A Comparison of the Dispositions of Juvenile Offenders Certified as Adults with Juvenile Offenders Not Certified

Abstract In recent years, the transfer of juveniles to adult courts has been seen as one way of “getting tough” on juvenile crime. This study examined juvenile cases transferred to adult court, and compared them with a random sample of delinquents adjudicated in juvenile court for conduct that would constitute felonies if committed by an adult. The results indicated that juvenile cases transferred to adult court were far more likely to be pending and unresolved, as compared to the sample from the juvenile justice system. Furthermore, the results did not support the proposition that juveniles transferred to adult court would receive greater punishment than they could expect in juvenile court. Except for a small number of offenders, the prospect of transfer did not appear to provide a deterrent to crime.     

Do Criminal Court Outcomes Vary by Juvenile Transfer Mechanism? A Multi-Jurisdictional,Multilevel Analysis

In recent decades, the number of juvenile defendants transferred to criminal court has increased dramatically, in large measure due to an expansion of available transfer mechanisms. While transfer traditionally occurred by judicial waiver of jurisdiction, alternatives have emerged and eclipsed judicial waiver as the primary route to adult court. The present study examines whether the mechanism of waiver—judicial, prosecutorial, or legislative—affects sentencing outcomes for juvenile defendants transferred to adult court. Results from multilevel models that control for state-level variation indicate that sentencing outcomes are inextricably tied to method of transfer. Most notably, non-criminal outcomes are most likely for cases that arrive in criminal court by legislative waiver. This suggests that legislative waiver is an ineffective means of sending juvenile offenders to criminal court, and provides some empirical support for the notion that judicial waiver is the most appropriate method of transfer.     

THE BEST SEAT IN THE HOUSE: THE COURT ASSIGNMENT AND JUDICIAL SATISFACTION

A survey of 355 judges examined the differences in judicial satisfaction between those assigned to problem-solving courts—such as drug treatment and unified family—and judges in other more traditional assignments such as family law and criminal courts. The unified family court systems, like drug treatment courts, have generally adopted the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence. Significant differences were found on each of the three survey scales: (1) helpfulness, (2) attitude toward litigants, and (3) positive effects of assignment. The judges who were in the problem-solving courts (drug treatment and unified family court) scored higher on all three scales than those who were not (traditional family and criminal court). The group of problem-solving court judges consistently scored higher than the other group of judges, with the drug treatment court judges scoring the highest. The group of traditional criminal court and family court judges scored less positively, with the criminal court judges having the lowest scores. The problem-solving court judges were more likely to report believing that the role of the court should include helping litigants address the problems that brought them there and were more likely to observe positive changes in the litigants. They were also more likely to believe that litigants are motivated to change and are able to do so. They felt more respected by the litigants and were more likely to think that the litigants were grateful for help they received. The problem-solving court judges were also more likely to report being happy in their assignments and to believe that these assignments have a positive emotional effect on them.     

Differential Effects of Adult Court Transfer on Juvenile Offender Recidivism

Prior research indicates that adolescent offenders transferred to adult court are more likely to recidivate than those retained in the juvenile system. The studies supporting this conclusion, however, are limited in addressing the issue of heterogeneity among transferred adolescents. This study estimates the effect of transfer on later crime using a sample of 654 serious juvenile offenders, 29% of whom were transferred. We use propensity score matching to reduce potential selection bias, and we partition the sample on legal characteristics to examine subgroup effects. We find an overall null effect of transfer on re-arrest, but evidence of differential effects of transfer for adolescents with different offending histories. These results suggest that evaluating the effects of transfer for all transferred adolescents together may lead to misguided policy conclusions.     

Legal, Individual, and Environmental Predictors of Court Disposition in a Sample of Serious Adolescent Offenders

Historically, the juvenile court has been expected to consider each youth's distinct rehabilitative needs in the dispositional decision-making process, rather than focusing on legal factors alone. This study examines the extent to which demographic, psychological, contextual, and legal factors, independently predict dispositional outcomes (i.e., probation vs. confinement) within two juvenile court jurisdictions (Philadelphia, Phoenix). The sample consists of 1,355 14- to 18-year-old male and female juvenile offenders adjudicated of a serious criminal offense. Results suggest that legal factors have the strongest influence on disposition in both jurisdictions. For example, a higher number of prior court referrals is associated with an increased likelihood of secure confinement in both jurisdictions. Juveniles adjudicated of violent offenses are more likely to receive secure confinement in Phoenix, but are more likely to be placed on probation in Philadelphia. Race is unrelated to dispositional outcome, but, males are consistently more likely than females to be placed in secure confinement. Importantly, individual factors (e.g., developmental maturity) generally were not powerful independent predictors of disposition. Finally, an examination of the predictors of juvenile versus adult court transfer in Phoenix indicated that males, older juveniles, and those with a violent adjudicated charge were more likely to be transferred to adult court, while juveniles scoring high on responsibility as well as those juveniles with an alcohol dependence diagnosis were more likely to be retained in juvenile court.     

What Do Juvenile Offenders Know About Being Tried as Adults? Implications for Deterrence

An underlying assumption in the nationwide policy shift toward transferring more juveniles to criminal court has been the belief that stricter, adult sentences will act as either a specific or general deterrent to juvenile crime. With respect to general deterrence—whether transfer laws deter would‐be offenders from committing crimes—it is important to examine whether juveniles know about transfer laws, whether this knowledge deters criminal behavior, and whether juveniles believe the laws will be enforced against them. The current study is one of the first to examine juveniles' knowledge and perceptions of transfer laws and criminal sanctions. We interviewed 37 juveniles who had been transferred to criminal court in Georgia, obtaining quantitative as well as qualitative data based on structured interviewed questions. Four key findings emerged. First, juveniles were unaware of the transfer law. Second, juveniles felt that awareness of the law may have deterred them from committing the crime or may deter other juveniles from committing crimes, and they suggested practical ways to enhance juveniles' awareness of transfer laws. Third, the juveniles generally felt that it was unfair to try and sentence them as adults. Finally, the consequences of committing their crime were worse than most had imagined, and the harsh consequences of their incarceration in adult facilities may have had a brutalizing effect on some juveniles. The implications for general and specific deterrence are discussed.     

Delinquent Careers and Criminal Policy

This article critically examines the prevailing judicial waiver statutes that require juvenile court judges to make individualized determinations as to a youth amenability to treatment and danger to society. It concludes that such decisions cannot be made with an acceptable degree of accuracy using current methods of clinical diagnosis or prediction, and that the broad discretion given judges in making transfer decisions results in inconsistent and discriminatory applications that undermine the fairness and predictability of the process. In light of the expanding research on the development of delinquent careers, it contends that a legislative redefinition of juvenile court jurisdiction that automatically excludes certain youths from the juvenile court on the basis of their present offenses and past records not only identifies more accurately those youth who should be prosecuted as adults, but also increases the fairness, rationality, and predictability of the adulthood determination. It suggests that an application of "just deserts" principles to the juvenile court waiver decision could have salutary consequences for youths, the juvenile and criminal justice systems, and social control.     

The Impact of Juvenile Court Judge Ethical Orientation on Decision Making

This exploratory study examines the ethical ideologies of a sample of 76 juvenile court judges attending a conference using an Ethical Position Questionnaire. Potential effects of ethical orientation on judicial decision making are identified and discussed. The findings indicate a relatively even distribution of judges across ethical ideologies. The connection between ethical ideology and the prevailing juvenile justice philosophy across jurisdictions, and the importance and complexity of judicial education and training in juvenile justice, are discussed.     

THE JUVENILE PENALTY: A COMPARISON OF JUVENILE AND YOUNG ADULT SENTENCING OUTCOMES IN CRIMINAL COURT*

This study uses criminal court data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (PCS) to investigate the sentencing of juvenile offenders processed in adult criminal court by comparing their sentencing outcomes to those of young adult offenders in similar situations. Because the expanded juvenile exclusion and transfer policies of the 1990s have led to an increase in the number of juveniles convicted in adult courts, we argue that it is critical to better understand the judicial decision making processes involved. We introduce competitive hypotheses on the relative leniency or severity of sentencing outcomes for transferred juveniles and interpret our results with the focal concerns theoretical perspective on sentencing. Our findings indicate that juvenile offenders in adult court are sentenced more severely than their young adult counterparts. Moreover, findings suggest that juvenile status interacts with and conditions the effects of other important sentencing factors including offense type, offense severity and prior criminal record. We discuss these results as they relate to immediate outcomes for transferred juveniles, criminal court processes in general and the broader social implications for juvenile justice policy concerning the transfer of juveniles to criminal court.     

A Systematic Observational Study of a Juvenile Drug Court Judge

The shift of the juvenile justice system from its initial rehabilitative ideal toward a more punitive orientation highlights the need to systematically document key elements of the juvenile drug court model. In particular, it is important to clearly document the role of the juvenile court judge because he or she is considered vital to this program model. The current study used participant observation as well as confidential questionnaires on which youth shared their perceptions of the judge. Findings show the judge‐participant interactions typically were brief, varied by the participants' level of compliance with the program, and that sanctions were given twice as often as rewards. Youth perceived the judge to be fair, respectful, and concerned about their lives. Discussion focuses on the significant opportunity that juvenile drug court judges have for positively influencing the lives of drug‐involved youth.     

The Impact of Safe Harbor Legislation on Court Proceedings Involving Sex Trafficked Youth: A Qualitative Investigation of Judicial Perspectives

The passage of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) facilitated the conceptual shift in reframing youth involved in sex trafficking as victims, rather than criminals. Many states have passed legislation in the form of Safe Harbor laws to protect sex trafficked juveniles from criminal charges and provide rehabilitative services (Polaris, 2015). Nevertheless, limited research has examined the impact of Safe Harbor laws and the role juvenile and family court judges play in how minor victims of sex trafficking are treated by the court system. Consequently, the purpose of this qualitative study was to examine juvenile and family court judges’ knowledge and perceptions of Safe Harbor legislation and identify legal challenges when presiding over cases involving sexually exploited youth. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with a national sample (N = 82) of family and juvenile court judges. Findings suggest that respondents perceive Safe Harbor laws to have positively affected both attitudes and practices, although several challenges and unintended negative effects were identified. Further, dispositional issues, difficulties with case identification, legal and policy issues, and challenges with interagency collaboration were identified as ongoing issues to address. Legal implications as well as practice and policy considerations based on the study findings are discussed.     

Youth In Prisons and Training Schools: Perceptions and Consequences of the Treatment-Custody Dichotomy

Transfer (or waiver) of juveniles to criminal court is one of the most extreme responses to serious youth crime. Although many states have recently revised their transfer statutes, and the number of juveniles prosecuted as adults increases each year, little research has been conducted to assess the correctional experiences of delinquent youth convicted in criminal court and sentenced to adult prison. Evaluations of such experiences are important to policymakers and juvenile justice officials who are considering juvenile transfers as a strategy for securing longer and harsher confinement for offenders. Based on interviews with 59 chronic juvenile offenders placed in state training schools, and 81 comparable youths sentenced to adult correctional facilities, this article presents a comparison of offenders' perceptions of their correctional experiences. Juveniles incarcerated in training schools give more positive evaluations of treatment and training programs, general services, and institutional personnel than do those youths in prison. Juveniles housed in institutions which emphasize security over treatment — i.e., prisons — are more often victimized during their confinement than youths in the treatment-oriented training schools. Once placed in prisons, adolescent inmates are more likely to be victims of prison violence and crime from both inmates and staff. These research results suggest some paradoxical effects of the treatment-custody distinction implicit in judicial waiver practices. The differential socialization into crime and violence for youths in adult prisons may increase the risks of having these types of behavior repeated by transferred youths once released.     

Judicial Perspectives on Family Drug Treatment Courts

Family Drug Treatment Courts are a specialized calendar or docket that operates within the juvenile dependency court. These courts provide the setting for a collaborative effort by the court and all the participants in the child protection system to come together in a non‐adversarial setting to determine the individual treatment needs of substance‐abusing parents whose children are under the jurisdiction of the dependency court. This article is intended to give judges and others a judicial perspective on FDTCs, and to offer some assistance for those who are operating or who are considering creating one.     

Violent Youth in Juvenile and Adult Court: An Assessment of Sentencing Strategies in Texas

This paper examines the effectiveness of two sentencing strategies for managing serious and violent juvenile offenders: judicial waiver to adult court and determinate sentencing in juvenile court. Corrections data were analyzed and it was found that both groups consistently receive longer terms of incarceration than are available through normal juvenile justice processing. However, this finding changed when actual time served was taken into consideration. A discriminant analysis showed that juveniles determin-ately sentenced in juvenile court are more likely to be younger and receive and serve shorter sentences than juveniles waived to adult court and sentenced to prison.     

FAMILY COURT REFORM IN SIX PENNSYLVANIA COUNTIES

This article describes judicial behavior in local family court reform movements, vis-à-vis six case studies, as part of a larger study on the implementation of court-connected custody mediation in Pennsylvania. Research findings provide new insight into the initiation of change by judges at the local court level. When motivated to do so, family court judges in Pennsylvania bring about local reform independently and expeditiously. Judges who desire alternative methods to litigation of custody disputes implement court change with few organizational constraints: They decide how and when reform is to be implemented, and they assign nonjudicial professionals to assist in reform implementation. Finally, judges establish their own criteria for assessing the success of change initiated. Throughout reform movements, judges take on a variety of roles in bringing about change—first as reform activists, then as leaders in reform movements, and finally, as advisors in reform implementation. These case studies reveal the diversity in judicial style when court change is implemented; at the same time, similar court goals and objectives are obtained.     

Publish or Paris? Evidence of How Judges Allocate Their Time

A utility-maximizing model of judicial behavior predicts that,all else equal, judges who have stronger preferences for publishingopinions, who have lighter workloads, or who are able to writepublishable decisions more efficiently are more likely to publishtheir decisions. Using federal district court judges' decisionsregarding the constitutionality of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines,this article presents empirical support for these predictions.Many judicial, institutional, and other characteristics areexamined that should be correlated with a judge's workload orwith a judge's taste for, or efficiency in, publishing opinions.These analyses find that, all else equal, judges who held priorpolitical positions, who received higher American Bar Association(ABA) ratings, who had lighter caseloads, who had longer tenures,who struck down the guidelines, or who had a greater chanceof promotion to a U.S. court of appeals were more likely topublish their decisions. In addition, judges' publication decisionswere significantly affected by the prior decisions of judgesin the same district, but little affected by those of judgesin other districts.     

The Impact of Judicial Opinion Language on the Transmission of Federal Circuit Court Precedents

Why do some federal circuit court precedents transmit across circuits when others do not? Does judicial opinion language influence which cases are more likely to transmit? Previous research on the transmission of precedents has focused primarily on attributes of the circuits or judges who wrote the decisions, without considering whether opinion language also influences citations. This study hypothesizes that precedents are more likely to transmit to other circuits when judges communicate their importance using features of opinion language such as the legal grounding, the amount of supporting evidence, and the decision to file a per curiam opinion. The results indicate that opinion language does influence the transmission of precedents, which suggests that judges who care about policy and are willing to take affirmative steps to encourage citations can use opinion language to enhance their impact.     

Legal,Psychological, and Behavioral Outcomes

States have responded to the public's outrage at rising juvenile crime by revising their transfer statutes to make it easier to transfer juvenile offenders for trial and sentencing in criminal court and possible incarceration in adult prisons. These changing trends in juvenile justice raise three questions about what actually happens to juveniles once they are in the adult criminal justice system. To what extent does trial in adult court and/or incarceration in adult prisons promote or retard community protection, juvenile offenders' accountability, and the development of competencies in juvenile offenders? This article discusses state transfer laws and the legal consequences of criminal court prosecution, and analyzes current research on deterrence effects of transfer laws, conviction and sentencing in juvenile versus criminal court, recidivism rates in juvenile versus criminal court, and conditions and programming in juvenile versus adult correctional facilities. The research findings have two important implications for juvenile justice policy: the number of juvenile cases transferred to criminal court should be minimized, and imprisonment of juveniles in adult facilities should be avoided whenever possible. These implications are discussed, and directions for future research are identified.     

Transferring Pre‐Teens to Adult Criminal Courts: Searching for a Justification

This research examined the demographic and offense‐related characteristics of 1,488 children who were 12 years of age or younger when transferred by juvenile court judges to criminal courts in the United States from 1985 to 2009. Juvenile court statistics show a twofold increase in the number of these children transferred between 2005 and 2009, compared to the five‐year era between 1985 and 1989. Examination of the data revealed that the major offense that precipitated most of these transfers was a nonviolent act. Given these facts, a number of key questions emerged from this study: (1) Are these transfers desirable given the potential lifelong consequences of a criminal conviction for these youngsters; (2) Do these practices accomplish a legitimate crime control function; and (3) Are these transfers just and fair given the developmental status of these children?