Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 12:17 pm
Time: 12:17 pm
Results for waiver (of juvenile court jurisdiction)
31 results foundAuthor: Hess, Wendy Title: Just Kids: Baltimore's Youth in the Adult Criminal Justice System Summary: Maryland's 20 year experiment with the "tough on crime" approach of automatically sending youth into adult criminal courts, jails and prisons for certain offenses has failed. National studies show that youth who are sent to adult facilities go on to commit more-and more violent-crimes than those who received rehabilitative services in the juvenile system. This costs taxpayers much more in the long run. Automatically charging youth as adults has been politically popular. But the data show that when their cases are individually considered, most cases in Baltimore are dismissed or sent to the juvenile system, raising the question of whether they should have been put in the adult system in the first place. Details: Baltimore, MD: Just Kids Partnership, 2010. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 7, 2010 at: http://www.justkidsmaryland.org/uploads/file/JustKidsRptOct2010small.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.justkidsmaryland.org/uploads/file/JustKidsRptOct2010small.pdf Shelf Number: 119875 Keywords: Juvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders (Baltimore)National Crime Victimization SurveySampling MethodsVictimization Surveys (U.S.)Waiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Males, Mike Title: The California Miracle: Drastically Reduced Youth Incarceration, Drastically Reduced Youth Crime Summary: In a previous report, the Center’s analysis found that large decreases in the imprisonment of California youth in the State’s Division of Juvenile Facilities were followed by large declines in youth crime through 2004, while large increases in adult imprisonment were followed by increases, in adult crime. These findings directly challenged prevailing 'incapacitation' assumptions that more imprisonment leads to less crime. This updated analysis confirms the findings of the CJCJ 2006 report. The analysis of current trends in California juvenile incarceration found that the rate of juvenile incarceration in California between 1980 and 2010, fell by 80 percent. Despite the unprecedented declines in youth incarceration in California the juvenile violent crime rate fell by 39 percent and the juvenile felony rate fell by 60 percent during the period. Details: San Francisco, CA: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2010. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 9, 2010 at: http://www.cjcj.org/files/The_California_Miracle.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/files/The_California_Miracle.pdf Shelf Number: 120263 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile OffendersWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
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: Henrichson, Christian Title: Cost-Benefit Analysis of Raising the Age of Juvenile Jurisdiction in North Carolina Summary: North Carolina is one of two states that process any offense committed by 16- and 17-year-olds in the adult justice system. Vera' Cost-Benefit Analysis Unit worked with the state's Youth Accountability Planning Task Force to assess the costs and benefits of transferring 16- and 17-year-olds charged with misdemeanors and low-level, nonviolent felony offenses to the juvenile justice system. This report presents the results and the methodology of the cost-benefit analysis. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2011. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 24, 2011 at: http://www.vera.org/download?file=3185/CBA-of-Raising-Age-Juvenile-Jurisdiction-NC-final.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/download?file=3185/CBA-of-Raising-Age-Juvenile-Jurisdiction-NC-final.pdf Shelf Number: 120877 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisJuvenile CourtsJuvenile LawJuvenile Offenders (North Carolina)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: Macallair, Daniel Title: The Impact of Realignment on County Juvenile Justice Practice: Will Closing State Youth Correctional Facilities Increase Adult Criminal Court Filings? Summary: On January 10, 2011, Governor Jerry Brown released his proposed budget for 2011-12, promoting the elimination of the Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF) by June 30, 2014. This CJCJ report is the first in a series of reports investigating the consequences of the proposed juvenile justice realignment in California. The second in the series is a two-page brief examining the 58 counties’ institutional capacity to absorb the DJF population in 2009 and follows two previous CJCJ reports recommending the realignment and reform of juvenile justice practices. As highlighted in CJCJ’s May 2009 report entitled Closing California’s Division of Juvenile Facilities: An Analysis of County Institutional Capacity, and the October 2010 update, counties have been developing their capacity and ability to serve serious and violent offenders since 2004. However, there remains speculation as to how closure of DJF facilities will impact juvenile justice practices and although analysis is difficult, some indications can be derived from recent trends. As CJCJ’s May 2009 report identified, direct filing of juvenile offenders to adult criminal courts by prosecutors has been steadily rising since 2004 despite the availability of DJF facilities. This trend suggests that direct adult criminal court filing will continue to increase regardless of the future of DJF. This report conducts an analysis of county use of DJF and direct adult criminal court filings in 2009. The results suggest that closing DJF facilities will impact each of the 58 counties differently, but can be broadly classified into several categories. Some counties will be minimally impacted by DJF’s closure, while others will be significantly impacted, requiring a more focused analysis of their needs and appropriate technical assistance, support, and resources to serve their serious juvenile offenders at the county-level. Nevertheless, counties’ willingness to respond to this challenge has been demonstrated by the response to Senate Bill 81 in August 2007, when despite initial reservations many counties not only absorbed the non-violent juvenile offender population previously housed in DJF, but also implemented community-based services for high-risk serious juvenile offenders. Details: San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2011. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Juvenile Justice Realignment Series: Accessed April 22, 2011 at: http://www.cjcj.org/files/The_impact_of_realignment_on_county_juvenile_justice_practice.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/files/The_impact_of_realignment_on_county_juvenile_justice_practice.pdf Shelf Number: 121381 Keywords: Juvenile Detention FacilitiesJuvenile Justice (California)Juvenile OffendersWaiver (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: Arthur, Pat Title: A Call to Stop Child Prosecutions in Wyoming Adult Courts Summary: Unlike any other state in the nation, Wyoming commonly prosecutes children as criminals, imposing adult sentences for misbehavior more typical of normal adolescence than criminal. At significant cost to Wyoming taxpayers, children as young as eight years old who get in trouble for such transgressions as smoking at school, drinking at a weekend party, stealing a pack of gum, or skateboarding in the wrong place are being criminally prosecuted in adult courts in counties and cities throughout the state. While these adolescent misbehaviors may be challenging to families and communities trying to raise healthy kids, they present little or no real threat to public safety. Nevertheless, Wyoming uses costly criminal procedures and expensive detention beds to punish children for conduct that is more effectively addressed in the home or at school. It is estimated that 85-90% of children in trouble with the law in Wyoming are currently being processed through adult, not juvenile, courts where they become saddled with adult criminal convictions for minor misbehaviors. In the adult court system, kids receive few of the rehabilitative social services available in the juvenile justice system. With such extraordinary criminal court involvement in the rearing of Wyoming’s teens, it is no wonder that the state has the second highest juvenile incarceration rate in the country. Details: Oakland, CA: National Center for Youth Law, 2010. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 2, 2011 at: http://www.youthlaw.org/fileadmin/ncyl/youthlaw/juv_justice/A_Call_to_Stop_Child_Prosecutions.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.youthlaw.org/fileadmin/ncyl/youthlaw/juv_justice/A_Call_to_Stop_Child_Prosecutions.pdf Shelf Number: 122252 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransferJuvenile Offenders (Wyoming)Waiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Teji, Selena Title: An Analysis of Direct Adult Criminal Court Filing 2003-2009: What Has Been the Effect of Proposition 21? Summary: The following report is Part Four of the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice’s (CJCJ) Juvenile Justice Realignment Series. Direct adult criminal court filing is a process that allows prosecutorial discretion to file cases involving juveniles accused of certain violent and serious offenses in adult court without obtaining judicial permission, a power granted by Proposition 21 in 2000. This report studies the practice of direct-filing in California’s 58 counties during 2003 through 2009 in order to assess the potential effect of the originally proposed Division of Juvenile Facilities closure on this practice. Details: San Francisco, CA: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2011. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Juvenile Justice Realignment Series: Accessed September 2, 2011 at: http://www.cjcj.org/files/What_has_been_the_effect_of_Prop_21.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/files/What_has_been_the_effect_of_Prop_21.pdf Shelf Number: 122615 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransferJuvenile Offenders (California)Waiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Arya, Neelum Title: A Tangled Web of Justice: American Indian and Alaska Native Youth in Federal, State and Tribal Justice Systems Summary: This report presents an examination of how Native American youth are disproportionately affected by transfer laws. Key findings include that many Native American youth commit low-level offenses and receive either no court intervention or disproportionately severe sanctions. Also examines the interaction of the tribal justice system with the state and federal justice systems and how that impacts youth transfer. Details: Washington, DC: Campaign for Youth Justice, 2009. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Brief, Race and Ethnicity Series Vol. 1: Accessed October 4, 2011 at: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/CFYJPB_TangledJustice.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/CFYJPB_TangledJustice.pdf Shelf Number: 114889 Keywords: American IndiansIndigenous YouthJuvenile Court TransferMinority YouthWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Arya, Neelum Title: Critical Condition: African-American Youth in the Justice System Summary: This reports presents an examination of how African-American youth are disproportionately affected by transfer laws. Key findings include that most African-American youth are transferred by statutory exclusion or prosecutorial waiver mechanisms, many are not convicted (suggesting that the cases brought against them are not very strong), and that most youth prosecuted in the adult system are not serious violent offenders. Details: Washington, DC: Campaign for Youth Justice, 2008. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Brief, Race and Ethnicity Vol. 2: Accessed October 4, 2011 at: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/CFYJPB_CriticalCondition.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/CFYJPB_CriticalCondition.pdf Shelf Number: 114889 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransferMinority GroupsWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Berlin, Lisa J. Title: Juvenile or Adult? Adolescent Off enders and the Line Between the Juvenile and Criminal Justice Systems Summary: Most states’ juvenile justice systems have two main goals: increased public safety and the rehabilitation of adolescent offenders to prevent future crime. Policymakers and others need balanced information about the most effective ways to meet both goals. Currently, North Carolina, New York, and Connecticut are the only states that prosecute 16- and 17-year-olds charged with a crime in adult criminal court. The North Carolina General Assembly is addressing the question of whether 16- and 17-year-olds charged with a crime should be prosecuted in juvenile court instead. The question of whether adolescent offenders should be prosecuted in the juvenile or adult system is important because off enders aged 16-24 account for 37 percent of arrests for violent crimes in the United States and North Carolina. Policies that impact the frequency and duration of criminal activity among 16- and 17-year-olds have a major impact on overall crime rates and public safety. This Family Impact Seminar briefing report addresses the line between the juvenile and adults systems. A “family impact perspective” on policymaking informs this report. Just as policymakers routinely consider the environmental or economic impact of policies and programs, Family Impact Seminars help policymakers examine impact on families by providing research findings and evidence-based strategies. This report consists of five briefs: Brief 1 provides background and recent history on the handling of adolescent offenders in the United States and North Carolina; a description of how the current North Carolina juvenile justice system works; recent North Carolina juvenile justice statistics; and information on programs and facilities for adolescent offenders in North Carolina and other states. Brief 2 discusses research on youth development pertaining to three issues central to policies for adolescent offenders: blameworthiness, competence to stand trial, and the potential for an adolescent’s character to change. Brief 3 details how other states treat adolescent offenders. Brief 4 discusses research on how juvenile crime rates respond to changes in punishment laws. Brief 5 presents three policy options and a series of further considerations. The briefing report concludes with a glossary, a list of acronyms, a list of additional resources, and a chart of the current legal age in NC for different activities. Details: Durham, NC: Center for Child and Family Policy, Duke University, 2007. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 20, 2012 at: http://www.childandfamilypolicy.duke.edu/pdfs/familyimpact/2007/BriefingReport_07.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.childandfamilypolicy.duke.edu/pdfs/familyimpact/2007/BriefingReport_07.pdf Shelf Number: 123690 Keywords: AdolescentsJuvenile Court TransferJuvenile OffendersWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Deitch, Michele Title: Conditions for Certified Juveniles in Texas County Jails Summary: The majority of juveniles who are accused of committing crimes in Texas are tried in juvenile courts, however, each year a small number of youth are transferred to the adult criminal justice system for trial. This process is referred to as certification. Until September 2011, Texas law required that all juveniles certified to be tried as adults were housed in adult county jails while they awaited their trials. In 2011, the 82nd Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 1209 (SB 1209), which provided local juvenile boards the option to adopt a policy allowing for certified juveniles to be confined in juvenile detention centers rather than adult county jails. If the juvenile board adopts such a policy, the final decision as to where a particular youth would be housed would be up to the juvenile judge conducting the certification hearing. Although SB 1209 allows juvenile boards to create an option for certified youth to be confined in juvenile detention centers, until now there has been little information about the conditions for certified juveniles who are awaiting trial in county jails across the state. Without this information, it may be difficult for juvenile boards to determine whether juvenile detention centers or county jails are best suited to house certified youth, and to adopt an appropriate policy in response to SB 1209. To gather more information about the conditions for certified juveniles in Texas county jails, we worked with the Texas Commission on Jail Standards (TCJS) to conduct a survey of county jails in Texas that have experience housing certified juveniles. The survey focused on five key areas: housing, contact with adults, out-of-cell time, educational programming, and other programming. This report aims to provide a clearer picture of the conditions for certified juveniles in county jails based on the findings of this survey. The report provides a comprehensive assessment of how certified juveniles are housed in county jails in Texas, and the challenges faced by jail administrators when they confine certified youth. This information should help inform juvenile boards as they consider how to implement SB 1209, and can also inform policy makers, state and county agencies, and advocates in future discussions about the most appropriate way to manage the confinement of certified juveniles. Details: Austin, TX: Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin, 2012. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 10, 2012 at: https://www.utexas.edu/lbj/sites/default/files/file/news/Conditions%20for%20Certified%20Juveniles%20in%20Texas%20County%20Jails-FINAL-3.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.utexas.edu/lbj/sites/default/files/file/news/Conditions%20for%20Certified%20Juveniles%20in%20Texas%20County%20Jails-FINAL-3.pdf Shelf Number: 125233 Keywords: County JailsJuvenile Court TransferJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (Texas)Waiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Children's Law Center, Inc. Title: Falling Through the Cracks: A New Look at Ohio Youth in the Adult Criminal Justice System Summary: Over the past 20 years, Ohio laws have changed to make it increasingly easier for youth to come into contact with the adult criminal justice system. Although Ohio has recently taken a step towards removing youth from the adult system, these policies have resulted in over 300 youth are processed in adult court or placed in adult jails and prisons each year in Ohio. Falling Through the Cracks examines recent national research on the harmful effects of these policies as well as the national trend toward reducing the number of youth in adult court by states across the country – including Ohio – and the U.S. Supreme Court. The report also includes extensive Ohio-specific information, including original data on outcomes for youth who are bound over to adult court and recommendations on how to change Ohio law and practice on youth in adult court. Details: Covington, KY: Children's Law Center, Inc., 2012. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 10, 2012 at: http://www.childrenslawky.org/storage/documents/Falling%20Through%20The%20Cracks%20-%20A%20New%20Look%20at%20Ohio%20Youth%20in%20the%20Adult%20Criminal%20Justice%20System%20-%20May%202012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.childrenslawky.org/storage/documents/Falling%20Through%20The%20Cracks%20-%20A%20New%20Look%20at%20Ohio%20Youth%20in%20the%20Adult%20Criminal%20Justice%20System%20-%20May%202012.pdf Shelf Number: 125238 Keywords: Juvenile Court TransferJuvenile Offenders (Ohio)Waiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Schuyler Center for Analysis and Advocacy Title: Raising the Juvenile Justice Jurisdictional Age: Treating Kids as Kids in New York State's Justice System Summary: New York and North Carolina are the only two states that treat children as young as 16 years of age as adults in the criminal justice system. Most states follow the federal Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act, which suggests that the juvenile court jurisdiction’s upper age limit be any time before their 18th birthday. In New York State, anyone age 16 or older who commits a crime is sent to the adult criminal justice system, no matter the charge. Despite the fact that 74.4% of crimes committed by 16- and 17-year-olds are misdemeanors, all of these youth go through the adult system. New York’s Family Court Act set the juvenile justice jurisdictional age of 7 to 15 in 1962 as a temporary measure for further study. That temporary agreement has now been in effect for 50 years. The difference between the juvenile system and adult system is philosophy—mainly, rehabilitation versus punishment. The juvenile justice system focuses on the child or youth and offers an opportunity for rehabilitation. The adult criminal system focuses on what the offense warrants in terms of punishment. New York State is one of only two states that has not raised the age of the juvenile courts’ jurisdiction. Research demonstrates that the adult system is not appropriate for 16- and 17-year-olds who are still developing cognitively. These youth and the public are better served by raising the age of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction to include youth up to their 18th birthday. Details: Albany, NY: Schuyler Center for Analysis and Advocacy, 2012. 5p. Source: Policy Brief: Internet Resource: Accessed November 3, 2012 at http://www.scaany.org/documents/scaabrief_raisetheage_march2012_000.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.scaany.org/documents/scaabrief_raisetheage_march2012_000.pdf Shelf Number: 126867 Keywords: Juvenile Court Transfer (New York)Juvenile Justice (New York)Juvenile OffendersWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: New York. Governor's Children's Cabinet Advisory Board Title: Advancing a Fair and Just Age of Criminal Responsibility for Youth in New York State Summary: New York, a state long considered a leader in justice-related issues, is falling behind the vast majority of states on a critical issue – the age of criminal responsibility. While most states treat 16 and 17 year olds as juveniles, New York treats all 16 and 17 year olds as adults for criminal responsibility – if arrested after their 16th birthday, they are taken to adult court, spend time detained or do time in local adult jails and can be incarcerated in state run adult correctional institutions if sentenced to longer than one year. Key stakeholders to contribute to the analysis must include the Office of Court Administration, Division of Criminal Justice Services, Office of Probation and Correctional Alternatives, Office of Children and Family Services, the educational community, local criminal and family court judges, defense counsels including public defenders and district attorneys, local commissioners of probation, social services, non-profit juvenile justice services providers, as well as experts in the fields of adolescent medicine and psychology, and criminal and juvenile justice. In view of the foregoing, the Governor’s Children’s Cabinet Advisory Board, a non-partisan, independent, diverse group of experts, believes the time is now to commission a comprehensive study of New York’s justice system in order to determine a fair and just age of criminal responsibility. New York’s children deserve a system of justice that both holds them accountable for their behavior and allows them to learn from their mistakes and become productive citizens. This needs to be accomplished with the highest regard for public safety. Details: New York: Governor's Children's Cabinet Advisory Board, 2011. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 3, 2012 at http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/Advancing_a_Fair_and_Just_Age_of_Criminal_Responsibility_for_Youth_in_NYS.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/Advancing_a_Fair_and_Just_Age_of_Criminal_Responsibility_for_Youth_in_NYS.pdf Shelf Number: 126869 Keywords: Age of Responsibility (New York)Juvenile Court TransferJuvenile JusticeJuvenile Justice Reform (New York)Juvenile Offenders (New York)Waiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
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: 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: Drake, Elizabeth K. Title: The Effectiveness of Declining Juvenile Court Jurisdiction of Youth Summary: In Washington State, the juvenile courts have jurisdiction over youth under the age of 18 who are charged with committing a crime. Under certain circumstances, however, the juvenile courts are declined jurisdiction and youth are automatically sentenced as adults. For this report, we examined whether the automatic decline law results in higher or lower offender recidivism for those who were sentenced as adults by comparing recidivism rates of youth who were automatically declined after the 1994 law with youth who would have been declined had the law existed prior to that time. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2013. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 11, 2014 at: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1544/Wsipp_The-Effectiveness-of-Declining-Juvenile-Court-Jurisdiction-of-Youth_Final-Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1544/Wsipp_The-Effectiveness-of-Declining-Juvenile-Court-Jurisdiction-of-Youth_Final-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 132996 Keywords: Juvenile Court Transfer Juvenile Courts (Washington) Juvenile Offenders Recidivism Waiver (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: Gewirtz, Marian Title: Recidivism Among Juvenile Offenders in New York City, 2007-2012: A Comparison by Case Outcome Summary: New York State's Juvenile Offender (JO) Law was passed as part of the Omnibus Crime Control Bill of 1978 in response to concerns about serious crime committed by young offenders. The JO Law lowered the age of criminal responsibility for juveniles in New York State from age 16, already among the lowest in the country, to age 14 for selected serious felony offenses1 and to age 13 when the charge was second degree murder. In accordance with the provisions of this law, cases are brought directly to the adult rather than the juvenile court for prosecution. Previous CJA research on recidivism among juveniles processed in the adult courts in New York City focused solely on juveniles processed in the Supreme Court (upper court), excluding the many juveniles whose cases were dismissed in the Criminal Court (lower court) or transferred to the Family Court. Furthermore, the previous research did not directly consider re-arrest during pretrial case processing. That is, that research tracked re-arrest regardless of whether the re-arrest occurred before the initial case reached disposition, between disposition and sentencing, after sentencing, or even after the juvenile served any sentence. However, the research showed very high rates of recidivism. Most of the juveniles were re-arrested at some point (three quarters were re-arrested within four years at risk and half were re-arrested for a violent felony offense within that time), though only 16 percent of the re-arrests in that study were prior to disposition. The current research focuses on the relationship between recidivism and case outcome. Re-arrest rates are compared across juveniles whose cases reached disposition in the Criminal Court, by dismissal or by transfer to the Family Court, or in the Supreme Court, by conviction3 or by dismissal or transfer to the Family Court. We begin with a description of the research dataset and of the juveniles that are in the two groups used in this research. The second section presents case outcome and release status in the full research file to provide context for the two research groups. The third section discusses the relationship between case outcome and the demographic and court-related characteristics of the juveniles. The re-arrests are the focus in the fourth section which includes discussion of the first re-arrest, re-arrest rates by demographic, CJA interview and court-related factors, as well as re-arrest rates by time at risk to re-arrest. We then report the results of multivariate analyses using Cox proportional hazards regression to explore the factors associated with elapsed time to first pretrial re-arrest and first pretrial felony re-arrest for both research groups to determine if re-arrest varies by case outcome. Details: New York: New York City Criminal Justice Agency, 2015. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 25, 2015 at: http://www.nycja.org/library.php Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.nycja.org/library.php Shelf Number: 137337 Keywords: Case ProcessingJuvenile Court TransferJuvenile OffendersRe-ArrestRecidivismWaiver (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: 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 |