The Transfer of Juveniles to Adult Court in Canada and the United States: Confused Agendas and Compromised Assessment Procedures

Abstract

This article traces the evolution of the youth justice system in Canada and the United States and examines the practice of transferring juveniles to criminal court. Experts disagree about whether the goals of rehabilitation and retribution can be satisfactorily reconciled within the bounds of the juvenile system, and whether juvenile transfer significantly deters youth crime. Equally controversial is the appropriateness of exposing youth -who are in the midst of development -to the criminal system and to the possibility of receiving a lengthy adult sanction. We argue that it is neither efficacious nor ethical to transfer youth to adult court and deny them the protections afforded by the juvenile system. Concepts from developmental psychology, risk assessment, and juvenile psychopathy are integrated into this argument. Recommendations for policy and future research are noted, including a need to develop systematic guidelines that bridge legal and psychosocial constructs in the assessment of risk, amenability to treatment, and maturity of character in youth.Juvenile offenders are criminals who happen to be young, not children who happen to be criminal. (Regnery, 1985, p. 65) America is now home to thickening ranks of juvenile "super-predators"-radically impulsive, brutally remorseless youngsters, including ever more preteenage boys, who murder, assault, rape, rob, burglarize, deal deadly drugs, join gun-toting gangs, and create serious communal disorders. They do not fear the stigma of arrest, the pains of imprisonment, or the pangs of consciousness.

Psychological Assessment for Adult Sentencing of Juvenile Offenders: An Evaluation of the RSTI and the SAVRY

“…Young Offenders Act of 1984 took a retributive stance on youth crime, mandating that transfer decisions be based on a central goal of community protection (Penney & Moretti, 2005). Subsequently, the number of juveniles waived to adult court reached an all-time high of 124 cases in 1994 (Stevenson, Tufts, Hendrick, & Kowalski, 1998).…”

“…This process accomplishes the goal of imposing adult sentences on transferable youth, but increases the efficiency of the process by eliminating the need for a lengthy transfer proceeding. Another key element of the YCJA is the principle of holding youth "accountable" (s. 72 [1]) for their crimes, which some have interpreted as a punitive change that could encourage the use of adult sentencing (Penney & Moretti, 2005).…”

Understanding the Downward Extension of Psychopathy to Youth: Implications for Risk Assessment and Juvenile Justice

“…According to the authors of the PCL:YV, psychopathy assessments are not for use in decisions pertaining to juvenile transfer to adult court or restricting access to treatment. Despite these cautions, information regarding psychopathy often plays a significant role in transfer decisions (Leistico & Salekin, 2003;Penney & Moretti, 2005). Professionals must be aware of potential misuses of psychopathy measures and not condone misapplications due to their potential devastating consequences.…”

“…Based on the identified problems with measuring psychopathy in adolescence, Ells (2005) contended "the introduction of the diagnosis into the waiver decision is both premature and diagnostically unreliable" (p. 158). Clearly, transfer decisions based on psychopathy scores lack the necessary empirical backing to be considered valid indicators of long-term dysfunction 2 (see Penney & Moretti, 2005).…”

“…This downward extension has significant ramifications for youth involved in litigious situations, including the transfer of adolescents to adult court (Penney & Moretti, 2005). Not surprisingly, the application of psychopathy to these types of cases has generated significant controversy and has raised the question if the construct should be used in any decision-making capability for children and adolescents.…”