Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:27 pm
Time: 9:27 pm
Results for waiver (of juvenile court jurisdiction
3 results foundAuthor: University of California at Los Angeles. School of Law. Juvenile Justice Project Title: The Impact of Prosecuting Youth in the Adult Criminal Justice System Summary: The juvenile justice system was founded with the goal to serve the best interests of the child, with an understanding that youth possessed different needs than adults. Transfer laws represent a departure from that traditional understanding of juvenile justice and are contrary to fundamental notions of justice. As the overwhelming majority of research studies show, the adult criminal justice system is ill-equipped to meet the needs of youth offenders at all stages of the process, from trial to sentencing options to incarceration. The findings of this literature review indicate that justice is not served by forcing juveniles through a system never intended to process youth and that transfer laws have exacerbated the problems they sought to address. Details: Los Angeles: UCLA School of Law, Juvenile Justice Project, 2010. 131p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 31, 2011 at: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/UCLA-Literature-Review.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/UCLA-Literature-Review.pdf Shelf Number: 120635 Keywords: Juvenile JusticeJuvenile OffendersWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction |
Author: Ziedenberg, Jason Title: Misguided Measures: The Outcomes and Impacts of Measure 11 on Oregon’s Youth Summary: Oregon voters passed Measure 11 in November 1994. The measure created new mandatory minimum sentences for 16 crimes and required that youth charged with those crimes be tried as adults. The legislature subsequently added more crimes to Measure 11. Today, Measure 11 requires youth ages 15 years or older charged with one of 21 crimes to be prosecuted automatically in the adult criminal justice system and if convicted of that crime, to serve the same mandatory sentence that applies to adults. Fifteen years after Measure 11 was enacted, the Campaign for Youth Justice and Partnership for Safety and Justice embarked on a study to determine the impact that Measure 11 was having on youth in Oregon. The authors analyzed data on 3,274 young people indicted with Measure 11 offenses since 1995. The authors also looked at a subset of 759 cases handled between 2006 and 2008 to understand the current way Measure 11 is being implemented in the 36 Oregon counties. The report examines the detrimental impact of Measure 11 in a thorough, in-depth analysis of its effect on youth and public safety in Oregon. According to the data, Measure 11 has not made Oregon any safer. In fact, most youth charged with Measure 11 offenses are not the most serious youth offenders, but they receive the most serious sentences, little to no rehabilitative services, and face lifelong barriers to becoming productive citizens even after they have served their sentence. The report provides clear reasons why the public should reconsider Measure 11 for juveniles in addition to a list of recommendations that incorporate the latest research on curbing juvenile delinquency and recidivism in order to improve youth justice policies and increase public safety in Oregon Details: Washington, DC: Campaign for Youth Justice; Portland, OR: Partnership for Safety and Justice, 2011. 92p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 28, 2011 at: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/Misguided_Measures_July_2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/Misguided_Measures_July_2011.pdf Shelf Number: 122191 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransferJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice (Oregon)Juvenile OffendersWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction |
Author: Bellas, Marcia L. Title: Disproportionate Minority Contact Assessment: Court and Diversion Referral Decisions in Vermont's Juvenile Justice System Summary: In 2002, the State of Vermont began to monitor the contact of minority youth relative to white youth at various points in the Juvenile Justice system. In addition to compiling a statewide matrix annually, Vermont's juvenile justice specialist also gathers aggregate-level data for Chittenden, Rutland and Bennington Counties. The Vermont Center for Justice Research (VCJR) conducted three prior DMC assessments using individual-level data to determine the mechanisms responsible for the DMC reflected in aggregate-level data. These assessments examined DMC in admissions to Vermont's juvenile detention facility, DMC in arrests in four municipalities, and DMC in arrests in Burlington, Vermont's largest municipality. The primary goal of the current assessment was to explore whether there were indicators of DMC during at three-year period at three decision points in the juvenile justice system - referrals to juvenile court, referrals to adult court, and referrals to diversion, including to the extent possible pre-charge referrals to Community Justice Centers (CJCs). The assessment used individual-level court, juvenile/criminal history and CJC data for youth in Chittenden, Rutland and Bennington Counties for fiscal years 2009-2011 to determine whether individual-level differences between white and minority youth explain any disproportionate minority representation at the decision points of interest. Details: Northfield Falls, VT: Vermont Center for Justice Research, 2014. 66p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 6, 2014 at: http://www.vcjr.org/reports/reportscrimjust/reports/dmcrpt_files/DMC%20Assessment%202014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.vcjr.org/reports/reportscrimjust/reports/dmcrpt_files/DMC%20Assessment%202014.pdf Shelf Number: 133558 Keywords: Disproportionate Minority ContactJuvenile CourtJuvenile Court TransferJuvenile Justice Systems (Vermont)Juvenile OffendersWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction |