Juvenile Delinquency and Decertification

The psycholegal factors for juvenile transfer and reverse transfer evaluations

“…Moreover, with perhaps only one exception, states' reverse transfer provisions could also be construed as allowing for consideration of these factors-although notably fewer reverse transfer laws, relative to transfer laws, referred explicitly to them. As such, this review offers support for the practice of designing similar evaluations for both transfer and reverse transfer (Dattilio & Fromm, 2011;Grisso, 2013;Salekin, 2015).…”

“…More empirical and practice literature is amassing on the topic of forensic mental health assessment for juvenile transfer (Dattilio & Fromm, ; Grisso, ; Salekin, ). This includes published case studies (Heilbrun, DeMatteo, Brooks Holliday, & LaDuke, ; Witt, ), statutory reviews (Juvenile Justice Geography, Policy, Practice and Statistics, n.d.…”

“…Heilbrun et al () identified four relevant factors based on a systematic review of statutes for the 50 states, District of Columbia, and federal government: risk assessment, treatment needs and amenability, emotional and behavioral aspects of the offense, and intellectual disability or mental illness. Dattilio and Fromm () similarly described a more expansive listing of relevant factors. While Loving and Patapis () stressed treatment amenability, they conceptualized the factor broadly to also include risk and sophistication–maturity as relevant facets.…”

“…Little attention has been paid to evaluations for the inverse situation (Burrow, ), in which a youth is being considered for transfer from criminal court to juvenile court following an earlier judicial waiver to adult court, “automatic transfer” on account of statutory exclusion from juvenile court, or a prosecutorial decision to file the case in criminal court rather than juvenile court (Salekin, ). To date, the comparability of transfer and reverse transfer evaluation has been assumed or described summarily (see Dattilio & Fromm, ; Salekin et al, ). Moreover, the review by Heilbrun et al () of transfer and reverse transfer laws predated wider recognition and acceptance of the three‐factor psycholegal model for transfer evaluations, and the number of states that have adopted the reverse transfer mechanism has risen appreciably since the time of that review.…”

Distinguishing and assessing treatment needs and amenability to rehabilitation.

“…Anglo-American law has a long history of youths being considered different for the purposes of crime and punishment. Dattilio and Fromm (2011) noted that during the reign of the 10th-century Anglo-Saxon king Aethelstan, a youth younger than age 15 would not be executed for robbery unless he resisted arrest or fled, nor could the youth be imprisoned if the family could ensure his future good conduct. In the United States, this perception of youths as different from adults and with meaningful potential for rehabilitation contributed to reforms over time that included the juvenile courts created in Chicago (1899) and Boston (1906) that rapidly expanded across the United States in the early 20th century.…”