmons, the United States Supreme Court explained: “From a moral standpoint it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor’s character deficiencies will be reformed.” Second, evidence now exists that these policies threaten, rather than protect, public safety. Recent studies show that subjecting adolescents to the adult criminal justice system may actually increase future criminal behavior.5 This is likely due to adolescents incarcerated in adult facilities having reduced access to treatment and rehabilitative services while at the same time being exposed to an adult criminal culture rife with violence and antisocial behavior. This experience—known colloquially as “felon finishing school”—results in many youth emerging from incarceration at higher risk of offending than when they entered.Third, these policies have an unequal impact on youth of color and girls. Youth of color are disproportionately represented amongst adolescents who are tried as adults. A recent study summarized herein shows that this over representation cannot be explained by higher arrest rates for youth of color. The mandatory nature of many of these laws and the lack of gender-responsive services also have troubling consequences for girls who often have unique needs and characteristics that support individualized consideration. This report summarizes the breakthroughs in adolescent brain development, studies related to recidivism rates of youth who are treated as adults, and data regarding the use and implications of current Washington laws that allow—and in some cases require—that youth be treated as adults. In particular, this report analyzes the cases of the twenty-eight Washington youth in which the law mandated that the youth be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, the most severe sentence for youth available in Washington. Trial and appellate court records, as well as records from the Department of Corrections and information provided by the individuals sentenced in this manner were analyzed for this report. Details: Seattle (?): Washington Coalition for the Just Treatment of Youth, 2009. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 27, 2011 at: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/ReexaminationofYouthWA.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/ReexaminationofYouthWA.pdf Shelf Number: 122173 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders (Washington State)Recidivism |
Author: U.S. Department of Justice. Civil Rights Division Title: Investigation of the Shelby County Juvenile Court Summary: More than 40 years ago, the Supreme Court established the parameters of due process for children facing delinquency proceedings and thereby subject to the “awesome prospect of incarceration.” In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 36 (1967). The Court held that children must be afforded the right to counsel, the right to notice of the charges, the right to be free from self-incrimination, and the right to confront witnesses. Gault, 387 U.S. 1. The year before Gault, the Supreme Court held that a child facing the possibility of a transfer to adult criminal court must be accorded the protections of due process, including a hearing, the right to representation by counsel, access to the evidence considered in determining the waiver, and, where the court waives its jurisdiction, a statement of the reasons for transfer on the record. Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 561-62 (1966). In Shelby County, it is JCMSC’s obligation to ensure that due process principles are met. JCMSC must also administer justice in a non-discriminatory manner that comports with equal protection and does not result in discriminatory impacts that violate Title VI. We find that JCMSC fails to provide constitutionally required due process to children of all races. In addition, we find that JCMSC’s administration of justice discriminates against Black1 We have reasonable cause to believe that JCMSC fails to ensure due process for all children appearing for delinquency proceedings. children. Further, we find that JCMSC violates the substantive due process rights of detained youth by not providing them with reasonably safe conditions of confinement. • JCMSC fails to provide timely and adequate notice of charges to children appearing on delinquency matters by not providing petitions of their charges prior to their detention hearings or even, in many cases, before the adjudicatory hearing (the juvenile equivalent of a trial). This violates the requirement that notice be provided “sufficiently in advance of scheduled court proceedings so that reasonable opportunity to prepare will be afforded.” Gault, 387 U.S. at 33. • JCMSC fails to protect children from self-incrimination during probation conferences by (1) failing to advise juveniles of their Miranda rights prior to questioning them about the facts underlying their charges; (2) not obtaining informed waivers of those rights before asking the children to divulge potentially incriminating statements about their charges; and (3) eliciting self-incriminating statements in the absence of Miranda warnings and informed waivers. This is contrary to Gault’s holding that “the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination is applicable in the case of juveniles as it is with respect to adults.” Id. at 55. • JCMSC fails to hold timely probable cause hearings for children arrested without a warrant by failing to hold detention hearings on weekends and holidays. When a person has been arrested without a warrant, the Fourth Amendment requires that a judicial officer must determine that probable cause exists to believe the person has committed a crime in order for the state to continue the person’s detention. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1974). In County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 57 (1991), the Court held that probable cause determinations must be made within 48 hours of a warrantless arrest. Children at JCMSC experience extended detentions because the court has no procedure in place to hold detention hearings on weekends, extended holiday weekends, and holidays. For example, JCMSC detained 815 children over a five-year period for three days or more before their probable cause hearings. • JCMSC fails to provide adequate due process protections for children before transferring them to the adult criminal court. We observed hearings and reviewed transcripts in which Magistrates made transfer decisions after making cursory inquiries (and in some cases no inquiries) into the child’s background, after failing to hold a waiver hearing, or after asking the child to self-incriminate. This violates the minimal requirement that transfer proceedings “must measure up to the essentials of due process and fair treatment.” Kent, 383 U.S. at 562. We also have reason to believe that JCMSC engages in conduct that violates the constitutional guarantee of Equal Protection and federal laws prohibiting racial discrimination, including Title VI. We retained a leading, nationally recognized, expert on measuring disparities in the juvenile justice system through statistical analysis. Statisticians in the Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) Office of Justice Program’s Bureau of Justice Statistics and National Institute of Justice peer reviewed the expert’s work. The expert used two methodologies to make this determination. First, he reviewed JCMSC’s Relative Rate Index (“RRI”), the reporting mechanism required by DOJ’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (“OJJDP”).2 2 Our consultant was one of the developers of the RRI mechanism. The RRI compares Disproportionate Minority Contact in Shelby County with other counties throughout the nation. Our consultant also examined JCMSC’s case data – more than 66,000 files – over a five-year period to assess the outcomes throughout the different phases of a case, using odds ratio and logistic regression techniques. These techniques track the odds that a child’s case will be handled in a specific way at different decision points in the juvenile court process. The cases range from misdemeanor offenses, such as trespassing, to serious felony offenses, such as murder. Both methods show that Black children are disproportionately represented in almost every phase of the Shelby County juvenile justice system, including pre-trial detention and transfers to criminal court. Moreover, the data shows that in certain phases of the County’s juvenile justice system, race is – in and of itself – a significant contributing factor, even after factoring in legal variables (such as the nature of the charge and prior record of delinquency) and social variables (such as age, gender, and school attendance). • The statistical analysis shows that Black children in Shelby County are less likely to receive the benefits of more lenient judicial and non-judicial options. While we found that the impact of some legal and social factors reduced the impact of race, race was still a statistically significant factor in determining whether a child would receive lenient treatment (such as a warning) as opposed to more serious sanctions. Specifically, Black children were one third less likely to receive a warning than White children, even after accounting for other factors such as prior contacts with the court, the severity of the charges, gender, and education. • We also found a disparity in the initial detention of Black children as compared to White children. The case data showed that a Black child was more than twice as likely to be detained as a White child. This number remained unchanged after accounting for other legal and social factors. • We also found a substantial disparity in the rates of transfers to adult court. The RRI shows that JCMSC transfers Black children to adult criminal court more than two times as often than White children. Analysis of the case files shows that Black children in JCMSC have a greater odds ratio (2.07) of being considered for transfer to the criminal court and have a substantially higher chance of having their case actually transferred to the criminal court. Even after accounting for other variables including the types of offenses, prior offenses, age, and gender, the odds ratio associated with race was only slightly reduced to 2.02. This disproportionate impact cannot be explained by factors other than race. Our investigation also included a review of JCMSC’s detention facility. There we found several violations to the children’s substantive due process rights to reasonably safe conditions of confinement and freedom from undue bodily restraints. Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 315-16 (1982). In particular, JCMSC subjects children at the detention center to unnecessary and excessive restraint, including use of restraint chairs and pressure point control tactics. These restraints endanger the safety of the children detained in the facility. JCMSC has recently informed us that it is taking steps to resolve these excessive restraint issues. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, 2012. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 27, 2012 at: http://www.memphisdailynews.com/Editorial_Images/13516.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.memphisdailynews.com/Editorial_Images/13516.pdf Shelf Number: 125079 Keywords: Disparities in Juvenile Justice ProcessingDue ProcessJuvenile Court TransfersJuvenile Courts (Tennessee)Juvenile Offenders |
Author: Pichler, Stefan Title: Juvenile Law and Recidivism in Germany - New Evidence from the Old Continent Summary: Abstract: In this paper, we analyze the effect of the criminal justice system on juvenile recidivism. Using a unique sample of German inmates, we are able to disentangle the selection into criminal and juvenile law from the subsequent recidivism decision of the inmate. We base our identification strategy on two distinct methods. First, we jointly estimate selection and recidivism in a bivariate probit model. In a second step, we use a discontinuity in law assignment created by German legislation and apply a (fuzzy) regression discontinuity design. In contrast to the bulk of the literature, which mainly relies on US data, we do not find that the application of criminal law increases juvenile recidivism. Rather, our results suggest that sentencing adolescents as adults reduces recidivism in Germany. Details: Unpublished paper, 2011. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 16, 2013 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1986789 Year: 2011 Country: Germany URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1986789 Shelf Number: 129409 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersJuvenile Offenders (Germany)Recidivism |
Author: Criminal Justice Alliance Title: Prosecuting Young Adults The potential for taking account of maturity at the charge and prosecution stage of the criminal justice system Summary: Within Criminal Justice policy there has been an increasing recognition of the role of maturity as a factor in the commission of crimes, particularly for the young adult group, and there is a new interest in how a more rigorous and effective approach for young adults in the transition to adulthood (aged between 16 and 24) can be delivered. This focus is important for a number of reasons, not least the high numbers of young adults who come into contact with the police and go on to be prosecuted in the courts. Significantly, since 2011 the Sentencing Council for England and Wales has included - Age and/or lack of maturity where it affects the responsibility of the offender - as an express mitigating factor in their sentencing guidelines for adults. In 2013 the Crown Prosecution Service published a new Code, which for the first time explicitly included taking the maturity of an individual into account as part of the "public interest test", alongside other more established factors such as learning difficulties and mental health problems. This development represents a new opportunity for prosecutors to more explicitly and transparently consider the maturity of young adults, as is currently the case within the youth justice system. This research study investigates how the inclusion of the concept of maturity will work in practice, using the expertise of prosecutors to help us to understand how the concept of maturity is currently applied within the youth justice system and what lessons can be learnt to ensure the successful implementation for young adults. This research has found that within the Crown Prosecution Service there is a significant level of expertise in, and experience of, working with issues around maturity, but that in order for the new measure within the code to be implemented in way which ensures both its consistent and correct application a number of further changes are required. We therefore recommend: 1. Training and guidance about maturity should be available to the CPS, Police, and defence lawyers. 2. Protocols should be developed between the Police, CPS and other local agencies for gathering and sharing information. 3. Agencies should strengthen and maximise the use of the Conditional Caution for young adults. 4. There is scope to explore the introduction of problem solving approaches in the Courts, where maturity is identified at the prosecution stage. Details: London: Criminal Justice Alliance, 2013. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 19, 2013 at: http://criminaljusticealliance.org/cps&maturity.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://criminaljusticealliance.org/cps&maturity.pdf Shelf Number: 129653 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersProsecution of Young AdultsYoung Adult Offenders (U.K.) |
Author: Ishida, Kanako Title: Automatic Adult Prosecution of Children in Cook County, Illinois. 2010-2012 Summary: Under Illinois' automatic transfer law in effect during the study of 2010 through 2012, anyone age 15 or 16 charged with certain felonies automatically bypasses the more rehabilitation-focused juvenile court, and there is no judicial review or appeal of a prosecutor's decision to try a child in adult court. Illinois is now one of only 14 states with no ability for a judge to provide individual review, either in juvenile or adult court, of the decision to try a child in adult court. The research into the 257 automatic transfer cases in Cook County from 2010 through 2012 found that only one white boy was among the 257 Cook County children charged with crimes requiring an automatic transfer to adult court, and most of those children live in predominantly minority communities in the south and west sides of Chicago. Half the children end up convicted of lesser offenses - offenses that would not have triggered adult trial if charged appropriately at the outset. These poor outcomes and racial disparities have been consistently demonstrated in studies over the 30-year lifetime of these automatic transfer policies. Details: Evanston, IL: Juvenile Justice Initiative, 2014. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 5, 2014 at: http://jjustice.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Automatic-Adult-Prosecution-of-Children-in-Cook-County-IL.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://jjustice.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Automatic-Adult-Prosecution-of-Children-in-Cook-County-IL.pdf Shelf Number: 132247 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersJuvenile Offenders (Illinois)Waiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: DC Lawyers for Youth Title: Capital City Correction: Reforming DC's Use of Adult Incarceration Against Youth Summary: From 2007 to 2012, 541 youth were charged as adults and incarcerated in adult jail in the District of Columbia. While incarcerated in the adult jail, these DC youth were housed in a developmentally inappropriate and inadequate facility where they receive limited educational, behavioral health, and vocational services. Most were not permitted to have in-person visits with family members. The majority of the time that youth spent at the adult jail was prior to trial, when youth are presumed innocent of the offense. Research has consistently shown that trying youth as adults does not promote public safety and that youth in the adult system are at increased risk for victimization and suicide. The Centers for Disease Control found that youth placed in the adult system are more likely to commit future crimes than similar youth treated in the juvenile system. Adult facilities generally do not offer the rehabilitative programs youth need to turn their lives around, and their staff are often insufficiently trained to work with youth. Youth in adult facilities are also at greater risk for sexual victimization, physical assault, and suicide. This report explains how youth enter the adult system in DC, summarizes data about which DC youth experience adult prosecution, explains the scientific literature on adolescent brain development and the effects of incarcerating youth in adult facilities, and notes deficiencies in the Juvenile Unit that currently holds DC youth charged as adults. Finally, the report offers three policy recommendations that would restore balance to DC's approach of the prosecution of youth: 1.Prohibit the pre-trial detention of youth in adult facilities. They are innocent until proven guilty, and innocent children should not be exposed to the harmful environment of adult jail. 2.Allow for "reverse transfer" motions, in which a judge can hear arguments about which system is most appropriate for the youth. If the judge decides that the youth can be rehabilitated before age 21 and that the public interest would be best served by placing the youth in the juvenile system, the judge should be able to transfer the youth back to the juvenile system. 3.End "once an adult, always an adult." Currently, any youth with an adult conviction must have any subsequent charges handled in adult court, no matter how minor they are and even if local prosecutors would prefer to charge the case in juvenile court. The default rule should always be that children under age 18 are treated in the juvenile system. Details: Washington, DC: DC Lawyers for Youth, 2014. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 19, 2014 at: http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/dcly/pages/77/attachments/original/1400460117/Capital_City_Correction.pdf?1400460117 Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/dcly/pages/77/attachments/original/1400460117/Capital_City_Correction.pdf?1400460117 Shelf Number: 132397 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersJuvenile DetentionJuvenile OffendersWaiver(of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Reich, Warren A. Title: The Criminal Justice Response to 16- and 17-Year-Old Defendants in New York Summary: New York is one of two states, along with North Carolina, that defines 16- and 17-year-old defendants as criminally responsible adults. New York's policy exposes these young defendants to lasting collateral consequences, including the possibility of a criminal conviction, incarceration, and lifetime reductions in employment prospects and earnings. In the fall of 2011, New York State's Chief Judge, Jonathan Lippman, proposed legislation promoting a more age-appropriate approach to these defendants. In April 2014, Governor Andrew Cuomo appointed a Commission on Youth, Public Safety, and Justice that will study different options and submit statewide policy recommendations by the end of the year. Chief Judge Lippman also created the Adolescent Diversion Program (ADP) in 2012, an initiative put into effect in nine of New York's 62 counties, which seeks to adopt an age-appropriate approach within the legal confines of the adult criminal court system. With funding from the New York Community Trust, a previous research report described the policies of all nine ADP sites and tested the effects of ADP participation on case dispositions, sentences, and re-arrests over a six-month tracking period (Rempel, Lambson, Cadoret, and Franklin 2013). The current study extends the re-arrest tracking period for Year One ADP participants to at least one year; provides a new analysis of the impact of the ADP initiative among those enrolled in Year Two; and examines 16- and 17-year-old defendant characteristics, case dispositions, sentences, and risk factors for re-arrest across the entire state. The goal of the research is to help inform deliberations as the judicial, legislative, and executive branches seek to improve justice for adolescents in New York State. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2014. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 11, 2014 at: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/ADP%20Y2%20Report%20Final%20_v2.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/ADP%20Y2%20Report%20Final%20_v2.pdf Shelf Number: 132985 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersJuvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile Justice SystemJuvenile Offenders (New York)RecidivismWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Prince, Kort Title: Minors in the Utah Adult Criminal Justice System. Retrospective Characteristic Study Summary: America's youth are facing an ever changing set of problems and barriers to successful lives. Many youth are imperiled by poverty, abuse, neglect, violence, lack of education, substance abuse and poor community resources. And with these barriers comes more crimes committed by juveniles along with more juveniles sentenced as adults for heinous crimes (Thigpen, Beauclair, Innes, & Halley, 2011). Approximately a quarter-million juveniles end up in the adult criminal justice system each year and they are more likely to have a higher recidivism rate than those juveniles who are kept in the juvenile justice system (Griffin, 2008). Youth who are transferred from the juvenile justice system to the adult criminal justice system are approximately 34% more likely than youth retained in the juvenile justice system to be re-arrested for violent or other crimes (Center for Disease Control Morbidity and Mortality Report, 2007). Before 1970, juvenile offenders transferred to the adult criminal justice system in most states were court-ordered on a case-by case basis. In the 1970s and 1980s, states began to gradually adopt direct file laws1 and mandatory waiver2 laws. In the late 1980s youth violence began to rise, and in 1994 hit an all-time high, resulting in states modifying their statutes. During this time, nearly every state lowered age and offense thresholds to facilitate transfers to the adult system. The number of states with mandatory laws during this time went from 20 states to 38. Prosecutorial discretion laws3 went from being present in 7 states to 15. Transfer law changes since 2000 have been less common by comparison. Rather, states have kept the modified laws in place despite significant decreases in juvenile violence since 1994. Instead, the trend of the states is generally a refusal to review the policies (Griffin, Addie, Adams, & Firestine, 2011). In spite of the fact that states made it easier to remove juvenile cases to the adult criminal justice system, judicial waiver4 rates decreased by 35% between 1994 and 2007 (Griffin, et al., 2011). The decline in the number of cases judicially waived after 1994 may be attributable to the large increase in the number of states that passed legislation excluding certain serious offenses from juvenile court jurisdiction and legislation permitting the prosecutor to file certain cases directly in criminal court (Puzzanchera, Adams, & Sickmund, 2010). There is a concern that the lack of individualized review and lack of recourse for the juvenile, which is inherent in these types of laws, may actually increase recidivism or at the very least not decrease it. Additionally, the harmful effects on a juvenile in the adult system may counteract the deterrence effect these statutes are supposed to achieve (Mulvey & Schubert, 2012). Juvenile justice systems were created to better meet the needs of juvenile offenders; understanding that, developmentally, juvenile offenders were much different than adult criminal offenders and services should to be tailored to meet those needs. The establishments of transfer laws, however, are contrary to this notion that juvenile offenders need different services than adult offenders if recidivism is going to be reduced. Numerous research studies have shown that adult criminal justice systems are not equipped to meet both the cognitive (e.g. ability to problem solve) and environmental (e.g. family dynamics) needs that youth offenders possess, and, furthermore, were never designed to serve juvenile offenders (Redding, 2008; Washburn, 2008; Steiner, & Wright, 2006; Woorland, 2005). Understanding that juveniles do in fact commit crimes that would normally be associated with adults (e.g. murder, rape) and may require more punitive punishments, it is equally important to understand that, to be successful in rehabilitating juveniles offenders, both justice systems need to be cognizant of the characteristics of their populations, what services have and have not been provided to juvenile offenders and what the impact transferring juveniles to the adult criminal justice system is having on recidivism. To gain a better understanding of the juvenile offender population in Utah, the Utah Division of Juvenile Justice (UDJJS) partnered with the University of Utah's Criminal Justice Center (UCJC) in FY13 to embark upon a retrospective study examining the characteristics (e.g. criminal history, gender, race, and recidivism) of juvenile offenders that enter the adult criminal justice system through either the Serious Youth Offender (SYO) or Certified Youth to the Adult System (CYAS). The purpose of this study is twofold: 1) to identify and examine any unique characteristics of this population and 2) to determine the type of UDJJS interventions these youth received before entering the adult criminal justice system as a minor. It has been understood from the onset of this study that courts and juvenile justice systems cannot eliminate all criminal behaviors; nonetheless, a retrospective look at the juvenile offenses, recidivism outcomes, and placement history variables might prove useful to guide future decision-making and reduce the number of youth entering the adult system. Details: Salt Lake City: Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah, 2013. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 27, 2015 at: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/MIAS-Report9_5_2-13_forUCJC-Site.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/MIAS-Report9_5_2-13_forUCJC-Site.pdf Shelf Number: 129966 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersJuvenile OffendersRecidivismWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Butts, Jeffrey A. Title: Line Drawing: Raising the Minimum Age of Criminal Court Jurisdiction in New York Summary: In his 2014 State of the State address, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced the formation of a state commission to produce a plan for raising the age at which juveniles are charged as adults in New York courts. Currently, New York is one of two states where all 16 year-olds accused of violating the law are automatically handled in criminal (adult) court. Governor Cuomo directed the new Commission on Youth, Public Safety & Justice to develop an effective strategy for changing the policy that currently sets the lower boundary for criminal court jurisdiction at age 16. He described the policy as "outdated." The ultimate goal of the newly formed Commission, according to the Governor, is to create a "roadmap" for reforming the justice system to "promote youth success and ensure public safety." During 2014, the Commission will: - Develop a plan to raise the age of criminal responsibility, including proposing concrete recommendations to protect public safety with regard to the small number of young violent offenders. As with the entire plan, these recommendations will be informed by the science of what works and other relevant factors to reduce recidivism and maintain public safety; - Make other specific recommendations as to how New York's juvenile and criminal justice systems can better serve youth, improve outcomes, and protect communities; and - Ensure that for the small percentage of youth who engage repeatedly in violent or other harmful behavior, protecting communities and The following report is designed to inform the Commission's efforts by examining the reasons for changing the age of criminal jurisdiction and by reviewing the implications of such a change. The report examines the relationship of jurisdictional age to serious crime and it reviews the experiences of states that have previously changed their jurisdictional age laws. Next, the report addresses the cost considerations involved in these policy changes and it describes the types of detailed cost-benefit analyses that New York should undertake to project their effects on shifting court caseloads and the number of youth likely to be placed in various supervision programs and placement settings. Details: New York: Research & Evaluation Center, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 2014. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 15, 2015 at: http://johnjayresearch.org/rec/files/2014/02/linedrawing.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://johnjayresearch.org/rec/files/2014/02/linedrawing.pdf Shelf Number: 136076 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersJuvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile OffendersWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Washburn, Jason J. Title: Detained Youth Processed in Juvenile and Adult Court: Psychiatric Disorders and Mental Health Needs Summary: This bulletin presents results of a study of the prevalence of psychiatric disorders among youth transferred to adult criminal court compared with those processed in juvenile court. Key observations, findings, and recommendations include: - Many youth are being transferred to adult criminal court, with males, African Americans, Hispanics, and older youth significantly more likely to be processed in adult criminal court than females, non-Hispanic whites, and younger youth (even after controlling for the current charge). - The prevalence of one or more disorders among youth transferred to adult criminal court does not significantly differ from that among youth processed in juvenile court. - Among youth processed in adult criminal court, those sentenced to prison had significantly greater odds than those who received a less severe sentence of having a disruptive behavior disorder, a substance use disorder, or co-occurring affective and anxiety disorders. - Community and correctional systems must collaborate to identify and treat youth with psychiatric disorders who are transferred to adult criminal court. Youth who are transferred to adult criminal court and receive prison sentences should be considered a particularly high-risk group who are likely to require additional services. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2015. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Juvenile Justice Bulletin: Accessed September 11, 2015 at: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/248283.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/248283.pdf Shelf Number: 136722 Keywords: Co-concurring DisordersJuvenile CourtJuvenile Court TransfersJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile OffendersMental Health ServicesMentally Ill Offenders |
Author: Colorado Juvenile Defender Coalition Title: Justice Redirected: The Impact of Reducing the Prosecution of Children as Adults in Colorado and the Continuing Need for Sentencing Reform Summary: In 2012, Colorado reformed the way children can be prosecuted as adults by changing the law that previously allowed prosecutors to press charges in adult court without judicial review. The changes to the law reduced the number of children who could be "direct filed," - or charged - in adult court by the prosecutor, and put in place a system of oversight by allowing a judge to review the prosecutor's decision to prosecute a juvenile in adult court. - 100 cases were prosecuted in adult court in Colorado from April 20, 2012-April 20, 2015 - 98% of Children Prosecuted in Adult Court are Male - Nationally, in 2013, there were still 1,200 youth in adult prisons and approximately 3,400 youth in adult jails on any given day - 60% of Children Prosecuted in Adult Court are Youth of Color - Adams, Douglas, Denver & El Paso county account for 75% cases in which youth are prosecuted in adult court. - Homicide cases account for 37% of Cases prosecuted in adult court - The average length of a transfer or reverse transfer hearing is 2 days - Nationally, Between 2009 and 2013, the rate of youth violence was cut almost in half to 160 arrests per 100,000 juveniles Details: Denver: Colorado Juvenile Defender Coalition, 2015. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 2, 2015 at: http://cjdc.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/CJDC-Report2015_FINAL_bug.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://cjdc.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/CJDC-Report2015_FINAL_bug.pdf Shelf Number: 137419 Keywords: Juvenile CourtJuvenile Court TransfersJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Phillippi, Stephen Title: A Legislated Study of Raising the Age of Juvenile Jurisdiction in Louisiana: The future of 17-year-olds in the Louisiana Justice Systems Summary: This study, authorized by the Louisiana State Legislature in House Concurrent Resolution No. 73 of the 2015 Regular session, was completed at an expedited pace over a six-month period to meet the deadlines established in the resolution. With the involvement of key stakeholders in the justice system from across Louisiana and input from national partners who have worked to study raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction in other states, three key findings of this study are summarized below. - There is a growing consensus, based on a large body of scientific evidence, that 17-year-olds are developmentally different than adults and should be treated as such. They have a far greater potential for rehabilitation and are particularly influenced - for good or ill - by the environments in which they are placed. - The last several years of reform in the Louisiana juvenile justice system have created a capacity to accept, manage, and rehabilitate these youth in a manner that will predictably generate better outcomes than the adult system. - The initial impact projections are generally lower than states that have recently gone before Louisiana in raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction, and those states found that the impact on the system was substantially less than first predicted. In fact, states have reported substantial fiscal savings. We have reason to suspect this will be the same for Louisiana. Details: New Orleans: Louisiana State University, Institute for Public Health and Justice, 2016. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2016 at: http://sph.lsuhsc.edu/Websites/lsupublichealth/images/pdf/iphj/RAISE_THE_AGE_DRAFT_20160128Final.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://sph.lsuhsc.edu/Websites/lsupublichealth/images/pdf/iphj/RAISE_THE_AGE_DRAFT_20160128Final.pdf Shelf Number: 137848 Keywords: Criminal Justice SystemsJurisdictionJuvenile Court TransfersJuvenile JurisdictionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Parker, Khristy Title: Juvenile Justice Referrals and Charges in Alaska, FY 2006-2015 Summary: This fact sheet presents juvenile justice statistics from the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) for state fiscal years 2006-2015. Law enforcement agencies make referrals to DJJ if there is probable cause that a youth committed an offense which would be criminal if committed by an adult, committed a felony traffic offense, or committed an alcohol offense after two prior District Court convictions for minor consuming. Youth who commit very serious offenses such as murder and sexual assault may be waived, or moved, to the adult criminal justice system. Youth waived to adult court may be prosecuted at the discretion of the district attorney. DJJ is a restorative justice agency whose mission is to hold juvenile offenders accountable for their behavior, promote the safety and restoration of victims and communities, and assist offenders and their families in developing skills to prevent crime. DJJ has three components: Probation, Detention, and Treatment, all overseen by the state office. This report focuses on data for youth referrals to the Probation component of DJJ (which also processes intake) for the period FY 2006-2015. DJJ services are directed through four separate regional administrative units that differ widely in demographic and geographic makeup. The Anchorage Region (ANC) covers the Anchorage metropolitan area. The Northern Region (NRO) includes Fairbanks and much of rural Alaska from Bethel to Barrow. The South Central Region (SCRO) covers the southern portion of the state from the Aleutians in the west through Prince William Sound in the east. The Southeast Region (SERO) covers the entire Southeast panhandle from Yakutat to Metlakatla. The data presented in the figures and tables below reflect the referrals, charges, and number of unique referred individuals for Alaska FY 2006-2015. All of the data were extracted from the DJJ Data Trends website Details: Anchorage: Alaska Juvenile Statistical Analysis Center, 2016. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Fact Sheet: Accessed March 16, 2016 at: http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/ajsac/2016/ajsac.16-02.djj_referrals.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/ajsac/2016/ajsac.16-02.djj_referrals.pdf Shelf Number: 138267 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersJuvenile DelinquentsJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersWaiver of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction |
Author: Bateman, Tim Title: Criminalising children for no good purpose: The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales Summary: In England and Wales, children are deemed to be criminally responsible, and become subject to the full rigour of the criminal law, from the age of ten. Children too young to attend secondary school may nonetheless be arrested and detained at a police station. They can be prosecuted and, if convicted, will receive a criminal record that, for some purposes, must be declared indefinitely. If a 10-year-old commits an offence considered to be a 'grave crime', he or she will be tried in the Crown Court and may be given a custodial sentence equivalent to that available in the case of an adult. Similarly, a child of that age co-accused with an adult will be subject to trial in an adult venue. The National Association for Youth Justice (NAYJ) considers that the arguments for maintaining the status quo are unconvincing: the government's rejection of calls to review the point at which children become criminally liable is motivated by an ideological commitment to appear tough on youth crime rather than a dispassionate review of the evidence. The NAYJ believes that such a review demonstrates that criminalisation of children at such a young age: represents a breach of international standards on children's rights; does not take account of children's developing capacity and imputes culpability inappropriately; and is illogical, unnecessary, and damaging. Details: UK: National Association for Youth Justice, 2012. Source: Internet Resource: Campaign Paper: Accessed March 17, 2016 at: http://thenayj.org.uk/wp-content/files_mf/criminalisingchildrennov12.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://thenayj.org.uk/wp-content/files_mf/criminalisingchildrennov12.pdf Shelf Number: 138309 Keywords: Age of ResponsibilityJuvenile Court TransfersJuvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Ridolfi, Laura Title: The Prosecution of Youth as Adults: A county-level analysis of prosecutorial direct file in California and its disparate impact on youth of color Summary: This report examining the prosecution of youth as adults in California documents variations by county in the use of "direct file" and its disproportionate impact on youth of color. Direct file refers to a decision, made solely at a prosecutor's discretion, to charge a youth in adult, criminal court. The report was produced by the Center on Juvenile & Criminal Justice (CJCJ), National Center for Youth Law (NCYL) and W. Haywood Burns Institute. Details: San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2016. 21p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 1, 2016 at: http://youthlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/The-Prosecution-of-Youth-as-Adults.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://youthlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/The-Prosecution-of-Youth-as-Adults.pdf Shelf Number: 139933 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersJuvenile ProsecutionRacial BiasRacial DiscriminationWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Southern Poverty Law Center Title: More Harm than Good: How Children are Unjustly Tried as Adults in New Orleans Summary: The Orleans Parish district attorney is prosecuting children as adults in unprecedented numbers. Although nothing in the law requires Louisiana prosecutors to charge children as adults, District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro chooses to transfer children to adult court in almost every possible instance. He transfers children who have no prior delinquency record or played a minor role in the alleged crime. He transfers children who have a mental illness or developmental disability. He even transfers children accused of nonviolent offenses. Some of the children he transfers are found innocent of any crime - but only after enduring the stress and danger of the adult system. Prosecuting children as adults is, in fact, Cannizzaro's default practice. Between 2011 and 2015, his office has transferred more than 80 percent of cases involving 15- and 16-year-olds charged with certain offenses where there was an option to prosecute in either juvenile or adult court. Under state law, a judge has no say in these decisions. Discretion rests solely with each parish's district attorney. Cannizzaro has sent 200 children to adult court since assuming office in 2009, but it has not made us safer. Arrests for offenses eligible for transfer to adult court are up. Recent data also show that teenagers prosecuted in Louisiana's juvenile justice system are less likely to reoffend than those prosecuted in the adult system. The district attorney's practice is wrong for New Orleans children, their families and the community. It does more harm than good. This report by the Southern Poverty Law Center examines the Orleans Parish district attorney's approach to the prosecution of juveniles and the process known as juvenile transfer. It shows that Cannizzaro's use of default transfer is unfair and ineffective - it fails to protect public safety, conserve public dollars, or respond appropriately to juvenile crime. Details: Atlanta, GA: Southern Poverty Law Center, 2016. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 19. 2016 at: https://www.splcenter.org/20160217/more-harm-good-how-children-are-unjustly-tried-adults-new-orleans Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.splcenter.org/20160217/more-harm-good-how-children-are-unjustly-tried-adults-new-orleans Shelf Number: 147953 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersJuvenile CourtsJuvenile OffendersRecidivismWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Gewirtz, Marian Title: Post-Disposition Re-Arrests of Juvenile Offenders Summary: In accordance with New York State's Juvenile Offender (JO) Law, youths under age 16 who face serious violent felony charges are brought directly to the adult rather than juvenile court for prosecution. Most of these youths are charged with robbery in the first or second degree, but the list of eligible charges (see Appendix A) also includes murder, manslaughter, burglary, weapons and other offenses. Previous research conducted by the New York City (NYC) Criminal Justice Agency (CJA) documents extremely high rates of recidivism among the youths processed as JOs. CJA's 2015 research on recidivism among JOs attempted to assess the relationship between the outcome of cases involving JOs and the likelihood of re-arrest. However, that research did not consistently differentiate between pre-and post-disposition recidivism. The report discussed here is a follow-up endeavor, again exploring the relationship between case outcome and recidivism for fourteen- and fifteen-year-olds processed as JOs in the adult courts in NYC, but the current research examines only post-disposition re-arrests. Are youths convicted in JO cases at greater risk of re-arrest than are their counterparts whose cases reached other outcomes? The current research focuses on JO cases arraigned since January 1, 2007, that reached a final disposition in the adult court by December 31, 2014. Re-arrest is tracked starting at disposition for youths who were at risk as of that date, or from the youth's date of release after conviction and/or sentencing. In addition to identifying factors predictive of time to the first rearrest and to the first felony-level re-arrest post disposition, this research also looks at the outcome of the re-arrests. That is, this research also examines factors predictive of the first rearrest post disposition that resulted in conviction and the first that resulted in a felony-level conviction. The goal of the research is to determine whether any of these measures of recidivism varies by case outcome. The report begins with a description of the research population, including how time at risk for re-arrest was determined. We then examine post-disposition recidivism in terms of the rates of re-arrests as well as their severity and timing. We also compare the re-arrest rates by selected characteristics of the juveniles (gender, ethnicity and prior arrests) and by selected characteristics of the initial JO case (charge, borough of arrest and release status). Multivariate analyses using Cox proportional hazards regression is used to explore the factors associated with the risk of post-disposition re-arrest. We assess whether the disposition affects the risk of recidivism by building the strongest Cox models and attempting to include the type of disposition as a predictive variable. Details: New York: New York City Criminal Justice Agency, 2016. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 22, 2016 at: http://www.nycja.org/ Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.nycja.org/ Shelf Number: 140411 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersJuvenile OffendersRe-arrestsRecidivismViolent Juvenile OffendersWaiver of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction |
Author: Dyer, Fiona Title: Young People at Court in Scotland Summary: This paper refers to the young people appearing in adult courts in Scotland, looking at government policies, legislation and practices, before making recommendations for a legislative and policy change. The paper argues that changes need to be made to government policies, legislation and current practice to bring Scotland in line with the United National Convention on the Rights of the Child. Details: Glasgow: Centre for Youth & Criminal Justice, 2016. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 11, 2016 at: http://www.cycj.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/YoungPeopleAtCourtFINAL.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cycj.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/YoungPeopleAtCourtFINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 145401 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersJuvenile OffendersWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Human Impact Partners Title: Juvenile InJustice: Charging Youth as Adults is Ineffective, Biased, and Harmful Summary: In all 50 states, youth under age 18 can be tried in adult criminal court through various types of juvenile transfer laws. In California, youth as young as 14 can be tried as adults at the discretion of a juvenile court judge. When young people are transferred out of the juvenile system, they are more likely to be convicted and typically receive harsher sentences than youth who remain in juvenile court charged with similar crimes. This practice undermines the purpose of the juvenile court system, pursues punishment rather than rehabilitation, and conflicts with what we know from developmental science. Furthermore, laws that allow youth to be tried as adults reflect and reinforce the racial inequities that characterize the justice system in United States. In this report, we review the process that unfolds when a young person is tried as an adult in California and evaluate the health and equity impacts of charging youth as adults. Our findings indicate that: The Justice System is Biased Against Youth of Color Youth of color are overrepresented at every stage of the juvenile court system. Rampant racial inequities are evident in the way youth of color are disciplined in school, policed and arrested, detained, sentenced, and incarcerated. These inequities persist even after controlling for variables like offense severity and prior criminal record. Research shows that youth of color receive harsher sentences than White youth charged with similar offenses. Youth of color are more likely to be tried as adults than White youth, even when being charged with similar crimes. In California in 2015, 88% of juveniles tried as adults were youth of color.8 "Tough on Crime" Laws Criminalize Youth and are Ineffective Research shows that "tough on crime" policy shifts during the 1980s and 1990s have negatively impacted youth, families, and communities of color. These laws were fueled by high-profile criminal cases involving youth, sensationalized coverage of system-involved youth by the media, and crusading politicians who warned that juvenile "super-predators posed a significant threat to public safety. The general sentiment — not based on research or data — across the political spectrum was that treatment approaches and rehabilitation attempts did not work. However, time has shown that harshly punishing youth by trying them in the adult system has failed as an effective deterrent. Several large-scale studies have found higher recidivism rates among juveniles tried and sentenced in adult court than among youth charged with similar offenses in juvenile court. The Adult Court System Ignores the Environmental Factors that Affect Adolescent Behavior When someone is charged in adult court, they are either found guilty or innocent — and they receive a punishment if they are found guilty. By contrast, the juvenile court system (at least in theory) is meant to focus on reasons for the youth’s behavior rather than just their guilt or innocence. A juvenile court judge is responsible for reviewing that youth's case with their family, community, and future development in mind. Incarceration Undermines Youth Health and Well-Being When we lock up young people, they are more likely to be exposed to extreme violence, fall prey to abuse, and suffer from illness. High rates of violence, unchecked gang activity, and overcrowding persist in Division of Juvenile Justice facilities where many youth sentenced as adults start their incarceration. Fights frequently erupt in facility dayrooms and school areas. Even if young people manage to escape direct physical abuse in juvenile or adult facilities, exposure and proximity to violence can be harmful in and of itself. Research suggests that exposure to violence can lead to issues with development in youth. Families of Incarcerated Youth Experience Negative Impacts Parents and family members of system-involved youth are systematically excluded from the adult court process — they are not given meaningful opportunities to help determine what happens to their children. The inability to participate fully while their loved one is going through the system can be mentally and emotionally harmful to families. In addition, contact with the justice system often entails exorbitant expenses that can worsen family poverty. The economic burden of legal fees, court costs, restitution payments, and visitation expenses can have disastrous and long-lasting financial consequences for families. Details: Oakland, CA: Human Impact Partners, 2017. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 3, 2017 at: http://www.humanimpact.org/wp-content/uploads/HIP_JuvenileInJusticeReport_2017.02.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.humanimpact.org/wp-content/uploads/HIP_JuvenileInJusticeReport_2017.02.pdf Shelf Number: 145383 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersJuvenile Justice SystemWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Human Impact Partners Title: Raise the Age: Protecting Kids and Enhancing Public Safety in Michigan. Summary: We are supporting juvenile justice reformers in Michigan to strategically bring a public health perspective into their campaign to pass Raise the Age legislation in Michigan. All kids deserve the opportunity to lead healthy, productive lives. Yet Michigan puts kids at risk by being 1 of only 5 states that still automatically try 17-year-old arrestees as adults in criminal court. As a result, 17-year-olds in Michigan are subjected to a harsh criminal justice system that separates them from their families and limits their access to the services and education they need to rehabilitate. In 2016, Michigan police made 7,215 arrests of 17-year-olds - more than 80% of these arrests were for nonviolent offenses, and more than half were considered misdemeanors. Though many of the kids involved in the criminal justice system have experienced extreme hardship, they are resilient and can turn their lives around. They deserve attention and treatment, not incarceration. Our work consists of two parts: Our research report evaluates the health and equity impacts of charging 17-year-olds in juvenile court rather than adult court, to inform legislation under consideration in Michigan that would raise the age of juvenile court jurisdiction from 17 to 18 years of age. In partnership with Michigan juvenile justice reformers, public health practitioners, and community organizers, we are working to mobilize health professionals as a constituency to advocate for passing Raise The Age legislation - with the goal of advancing criminal justice reforms that place health and well-being at their center. Details: Oakland, CA: Human Impact Partners, 2017. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 10, 2017 at: https://humanimpact.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/HIP_MichRaiseTheAgeReport_2017.11.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://humanimpact.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/HIP_MichRaiseTheAgeReport_2017.11.pdf Shelf Number: 148166 Keywords: Age of ResponsibilityJuvenile Court TransfersJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Oregon Justice Resource Center Title: Youth and Measure 11 in Oregon: Impacts of Mandatory Minimums Summary: For more than twenty years, people convicted under Oregon's Measure 11 law have faced mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes. Children as young as 15 can be charged under Measure 11 and prosecuted as adults. A new report, published by the Oregon Council on Civil Rights in collaboration with us, takes an in-depth look at the impact of Measure 11 on Oregon's young people and whether the law is out-of-step with legal and scientific developments of recent years. This report looks at Measure 11 and its impact on youth from a variety of perspectives for a thorough review. It includes: Brain Science - While research shows that young people's brains aren't fully developed until their mid-to-late 20s, Measure 11 allows children to be sentenced as though they had the culpability of adults. The report looks at how scientific understanding of development has grown and how the law should respond. Legal Developments - A series of US Supreme Court decisions has prompted an overhaul of youth sentencing laws in light of growing understanding of brain science. More than half of states have changed sentencing laws for youth to respond to the updated Supreme Court decisions, but not Oregon. Interviews with Youth - We spoke to young people who are currently serving sentences following Measure 11 convictions about their experiences in the criminal justice system, their backgrounds, what led up to their offenses and how much they understood during the legal process. Data Analysis - Analysis of data tracked since Measure 11 began in 1995 shows disproportionate impact on Oregon youth of color. Figures from 2012 reveal black youth were 26 times more likely to be indicted for a Measure 11 offense than their white counterparts. RECOMMENDATIONS - "Youth and Measure 11 in Oregon" recommends four reforms to address problems with Measure 11 and youth sentencing in Oregon: Remove all youth from automatic adult prosecution under Measure 11 and return Oregon to a "discretionary waiver" system." This would put much-needed discretion back in the hands of judges, in contrast with the current system that allows prosecutors sweeping authority to decide how to prosecute Oregon youth. This modest reform would still allow judges to levy severe sentences against serious child offenders, but would restore the court's ability to look at the mitigating circumstances particular to each case. More transparent data collection from prosecutors' offices and law enforcement. One critical problem with prosecutors' vast discretionary power is that: "[their] offices are mostly a black box with little transparency." 3 4 Police officers similarly share a key role as gatekeepers to the criminal justice system. To facilitate smart, data-driven policy-making, counties across the state should provide demographic data on youth referrals to prosecutors' offices. In addition, they should provide the public with more descriptive information about felony filings to adult court, updated annually. Give all young people the option of a "second-look hearing." Every young person should have the chance to prove to a judge that they can grow and change. The U.S. Supreme Court, relying on the most up-to-date cognitive science available, has said clearly that young people have a tremendous capacity for change and positive growth, regardless of the severity of their crimes. Measure 11 has stripped away the opportunity for young people to demonstrate this potential. A second-look hearing not only allows youth to prove their positive change in front of a judge, but also presents a clear incentive for good behavior and a start on the path toward rehabilitation while in custody. This commonsense approach also recognizes the reality that nearly all Measure 11 youth will, at some point, return to society. Addressing root causes. - Oregon should boost investment in safety net programs that decrease involvement with the criminal justice system. In addition, Oregon should expand access to job training and programs that foster non-violent problem solving so that young people can avoid harsh sentences in the first place. Along with preventative measures, stakeholders throughout the criminal justice system - including judges, prosecutors, public defenders and law enforcement - should be trained in trauma-informed care, cultural responsivity and brain development. Details: Portland: Oregon Justice Resource Center, 2018. 69p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 1, 2018 at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/524b5617e4b0b106ced5f067/t/5a6fbb95c830254f3376ef75/1517272032695/Youth+and+Measure+11+in+Oregon+Final.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/524b5617e4b0b106ced5f067/t/5a6fbb95c830254f3376ef75/1517272032695/Youth+and+Measure+11+in+Oregon+Final.pdf Shelf Number: 148955 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersJuvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile SentencingMandatory MinimumsWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction)Young Adult Offenders |
Author: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Title: The situation of boys and adult girls and adolescents in the criminal justice system justice for s in the United States (La situacion de nibos y ninas y adolescentes en el sistema penal de justicia para adultos en Estados Unidos) Summary: 1. As a result of its visits and the information received, the IACHR observes that a significant number of children and adolescents are treated as adults in the United States criminal justice system, in violation of their fundamental right to special protection and to be judged by a specialized juvenile justice system. This situation is the main object of this Report. The IACHR also observed that the phenomenon of treating adults to children and adolescents in conflict with the criminal law as adults is part of a national pattern of lack of protection and promotion of rights of children, mainly due to an absence of a definition uniform of the concept "child" before the law that allows to protect the rights fundamentals of people under 18 years of age. 2. The United States played an important role in the promotion and establishment of a specialized approach to juvenile justice within its criminal justice system justice, with the aim of rehabilitating, instead of simply punishing, young people who are convicted of a crime. The first division of justice Juvenile was created in the United States, in the state of Illinois, in 1899; and in the After 25 years, all other states, except for 2, followed that example and established similar systems of juvenile justice courts. However, the Commission notes with great concern that in the decade 1980 this began to change. By the year 1990, many states of the United States United States approved regressive changes in their legislations and policies, with regarding children and adolescents in contact with the criminal law. The Details and ways of implementing these changes were diverse, but the general tendency was the refusal to access the systems of rehabilitation and juvenile justice, and consequently, the processing compulsory education of young people in the most punitive justice systems Adults. 3. The Commission notes with concern that, as a result of laws States that require or allow young people in conflict with the law be judged as adults, an estimated 200,000 children and adolescents in conflict with the law are tried annually before criminal courts to adults. The IACHR knows that most of the states of the United States maintains laws, policies and practices that allow for the deprivation of freedom to children in adult establishments. The Commission notes with concern the lack of information and data about children and adolescents in contact with the criminal law. 4. According to the information received by the Commission, there are three ways main factors by which children and adolescents enter the system of criminal justice for adults in the United States, based on legislation particular of each state. First, by means of laws that grant jurisdiction to the courts for adults to try people under 18 years. Second, through laws that allow cases of children they are transferred from the juvenile penal system to the adult criminal system. In third, as a result of hybrid sentencing laws that operate between jurisdictions of adult systems and juvenile systems, as well as other provisions with similar effects, such as the laws that establish that "once adults, they are always adults". 5. According to the information received by the Commission, the rights of the children and adolescents accused of committing crimes in the United States are duly protected at each stage of the process, which in turn negative consequences for those who are transferred and sentenced in the system for adults. In particular, the IACHR has received information on: absence of quality legal advice; the possibility that young people they can renounce their right to legal representation; the fact that the young people spend long periods of time waiting for the outcome of their cases; and the possibility that many young people end up in the adult system as a result of agreements negotiating the penalty, without understanding fully the consequences of such agreements. 6. In light of the information received and examined, the IACHR notes that -under the Current status of legislation in the United States regarding children and adolescents in conflict with the criminal justice system - certain laws, Policies and practices have a disproportionate and discriminatory impact on certain groups, which results in excessive representation of the members of these groups in the criminal justice system. This is the case of children and adolescents who are tried in the criminal justice system for adults and confined in adult detention centers. According to information received by the Commission, these disparities increase each time more in the criminal justice system, beginning with arrest and referral to the juvenile system, continuing with the transfer to adult courts, and ending with a conviction issued by adult courts, as well as with confinement in adult prisons. 7. States are not legally obliged to separate young people from adults, within the facilities of deprivation of liberty for adults. While the federal juvenile justice law, that is, the Juvenile Justice Law and Prevention of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, JJDPA, for its acronym in English), in its revised text of 2002, establishes the separation between young people and adults as one of their basic requirements custody, its provisions do not apply to children and adolescents who they are in the adult system. This has serious implications for children and adolescents; among them, according to the information reported by several systems of prisons and large prisons, more than 10% of children, girls and adolescents has been subjected to solitary confinement, while smaller facilities have reported that 100% of children are keeps in isolation. In addition, no federal or state legislation in The United States prohibits the isolation of young people in facilities for Adults; Only a few states have references in their legislation Express about the use of solitary isolation Multiple studies in the United States have shown that prisons and Prisons for adults are harmful to children, as these facilities are designed for adults and are not equipped to keep children safe from the high risks of abuse and harm that they face within them. These risks include: young people who are found in adult establishments are five times more likely to suffer sexual abuse or rape, compared to those found in juvenile facilities 12; young people deprived of liberty in establishments for adults are also twice as likely as be physically assaulted by corrections personnel; they have one 50% greater chance of being attacked with a weapon13; and they have a high probability of witnessing, or even being the target, of violence committed by other persons deprived of liberty. 9. This report will examine the areas in which United States legislation fails to protect the rights of children in the justice system penal. In this context, the IACHR will analyze the provisions of the United States applicable to children and adolescents, in light of the international obligations of the state to protect and guarantee the rights of children and adolescents in conflict with the criminal law, particularly the right to be treated as children. Details: Washington, DC: The Commission, 2018. 158p. English versions is available at: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/Children-USA.pdf Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 28, 2018 at: http://www.oas.org/es/cidh/informes/pdfs/NNA-USA.pdf - English version: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/Children-USA.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://www.oas.org/es/cidh/informes/pdfs/NNA-USA.pdf Shelf Number: 151728 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersJuvenile Justice SystemsRights of the ChildWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Title: Children and Adolescents in the United States' Adult Criminal Justice System Summary: 1. As a result of its visits and of the information it received, the IACHR observes that a significant number of children are being consistently treated as adults in the U.S. criminal justice system, in violation of their basic right to special protection and to be tried in a specialized juvenile system1. This issue is the main focus of this report. The IACHR has also observed that this phenomenon of child criminal defendants being treated as adults is part of a broader nationwide pattern in the United States of failure to protect and promote the rights of children, and failure to uniformly define "child" under the law in order to protect the fundamental human rights persons under the age of 18. 2. The United States has played an important role in promoting and establishing a specialized approach to youth within the criminal justice system, with the aim of rehabilitating, rather than simply punishing, youth who are convicted of a crime. The world's first juvenile court division was created in the U.S. state of Illinois in 1899, and within 25 years all but two of the states had followed suit and established similar juvenile court systems. However, the Commission notes with grave concern that in the 1980s, this began to change. By the year 1990, many states across the U.S. had passed highly regressive changes to their legislation and policy with regard to youth involved in the justice system. The changes varied in the details of their implementation, but the broad theme was the denial of access to rehabilitative juvenile justice systems, and consequent mandatory processing of juveniles in the more punitive adult systems. 3. The Commission notes with grave concern that according to the information it received, as a result of state laws requiring or allowing youth in conflict with the law to be tried as adults, an estimated 200,000 children and adolescents in conflict with the law are tried in adult criminal courts each year in the United States. The IACHR is aware that the majority of U.S. states still have laws, policies, and practices in place that enable them to incarcerate children in adult facilities. The Commission is also gravely concerned about the lack of data available regarding children in contact with the adult criminal system. 4. According to information received by the Commission, there are three main ways in which children and adolescents enter the adult criminal justice system in the United States, based on the particular legislation of each state. First, by way of laws that grant jurisdiction to the adult criminal courts for persons under 18 years of age. Second, through laws that allow for a child's case to be transferred from the juvenile system to the adult system. Third, as a result of hybrid sentencing laws that operate between the jurisdictions of the adult and juvenile systems, as well as other provisions with similar effect, such as "once an adult, always an adult" laws. 5. According to the information received by the Commission, the rights of children and adolescents who are charged with committing crimes in the U.S. are not duly protected at each stage of the proceedings, which in turn, has further negative consequences for those who are transferred and sentenced in the adult system. In particular, the IACHR has received information regarding: the absence of quality legal counsel; the possibility that youth can waive their right to legal representation; the fact that youth undergo long periods of time awaiting the disposition of their cases; and the possibility that many youth end up in the adult system as a result of plea agreements, without fully comprehending the consequences of such agreements. 6. In light of the information it received and examined, the IACHR finds that under the current state of the law in the U.S. related to children in contact with the criminal justice system, certain laws, policies, and practices have a disproportionate and discriminatory impact on certain groups, resulting in the over-representation of members of such groups in the criminal justice system. This is the case for children who are tried in the adult criminal justice system and confined in adult detention facilities. According to information received by the Commission, these disparities increase with each step further into the criminal justice system, beginning with arrest and referral to the juvenile system, through transfer to adult courts, to sentencing and confinement in adult correctional facilities. 7. States are not legally required to separate youth from adults in adult facilities. While the federal law for juvenile justice, i.e., the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) as reauthorized in 2002, does establish the separation of youth from adults as one of its core custody-related requirements, its provisions do not apply to children and adolescents in the adult system. This has very detrimental and grave impacts on children and adolescents, among them, according to information reported by several large jails and prisons systems, more than 10% of the children housed there are subjected to solitary confinement, while smaller facilities have reported that 100% of the children they hold are in isolation. Furthermore, no federal or state legislation in the United States prohibits solitary confinement of youth held in adult facilities; only a few states expressly refer to the use of isolation in their statutes. 8. Multiple studies in the United States have shown that adult jails and prisons are detrimental for children, as these facilities are designed for adults and are not equipped to keep children safe from the elevated risks of abuse and harm that they face inside them. Some of these include: youth are five times more likely to suffer sexual abuse or rape in an adult facility as compared to those held in juvenile facilities. Youth incarcerated in adult facilities are also twice as likely to be physically abused by correctional staff, have a 50% higher chance of being attacked with a weapon, and have a high probability of witnessing or being the target of violence committed by other prisoners. 9. This report will examine the situations in which U.S. law fails to protect the rights of children in the criminal justice system. In this context, the IACHR will analyze provisions in U.S. legislation that apply to children, in light of the State's international obligations to protect and guarantee the human rights of children and adolescents before the criminal law, particularly the right to be treated as children. Details: Washington, DC: The Commission, 2018. 146p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 20, 2018 at: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/Children-USA.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/Children-USA.pdf Shelf Number: 153513 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransfersJuvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile OffendersJuvenile SentencingRights of ChildrenWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction)Young Adult Offenders |