Annotated Bibliography On Juvenile Offenders

A juvenile can be transferred automatically be transferred to adult court on the grounds of once an adult, always an adult. Due to previous charges, transferring to adult court terminates juvenile court jurisdiction over a juvenile for any offense unless the transfer is followed by an acquittal or a dismissal of the charge that resulted in the transfer. Within 90 days a juvenile is charged with an offense and no less than 14 days prior to the transfer hearing, the decision on whether or not the state will seek transfer has to be made,

Juvenile Transfer to Adult Courts: A Look at the Prototypes for Dangerousness, Sophistication-Maturity, and Amenability to Treatment through a Legal Lens http://psycnet.apa.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/journals/law/8/4/373.html

One of the most debatable topics in today’s justice system is whether or not juveniles should receive waivers to adult court. There are three methods that are used to transfer a juvenile to adult court. Juvenile waiver, statutory exclusion, and Concurrent Jurisdiction are the three different methods used to transfer a juvenile to adult court. Statutory exclusion is when the juvenile is transferred immediately to the adult court. Concurrent Jurisdiction is when the juvenile may be tried as an adult and a juvenile at once. Throughout all three methods juvenile waiver is the most common one that is used throughout juvenile courts and used in mostly all states. The only states that do not provide judicial waivers are Nebraska, New York, and New Mexico. When a judge transfers a juvenile to adult court, he or she is denying the protections that the juveniles receive. The judge makes the decision of whether or not the juvenile is tried as an adult. Double Jeapordy laws protect the juvenile from being tried in juvenile court and then adult court because of the fact that a juvenile would be tried twice. Most times 17 or 18 year olds are the youngest age limits that can be waived to adult court, but in some states ages low as 13 or 14 can be waived. It depends on the crime that a juvenile commits on whether or not he or she is transferred to adult court. Once the juvenile is tried as an adult, he or she will be affect in the community for a lifetime versus having his or her records

Researchers conducted a national study of how the juvenile court judge weighs the pertinent Kent criteria. This criterion is based on the potential risk to the community, the maturity of character and amenability to intervention. The purpose of this study is three fold, first to test the juvenile court judges' beliefs regarding the mechanics of how juveniles are transferred, second to examine the judges' beliefs about the usefulness of data presented of them and third determined how juvenile judges' weigh pertinent psychological concepts linked to transfer cases when making a decision. There were four hypothesis based on previous research and theory, one would be juvenile judges' prefer case by case sorting and second juvenile court judges would find information on the Kent concepts useful to their decision and want the Kent information in the form of a psychological report. The third hypothesis is weighing the concepts; juveniles who scored high on dangerousness and sophistication- maturity, but low on amenability to treatment would most likely be transferred to adult court and fourth youths scoring low on the dangerousness and sophistication- maturity but high on the amenability to treatment would most likely retain in juvenile court.

We should be cautious about the application of juvenile transfer/waiver because it is controversial with the public. We have to gain the sense of the public’s willingness to transfer juveniles to adult court. There are many variables that the public have taken into consideration that may be susceptible about the methods of juvenile transfer. Those variables are demographic characteristics of the offender, victim, and respondent. According to the article, the findings indicated that the age of the offender and the seriousness of the offense influence citizen’s desire to transfer juvenile to adult court. The problem is that the increased juvenile transfer doesn’t necessarily decrease the crime in juveniles.

The juvenile justice system has gone through many transformations and changes in sentencing guidelines since its inception. These guidelines were put in place to establish a process through which juveniles are guaranteed resources for a chance at rehabilitation and integration back into society as a law-abiding citizen. Juvenile courts have a wide range of sentencing options which they can impose on juveniles or youth offenders found guilty of a criminal offense. The automatic transfer law is the policy that is used most commonly, in regards to transferring a juvenile to criminal (adult) court.

In the United States, though different states have different transfer laws regarding ways a juvenile could be transferred to criminal court, most states used one of these transfer laws; once adult/always adult laws, reverse waiver laws and blended sentencing laws. Under once adult/always adult laws, a juvenile who have been tried as adults will be prosecuted in criminal court for any subsequent offenses. Reverse waiver laws, on the other hand, makes it possible for juvenile who is being prosecuted as an adult in criminal court to appeal their case to be transferred to juvenile court. A compromise between those who wanted rehabilitation and those who wanted punishment for the juvenile offender, blended sentencing laws appear to be the law that could determine the appropriate Court of Jurisdiction for juveniles.

With this message directed towards juveniles, as well as the likely chance that juveniles whom are transferred to the adult criminal court system will result in some type of incarceration, this may lead to a deterrence of violent or misbehaved actions committed by juveniles in an attempt to avoid these prosecutions. These statements conducted by Urbina and White (2009), are statements to consider on the issue of a juveniles transfer to adult criminal court. Although there are strong facts to support this type of transfer for juveniles, Urbina and White (2009) also found that this might not be the best option in some cases. There have been studies that showed juveniles whom were transferred to the adult criminal court system and sent to adult jails were more likely to re-offend and with more serious crimes than did their juvenile counterparts (Urbina & White, 2009). With this study that was conducted, it adds doubt to the fact that juveniles should be transferred to the adult criminal court system. Although, at times, this may be the best option for serious and violent repeated offenders, it is not likely that this process will have a positive affect on the juvenile or the community. Urbina and White (2009) continue to lack strong argumentative evidence to show the exact times that transferring a juvenile to the adult criminal court system is the

Only thirteen states set the age limit of 15 and 16, any youth that is older than that is automatically transferred to adult court for the crime they commit. The minimum age to transfer a juvenile to adult court various between states but only two states have set a limit and those states are Kansas is age 10 and New Mexico is age 15. Another state including the District of Columbia there is no minimum age unless it is a heinous crime such as murder, then the juvenile is automatically transferred to criminal court. In addition, there was 15 states in 2004, who has concurrent jurisdiction from juvenile to adult court upon sentencing a juvenile. This is where if a juvenile commits a crime they are tried as a juvenile either in juvenile court or be tried in criminal court but upon sentencing they are sentenced to juvenile jail/prison then upon them turning 18 they are then transferred to adult prison where they will serve out their remainder of their time. This will be for serious offense like murder, drug offenses, assault against another person. In 2004, 29 states have “statutory exclusion” provisions, which means that any serious crimes are excluded by law to be tried in juvenile court. With these situations any crime that is committed there is exclusions on where a juvenile is tried and served their sentence for all crimes. For any serious offense that happens, then the juvenile will be sent to criminal court automatically or after a certain

Today, the juvenile system primary goals are crime reduction and rehabilitation. The juvenile officials must assess whether youthful offenders are likely to commit crimes in the future and whether they can benefit from interventions. If these kids cannot benefit, then they will most like end up a delinquent. In most states delinquency is defined as the commission of a criminal act by a child who was under the age of 18 at that time (Virginia Rules). Most states allow youth to remain under the supervision of the juvenile court until the age of 21, but this depends on the type of crime that was committed. There has been many times where a juvenile case was transferred to an adult criminal court. This would have to be done thru a process called a waiver. A waiver is when a judge waives the protections that the juvenile court provides (Larry J. Siegel). Cases that

Approximately two million adolescents a year are arrested and out of that two million, 60,000 of them are incarcerated according to the American Journal of Public Health. The 60,000 incarcerated adolescents each year are being tried as adults in court because of the serious crimes they have committed. The crimes they have committed are anything from armed robbery to murder. Some juveniles might be first time offenders and others might be repeat offenders. Crimes have always been a major issue in the United States and can cause controversy in the criminal justice system. Charging a minor as an adult in criminal court varies from state to state based on each state’s jurisdiction. Some states consider anyone up to the age of 18 still a juvenile and would not be charged as an adult in criminal court, but other states may charge a juvenile as an adult at the age of 16 or 17. Jordan (2014) states, “Although states already had methods for transferring youth to the adult system, as a result of the growing fear of juvenile violence, most states implemented new laws to increase the number of youth entering the adult criminal system’ (Bernard & Kurlychek, 2010; Torbet et al., 1996)” (p. 315). While it sounds beneficial to incarcerate more adolescents in the adult criminal justice system to avoid juveniles from committing crimes in the future, that is not always the case. Incarcerating these juveniles can be life changing in a negative

The dilemma of whether or not to transfer juveniles to adult court has been a major topic, for many years, in the United States. Since 1899, judges have had the option to transfer juveniles to adult court. The major factor for transferring juveniles to adult court since then has been the seriousness of the offense. That being said, juveniles only make up a small portion of violent crimes in the United States. Only 16 percent of juvenile offenders in 2008 were arrested for violent crimes (Champion,2008). The problem is the determination of whether the crime is serious enough to be waived and transferred to adult court. Almost every state has statutory judicial waiver provisions, which grant juvenile judges the authority to transfer

There are many similarities and differences between the adult and juvenile justice systems. Although juvenile crimes have increased in violence and intensity in the last decade, there is still enough difference between the two legal proceedings, and the behaviors themselves, to keep the systems separated. There is room for changes in each structure. However, we cannot treat/punish juvenile offenders the way we do adult offenders, and vice versa. This much we know. So we have to find a way to merge between the two. And, let’s face it; our juveniles are more important to us in the justice system. They are the group at they

The laws governing the transfer of juvenile offenders from the juvenile court system to the adult criminal court system do vary from state to state, consequently, a very small percentage are actually waived (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, n.d.). The discretion of the court is first and foremost to protect society from a violent offender. There are instances where a juvenile offender poses such a great risk to society, although they are extremely rare, the court will have no choice but to remand them to be held.

Juvenile justice has proved to be as imprudent as it is practical. Snyder and Sickmund (1999) found that as early as 1825, there was a significant push to establish a separate juvenile justice system focused on rehabilitation and treatment. The procedure continued to stay focused on the rehabilitation of a person, even though financial support and assets sustained to hold back its achievement. In reaction to rising juvenile crime rates in the 1980s’, more corrective laws were approved (Snyder and Sickmund 1999). In the 1990s, the United States legal system took further steps regarding transfer provisions that lowered the threshold at which juveniles could be tried in criminal court and sentenced to adult prison (Snyder and Sickmund 1999). Furthermore, laws were enacted that allowed prosecutors and judges more discretion in their sentencing options; and confidentiality standards, which made juvenile court proceedings and records more available to the public (Snyder and Sickmund 1999), were reduced.