Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 25, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:12 pm
Time: 8:12 pm
Results for juvenile juvenile court transfer
1 results foundAuthor: Males, Mike Title: Charging youths as adults in California: A county by county analysis of prosecutorial direct file practices Summary: This report examines county by county prosecutorial direct file practices between 2003 and 2010 to determine whether Proposition 21 (2000) has resulted in more commitments of youths to state institutional facilities than would have occurred otherwise. In light of these historic trends the report also reflects on the potential effect that the Governor’s proposed closure of the state’s Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF) would have on prosecutorial direct file practices in California. The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ) finds that at least two-thirds of direct files do not result in state DJF or adult prison terms. Prosecutorial direct file has not proven an effective means of securing state prison sentences for youthful offenders compared to previously existing mechanisms, such as judicial transfer after juvenile court fitness hearings. While CJCJ was unable to determine the exact numbers of direct file cases that resulted in transfer from DJF to state prison at age 18, the number appears small and has declined sharply over the last three years. In addition, frequent usage of direct file appears to have no effect on crime compared to infrequent usage. The overall statewide increase in direct file rates during 2003-2010 is attributable to a select group of counties, whose prosecutors utilize direct file significantly more than the state average. This increase in direct file rates is not correlated to county juvenile court commitments to DJF. In addition, county commitments to DJF varied significantly and declined greatly during the period. The data suggests there are 7 counties that continue to heavily rely on the state system through both high rates of juvenile court DJF commitments and prosecutorial direct filing and may require significant local capacity building if DJF were to be eliminated. Details: San Francisco, CA: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2012. 7p. Source: Policy Brief: Internet Resource: Accessed February 18, 2012 at http://www.cjcj.org/files/Charging_youths_as_adults_in_California.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/files/Charging_youths_as_adults_in_California.pdf Shelf Number: 124173 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile Juvenile Court TransferJuvenile Offenders (California) |