Appendix F -- Section 2: Prosecute Certain Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders in Criminal Court
Introduction | Section 1 | Section 2 | Section 3 | Section 4 | Section 5
Section 6 | Section 7 | Section 8 | ConclusionBarnes, C.W., and R.S. Franz. 1989 (March). Questionably adult: Determinants and effects of the juvenile waiver decision. Justice Quarterly 6(1):117-135. NCJ 117794.
This article reviews data collected on all youth considered for transfer to adult court over a 6-year period in a single jurisdiction. Demographic, legal, and organizational factors were considered as variables in the study, which concluded that the seriousness of the offense, number and nature of prior offenses, and prior treatment play a significant role in adult court sentencing.
Barton, W.H., et al. 1989. Programs for Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Center for the Study of Youth Policy, University of Michigan. NCJ 125572.
This booklet describes and assesses three alternatives to incarceration for serious and violent offenders in Michigan, Florida, and Utah. Recidivism rates generally compared favorably to traditional and more expensive forms of punishment.
Belair, R. and G. Cooper. 1983. Privacy and Juvenile Justice Records. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ 084152.
This report analyzes issues associated with the collection, use, and exchange of juvenile criminal history records.
Bishop, D.M., and C.E. Frazier. 1991. Transfer of juveniles to criminal court: A case study and analysis of prosecutorial waiver. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, and Public Policy 5(2):281-302. NCJ 131555.
This article states that prosecutorial waiver should be abolished, based on its use in Florida, and that a lack of objective and substantive prosecutorial guidelines leads to unpredictable and unjustifiable outcomes.
Bishop, D.M., C.E. Frazier, and J.C. Henretta. 1989 (April). Prosecutorial waiver: Case study of a questionable reform. Crime and Delinquency 35(2):179-201. NCJ 116703.
This article examines the practice of prosecutorial waiver in Florida, a State that grants prosecutors wide latitude in the transfer of 16- and 17-year-old offenders to criminal court. The authors found that few of the juveniles transferred were the dangerous, repeat offenders for whom waiver is designed.
Bortner, M.A. 1989. Traditional rhetoric, organizational realities: Remand of juveniles to adult court. Crime and Delinquency 35:53-73. NCJ 100644.
This article presents the case histories of 214 juveniles who were remanded to criminal court. Interviews with key decisionmakers do not support the traditional belief that transfer to criminal court occurs to protect public safety and happens only to the most intractable and dangerous delinquents.
Butts, J.A. 1994 (October). Offenders in Juvenile Court, 1992. OJJDP Update on Statistics. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ 150039.
This bulletin reports on the findings of the annual Juvenile Court Statistics, 1992, which focuses on the disposition of delinquency cases and formally handled status offense cases.
Butts, J.A. 1994 (October). Offenders in Juvenile Court, 1991. OJJDP Update on Statistics. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ 149729.
This bulletin reports on the findings of the annual Juvenile Court Statistics, 1991, which focuses on the disposition of delinquency cases and petitioned status offense cases.
Butts, J.A. 1994 (July). Delinquency Cases in Juvenile Court, 1992. Fact Sheet #18. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ FS009418.
This fact sheet lists serious offenses in delinquency cases in 1992 with percentage changes from 1991 to 1992, and from 1988 to 1992, and offers statistics on detention, intake, transfer to criminal court, and adjudication and deposition as well as gender, age, and race.
Calhoun, J.A. 1988. Violence, Youth, and a Way Out. Washington, D.C.: National Crime Prevention Council. NCJ 114543.
This booklet is the testimony before Congress of Jack A. Calhoun, Executive Director of the National Crime Prevention Council, in which he emphasizes a comprehensive approach to youth violence, involving all members of the community, especially youth. He cites isolation -- disconnection -- as the core of youth violence and other youth problems.
Champion, D.J. 1989 (October). Teenage felons and waiver hearings: Some recent trends, 1980-1988. Crime and Delinquency 35(4):577-585. NCJ 120014.
This article analyzes recent trends in juvenile waiver hearings in four States. Its findings conclude that hearings are increasingly used so that more serious penalties may be imposed on juvenile offenders charged with serious crimes.
Champion, D.J., and G.L. Mays. 1991. Transferring Juveniles to Criminal Courts: Trends and Implications for Criminal Justice. New York, N.Y.: Praeger Publishers. NCJ 128623.
This book addresses the phenomenon of transferring juveniles to criminal courts. It describes juvenile courts, juvenile offenders processed by these courts, and outcomes that characterize most transfers.
Clarke, S.H. 1994 (Summer). Increasing imprisonment to prevent violent crime: Is it working? Popular Government 16-24. NCJ 150134.
This article considers data relevant to whether increased imprisonment reduces violent crime, examines the public's concern about the dangers of crime, and discusses approaches to crime prevention. The author maintains that while incarceration has had some impact, other strategies are needed to prevent violent crime. The article includes the American Psychological Association's list of characteristics common to promising violence prevention programs.
Cronin, R.C., B.B. Bourque, J.M. Mell, F.E. Gragg, and A.A. McGrady. 1988 (January). Evaluation of the Habitual Serious and Violent Juvenile Offender Program. Executive Summary. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ 105230.
This summary examines the effectiveness of the Habitual Serious Violent Juvenile Offender Program, designed to target such offenders for intensive, swift prosecution and improved correctional services. The summary provides juvenile justice professionals with information on how to more effectively prosecute repeat juvenile offenders.
Cronin, R.C., B.B. Bourque, J.M. Mell, F.E. Gragg, and A.A. McGrady. 1988 (January). Evaluation of the Habitual Serious and Violent Juvenile Offender Program. Final Report. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ 113561.
This report presents evaluation results for the performance of the Habitual Serious and Violent Juvenile Offender Program -- begun in 1984 to improve the processing and disposition of serious juvenile offenders -- in Miami, Milwaukee, Seattle, and Washington, D.C.
Eigen, J.P. 1981. The determinants and impact of jurisdictional transfer in Philadelphia. In J.C. Hall et al., eds. Major Issues in Juvenile Justice Information and Training: Readings in Public Policy. Columbus, Ohio: Academy for Contemporary Problems. NCJ 077327.
This work examines why some juveniles in Philadelphia, PA, who committed homicides and robberies in 1970 and 1973, respectively, were transferred to criminal court. The author contends that the overlap of characteristics shared by those transferred and those retained in the juvenile court system makes certification questionable.
Elliott, D.S. 1994 (February). Serious violent offenders: Onset, developmental course, and termination. The American Society of Criminology 1993 Presidential Address. Criminology 32(1):1-21. NCJ 147913.
This article considers self-report data from the National Youth Survey by serious and violent offenders and evaluates the utility of self-report studies of serious, violent offending in the general population.
Elliott, D.S., D. Huizinga, and B. Morse. 1986 (December). Self-reported violent offending -- A descriptive analysis of juvenile violent offenders and their offending careers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 1(4):472-514. NCJ 104186.
This article examines the findings of the National Youth Survey, conducted between 1976 and 1980. One survey finding is that self-reports show higher levels of criminal involvement than do arrest records.
Eron, L.D., J. Gentry, and P. Schlegel, eds. 1994 (February). Reason to Hope: A Psychological Perspective on Violence and Youth. 1994. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. NCJ 158633.
This is Volume Two of the Commission on Youth and Violence report, containing papers on violence and youth prepared by psychologists with expertise in youth violence. This work is based on findings from over 50 years of research, which have shown that human aggression is learned, that learning alternative nonviolent behavior is possible, and that no single factor influences violent behavior. Commission members identified individual and environmental factors that can be changed to prevent potentially volatile situations from escalating into violent acts. The document offers guidelines for reducing violence in children's lives.
Fagan, J. 1990 (June). Treatment and reintegration of violent juvenile offenders: Experimental results. Justice Quarterly 7(2):233-263. NCJ 128677.
This study presents the findings of the Violent Juvenile Offender (VJO) Program, which tested an experimental dispositional option in four sites for the treatment and reintegration of violent juvenile offenders. Failure and arrest rates for VJO youth were lower than those for control group youth in two of the sites. The author states that the focus of correctional policy should be reintegration and transition rather than lengthy confinement in State training schools with minimal supervision after release.
Fagan, J. 1990 (March). Social and legal policy dimensions of violent juvenile crime. Criminal Justice and Behavior 17(1):93-133. NCJ 122432.
This article addresses research showing that effective and proportionate correctional interventions in the juvenile justice system can advance crime control and rehabilitative policies.
Fagan, J., and E.P. Deschenes. 1990 (Summer). Determinants of judicial waiver decisions for violent juvenile offenders. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 81(2):314-347. NCJ 125926.
This article examines judicial transfer decisions for youth charged with violent offenses in four urban juvenile courts. It suggests criteria and procedures for invoking waiver as a juvenile court sanction of last resort.
Fagan, J., M. Forst, and T.S. Vivona. 1987 (April). Racial determinants of the judicial transfer decision: Prosecuting violent youth in criminal court. Crime and Delinquency 33(2):259-286. NCJ 105135.
This article examines racial differences in judicial transfer decisions for chronically violent delinquents in four urban juvenile courts. It found that offense characteristics and the defendant's age at time of offense are the strongest contributors to the transfer decision. The results suggest that juvenile court judges have adopted implicit policies reserving transfer for older violent offenders, especially those charged with capital crimes.
Fagan, J., C.J. Rudman, and E. Hartstone. 1984. Intervening with violent juvenile offenders -- A community reintegration model. In R. A. Mathias, ed. Violent Juvenile Offenders -- An Anthology. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ 095172.
A community reintegration model for violent juvenile offenders was constructed after a review of treatment programs, pertinent literature, and evaluation findings. The model is supported by the underlying principles of social networking, provision of youth opportunities, social learning, and goal-oriented interventions.
Feld, B.C. 1993 (October). Juvenile (in)justice and the criminal court alternative. Crime and Delinquency 39(4):403-424. NCJ 145063.
This article asserts that the juvenile court has become a second-class criminal court that punishes delinquent offenders and waives serious offenders to the criminal justice system. The author suggests policy changes and outlines expected results from such changes.
Forst, M., J. Fagan, and T.S. Vivona. 1989. Youth in prisons and training schools: Perceptions and consequences of the treatment-custody dichotomy. Juvenile and Family Court Journal 40(1):1-14. NCJ 116269.
See section 1 for annotation.
Gillespie, L.K., and M.D. Norman. 1984. Does certification mean prison? Some preliminary findings from Utah. Juvenile and Family Court Journal 35(3):23-34. NCJ 096848.
This article examines the discretionary practice of the prosecutor employed in making the decision to initiate certification proceedings against a youth. The authors include data and findings from interviews conducted with 23 juvenile court personnel.
Glazer, S. 1994 (February). Juvenile justice: Should violent youths get tougher punishments? CQ Researcher 4(8):171-178. NCJ 150290.
This article examines the dramatic rise in violent crimes by juveniles, many of whom use guns, and the secrecy in which juvenile proceedings take place. It addresses the role of early intervention for at-risk children as a means of combating juvenile delinquency.
Greenwood, P.W. 1986. Differences in criminal behavior and court responses among juvenile and young adult defendants. In M. Tony and N. Morris, eds. Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press. NCJ 105150.
This essay reviews recent research in chronic juvenile offenders, criminal careers, and juvenile and criminal court disposition of chronic juvenile and young adult offenders. An analysis of case disposition patterns in Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and Seattle suggests that these offenders are sentenced to incarceration or State custody at least as frequently as other age groups for some offense categories and that the seriousness of the prior juvenile record affects the severity of sentences.
Greenwood, P.W., and F.E. Zimring. 1985. One More Chance: The Pursuit of Promising Intervention Strategies for Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Santa Monica, Calif.: The RAND Corporation. NCJ 105710.
This volume examines the correlates of chronic delinquency, legal and ethical constraints on State-imposed interventions, and promising methods of prevention and rehabilitation.
Greenwood, P.W., J. Petersilia, and F.E. Zimring. 1980 (October). Age, Crime, and Sanctions: The Transition from Juvenile to Adult Court. Santa Monica, Calif.: The RAND Corporation. NCJ 074129.
This report studies the use of juvenile records in adult court proceedings and the relationship between age and sanction severity.
Guide to Juvenile Restitution. 1985. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ 098466.
This document presents recommendations for expanding and improving juvenile restitution programs and discusses basic program decisions, models, implementation, management information systems, evaluation, and resources.
Hamparian, D.M., R. Schuster, J. Davis, and J. White. 1985. The Young Criminal Years of the Violent Few. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ 096010.
This report tracks the criminal careers from 1978 to mid-1983 of violent juvenile offenders who were previously studied from 1956 to 1960. Among the report's findings are that most violent juveniles engage in adult criminality; a small percentage of chronic offenders is responsible for a disproportionately high number of crimes; frequency of arrest declines with age; and incarceration does not diminish the crime rate, although it may increase the subsequent arrest rate.
Hamparian, D.M. et al. 1978. The Violent Few: A Study of Dangerous Juvenile Offenders. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, Calif.: The RAND Corporation. NCJ 052651.
This book details the social and criminal characteristics of the juvenile and delinquent careers of 811 violent juveniles in Columbus, OH. It explores the relationships of such characteristics to identifiable violent patterns.
Heuser, J.P. 1985. Juveniles Arrested for Serious Felony Crimes in Oregon and "Remanded" to Adult Criminal Courts: A Statistical Study. Salem, Ore.: Crime Analysis Center, Oregon Department of Justice. NCJ 097782.
This work examines the computerized criminal history and juvenile court case files for 99 juveniles associated with 114 Part I felony arrests in Oregon during 1980. These offenders were subsequently remanded to criminal court. The study supports the view that remanded offenders are usually older males with extensive juvenile court histories involving predatory property crime.
Houghtalin, M., and G.L. Mays. 1991. Criminal dispositions of New Mexico juveniles transferred to adult court. Crime and Delinquency 37:393-407. NCJ 130968.
This article examines the demographic, social, and legal data on 49 cases of juveniles transferred to criminal court in New Mexico. Although the rationale for waiver of jurisdiction is to ensure more severe penalties, much of the research indicates that with the exception of violent offenders, most transferred juveniles receive probation.
Howell, J.C., ed. 1995 (May). Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ 153681.
See introduction for annotation.
Howell, J.C. 1994 (October). Recent gang research: Program and policy implications. Crime and Delinquency 40(4):494-515. NCJ 151535.
This article reviews recent gang studies that shed light on the extent of gang involvement in juvenile violence and drug trafficking and on the accuracy of media inferences that gangs and gang violence are increasing.
Howell, J.C., J.D. Hawkins, and J. Wilson, eds. 1995. Sourcebook on Serious, Violent, and Chronic Offenders. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publication. NCJ 157405.
This book presents a balanced, humane, and effective response to serious, violent, and chronic delinquency. It updates and broadens the review of research, statistical trends, and program evaluations regarding juvenile crime and delinquency found in OJJDP's Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. In addition, three chapters contain supplementary contributions to the comprehensive strategy, addressing significant topics relevant to its implementation.
Hunziker, D. 1995 (May). Juvenile crime, grown-up time. State Legislatures 21(5):14-19. NCJ 157944.
This article analyzes recent trends to waive juveniles to criminal court in response to increased violence, firearm and drug use, and public fear of and frustration about crime.
Interdepartmental Working Group on Violence. 1994. Violence: Report to the President and Domestic Policy Council. Washington, D.C. NCJ 159325.
See section 1 for annotation.
Jensen, E.L., and L.K. Metsger. 1994 (January). Test of the deterrent effect of legislative waiver on violent juvenile crime. Crime and Delinquency 40(1):96-104. NCJ 146321.
This article reports on a study of the deterrent effect of Idaho's legislative waiver statute that mandates automatic transfer of some serious juvenile offenders to criminal court. The study concludes that the statute has not deterred juvenile violent crime.
Juvenile and Adult Records: One System, One Record? 1989. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ 114947.
This publication addresses the status of juvenile records and issues associated with linking juvenile and adult records.
The juvenile court and serious offenders: 38 recommendations. 1984 (Summer). Juvenile and Family Court Journal. Reno, Nev.: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. NCJ 096101.
This journal issue examines the range of problems facing the Nation's juvenile courts and includes recommendations made by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
The Juvenile Court's Response to Violent Crime. 1989 (January). OJJDP Update on Statistics. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ 115338.
This bulletin examines the action taken by juvenile courts against violent crime in 12 States. Data indicate that half of the offenders referred to court for violent offenses are detained and that courts vary considerably in whether they handle such cases formally or informally and vary in their placement of these youth in residential facilities.
Juvenile Justice: Juveniles Processed in Criminal Court and Case Dispositions. 1995. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Accounting Office. NCJ 160051.
This report examines issues related to juveniles sent to criminal court versus juvenile court, including the frequency with which juveniles are sent to criminal court; juvenile conviction rates and sentences in criminal court; dispositions of juvenile cases in juvenile court; and conditions of confinement for juveniles incarcerated in adult correctional facilities. It also provides a summary of State laws governing which juveniles may be sent to criminal court.
Juvenile Records and Recordkeeping Systems. 1988. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ 112815.
This report summarizes legislation and practices relating to juvenile records and record systems.
Kalminov, S. 1993. Recent issues in transfer of juveniles to trial as adults. Journal of Juvenile Law 14:106-117. NCJ 148847.
This article discusses how the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act, 18 U.S.C. section 5032, which outlines the procedure for transfer of defendants from the juvenile to the criminal court system, has been applied in recent cases in selected jurisdictions. The author concludes that section 5032 must be modified to ensure equal treatment of juveniles nationwide.
Lee, L. 1994. Factors determining waiver in juvenile court. Journal of Criminal Justice 22(4):329-339. NCJ 150741.
This article examines a study of how the juvenile waiver decision was applied in Arizona's Maricopa County Juvenile Court. Results showed that juveniles who were waived in a previous offense were most likely to be waived again in succeeding referrals, regardless of the seriousness of the offense. The author discusses policy implications of the findings.
Martin, G.A., Jr. 1995 (Summer). Open the doors: A judicial call to end confidentiality in delinquency proceedings. New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement 21(2):393-410. NCJ 158348.
This article calls for the elimination of confidentiality in juvenile delinquency cases in order to demonstrate accomplishments, rebuild trust, and decrease the fear that the closed system fosters.
Martin, G.A., Jr. 1993 (April). The delinquent and the juvenile court. Is there still a place for rehabilitation? Lay Panel Magazine V 28:6-12. NCJ 143298.
The author analyzes recent trends in transfer legislation in the historical context of the juvenile justice system in the various States.
McCarthy, F.B. 1994. The serious offender and juvenile court reform: The case for prosecutorial waiver of juvenile court jurisdiction. St. Louis University Law Journal 38:629-671. NCJ 159770
This article explores the scope of and concerns about the juvenile court's jurisdiction and possible alternatives for system reform. It questions when and how juvenile court jurisdiction would be relinquished. The author suggests that prosecutorial waiver, if properly exercised and subject to a fitting form of review, can be a way of minimizing errors inherent in decisions to prosecute juveniles in criminal court.
Myths and Realities: Meeting the Challenge of Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders: 1992 Annual Report. 1993. Washington, D.C.: National Coalition of State Juvenile Justice Advisory Groups. NCJ 141636.
This report addresses the status of juvenile justice and delinquency prevention in the United States. It contains recommendations by the Coalition to the President, Congress, and the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
National Directory of Juvenile Restitution Programs. 1987. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ 105188.
This directory lists the names, addresses, and descriptions of 296 juvenile restitution and community service programs throughout the United States.
Nimick, E.H., L. Szymanski, and H. Snyder. 1986. Juvenile Court Waiver: A Study of Juvenile Court Cases Transferred to Criminal Court. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ 107365.
This study examines the automated court records of 552 juvenile courts in 9 States, yielding 127,162 petitioned delinquency cases for 1982. Of these, 2,335, or 2 percent, were waived to criminal court. Factors involved in the waiver decisions included offense seriousness, community protection, the aggressiveness or premeditation of the offense, prosecutive merit of the complaint, prior record, and likelihood of rehabilitation.
Parent, D., et al. Conditions of Confinement: Juvenile Detention and Corrections Facilities. 1994 (August). Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ 145793.
This study, mandated by Congress, assesses conditions of juvenile detention and corrections to determine the extent to which they conform to recognized professional standards and to make recommendations to remedy identified problems. The report offers 19 recommendations for improvement.
Perkins, C. 1994. National Corrections Reporting Program1992. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ 145862.
This report contains 1992 data collected by the National Corrections Reporting Program regarding admissions to and releases from prison as well as parole entries and discharges in the participating jurisdictions. The report's first section addresses methodology, including reporting criteria, terms, definitions, offenses, and technical and explanatory notes. The second section presents the collected data in tabular form.
Poulon, T.M., and S. Orchowsky. 1994 (January). Serious juvenile offenders: Predicting the probability of transfer to criminal court. Crime and Delinquency 40(1):3-17. NCJ 146316.
This study compares a random sample of 364 serious juvenile offenders, who were transferred and convicted in criminal court, with 363 offenders who were eligible for transfer but who were retained within the juvenile justice system. The authors focus on legal and extralegal factors that may be involved in predicting whether a particular case will be transferred.
Privacy and Juvenile Justice Records. 1982. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ 084152.
This report analyzes issues associated with the collection, use, and exchange of juvenile criminal history records.
Rudman, C., E. Hartstone, J. Fagan, and M. Moore. 1986 (January). Violent youth in adult court: Process and punishment. Crime and Delinquency 32(1):75-96. NCJ 100645.
This article examines the transfer process, the rate of transfer, case outcomes, sentences, and placements of transferred juveniles in four urban areas.
Quinn, K.M. 1992. Waiver or transfer to adult court. In J. Edgerton, ed. Handbook of Psychiatric Practice in the Juvenile Court. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association. NCJ 133542.
This chapter addresses the importance of psychiatric recommendations in determining whether a juvenile remains in juvenile court or is transferred to criminal court. It details important mental health issues that aid judicial decisionmaking.
Sanborn, J.B., Jr. 1994 (April). Certification to criminal court: The important policy questions of how, when, and why. Crime and Delinquency 40(2):262-281. NCJ 147513.
This article contains the views of 100 juvenile court workers on the transfer of juvenile offenders to criminal court. Participants stated that limited and pure prosecutorial transfer shifts inconsistency and subjectivity from the judge to the prosecutor, while legislative waiver goes to the other extreme of not differentiating among offenders and the types of handling they require.
Schwartz, I.M., and R. Van Vleet. 1992. Public policy and the incarceration of juveniles: Directions for the 1990's. In I.M. Schwartz, ed. Juvenile Justice and Public Policy: Toward a National Agenda. New York, N.Y.: Lexington Books. NCJ 138734.
This work explores the potential for reforming youth detention and training school programs. It discusses barriers to such change and ways to overcome them.
Sickmund, M. 1994 (October). How Juveniles Get to Criminal Court. OJJDP Update on Statistics. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ 150309.
This bulletin uses data from the National Juvenile Court Data Archive on how juveniles arrived in criminal court in 1992. Cases can be transferred by judicial waiver, prosecutorial discretion, or statutory exclusion from juvenile court jurisdiction. In any State, one or more mechanisms may be in place.
Singer, S.I. 1994. The Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in Criminal Court and Legislative Waiver in New York State. Final Report. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ 148013.
This study of decisions on the status of juveniles in New York's criminal justice system identifies the legal and organizational reasons for bringing juveniles into the adult legal process.
Singer, S.I. 1993 (April). Automatic waiver of juveniles and substantive justice. Crime and Delinquency 39(2):253-261. NCJ 146363.
This article analyzes the data on 103 juvenile offender arrests that occurred between September 1978 and December 1985 in Buffalo, NY. Findings seem to support those who criticize legislative waiver by showing that juvenile offenders from single-parent households were more likely to face a grand jury indictment than those from dual-parent families. However, analysis also showed that all juveniles referred to the grand jury had been charged with serious offenses.
Snyder, H., and J. Hutzler. 1981 (September). The Serious Juvenile Offender: The Scope of the Problem and the Response of Juvenile Courts. Washington, D.C.: National Institute for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ 084482.
The authors use data from various sources, including the National Crime Survey and the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, to compare the decrease in serious crime committed by juveniles with a corresponding increase in such crimes by adults. Other findings include higher conviction rates in juvenile courts compared to criminal courts and the provision in nearly every State for transfer to criminal court for serious offenders over 15 years old.
Snyder, H., and M. Sickmund. 1995 (August). Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A National Report. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ 153569.
See introduction for annotation.
Stevens, J.B. 1994. Federal prosecution of gangs and juveniles. Criminal Practice Manual. Washington, D.C.: Office of Legal Education, U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ 149521.
This paper describes the role of Federal prosecutors and Federal agencies in prosecuting juvenile gang members and other juvenile delinquents under Federal laws.
Strasburg, P.A. 1978. Violent Delinquents. A Report to the Ford Foundation from the Vera Institute of Justice. New York, N.Y.: Simon and Schuster. NCJ 047560.
This book reports on the findings of a year-long study on violent offenders. It presents treatment modalities and strategies for preventing juvenile violence. Materials contained in the volume include data collected by the Vera Institute study and information on three model programs.
Targeting Serious Juvenile Offenders Can Make a Difference. 1988 (December). OJJDP Update on Research. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ 114218.
This report details the findings from a demonstration program designed to target serious habitual juvenile offenders. The program, sponsored by OJJDP, was conducted in 13 cities across the Nation. Among the program's results were quicker resolution of cases and improved victim/witness support.
Thomas, C.W., and S. Bilchik. 1985. Prosecuting juveniles in criminal courts: A legal and empirical analysis. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 76(2):439-479. NCJ 101701.
See section 1 for annotation.
Tolan, P., and N. Guerra. 1994 (July). What Works in Reducing Adolescent Violence: An Empirical Review of the Field. Boulder, Colo.: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, University of Colorado. NCJ 152910.
See section 1 for annotation.
Where We Stand: An Action Plan for Dealing with Violent Juvenile Crime. 1994. Reno, Nev.: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. NCJ 149454.
This document states the National Council's position that certain actions should be implemented by State and local governments with financial and technical assistance and research efforts from the Federal and State levels. These actions include ensuring that juvenile courts can hold violent juvenile offenders fully accountable for their crimes; providing adequate resources to the juvenile courts to conduct thorough assessments of juveniles; and developing individualized dispositions for juveniles.
White, J., et al. 1985. The Comparative Dispositions Study: Handling Dangerous Juveniles. Executive Summary. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ 100295.
See section 1 for annotation.
White, J., and B. Feld. 1983. Debate: Should Serious Juvenile Offenders Be Handled by a Separate Juvenile Justice System? Or What Criteria Determine a Juvenile Offender Should Be Transferred Into the Adult Justice System? Cleveland, Ohio: Federation for Community Planning. NCJ 091840.
This pamphlet includes the transcription of the debate held March 8, 1983, between two juvenile justice policymakers. The participants gave opposing views on the merits of having a separate juvenile justice system for serious juvenile offenders and on what criteria should be used to determine if a juvenile should be transferred to the criminal court system.
Wilson, J.J., and J.C. Howell. 1994. Serious and violent juvenile crime: A comprehensive strategy. Juvenile and Family Court Journal 45(2):3-14. NCJ 149485.
This article presents the program background, principles, rationale, and components for OJJDP's comprehensive strategy for dealing with serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders.
Wolfgang, M.E. 1972. Delinquency in a Birth Cohort. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press. NCJ 008732.
This book summarizes a study of a group of nearly 10,000 young men in Philadelphia from their 10th to their 18th birthdays. It found that approximately 65 percent had no known contact with the legal system. The other 35 percent were classified as delinquents and divided, for the purposes of the study, into one-time, multiple, and chronic offenders.
Wolfgang, M.E., R.M. Figlio, and T.P. Thornberry. 1987. From Boy to Man -- From Delinquency to Crime. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press. NCJ 109901.
This book is a followup to the authors' previous work Delinquency in a Birth Cohort (1972), which traced the development of male delinquents from 10 to 18 years old in the 1945 Philadelphia birth cohort. In this 1987 publication, a sample of the original subjects is studied to age 30. Their attitudes, values, experiences as crime victims, self-reported involvement in crime, and other aspects of their lives are examined.
Zimring, F.E. 1991. Treatment of hard cases in American juvenile justice: In defense of discretionary waiver. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, and Public Policy 5(2):267-280. NCJ 131554.
The author argues that despite its faults, discretionary juvenile court waiver is superior to alternative methods for handling the most serious juvenile offenders. In the author's opinion, substantive and procedural changes regarding waiver are needed to guide its use, including the recognition of age as a factor in determining appropriate punishment from the criminal court.
Contents | Foreword | Acknowledgments | Introduction | Summary
Figures | Objectives | Conclusion | Appendixes