The Transfer of Juveniles to Criminal Court: Reexamining Recidivism Over the Long Term

Winner, Lawrence; Lanza‐Kaduce, Lonn; Bishop, Donna M.; Frazier, Charles E.

doi:10.1177/0011128797043004009

Cited by 138 publications

(102 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings are consistent with those of Bishop and Frazier (2000), whose interviews with juveniles in the criminal justice system reveal the anger and resentment they feel about being tried and sentenced as adults. It has been suggested that juveniles' sense of injustice at criminal court processing may cause them to react defiantly through re-offending and only harden their concept of themselves as "criminals" (see Matza, 1964;Thomas & Bishop, 1984;Winner, Lanza-Kaduce, Bishop, & Frazier, 1997). "The concept of fairness appears to be an important variable in an individual's perception of sentence severity and its subsequent relationship to future recidivism" (Corrado et al, 2003, p. 183;see Morris & Giller, 1987).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Redding

Fuller

2004

Juvenile Family Court J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Redding

Fuller

2004

Juvenile Family Court J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although transfer laws continue to receive a fair degree of public support (Brannen et al, 2006), they have also drawn substantial criticism. In particular, there is a sizeable body of research evidence indicating that transferred juveniles are more likely to recidivate than youth who are retained in juvenile court even after a number of risk-related variables (e.g., number of past offences) are controlled for (Bishop et al, 1996;Fagan, 1996;Fagan et al, 2003;Lanza-Kaduce et al, 2005;Winner et al, 1997). This research suggests that the transfer process itself may have iatrogenic effects (e.g., Redding, 2008).…”

Section: List Of Tablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Spice

Viljoen

Gretton³

et al. 2010

International Journal of Forensic Mental Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two measures relevant to the assessment of juvenile offenders for transfer to adult court, the Risk-Sophistication-Treatment Inventory (RSTI) and the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY), were evaluated in the present study. Seventy-four adolescents considered for transfer were scored on these tools using file information, and clinicians' transfer reports were coded for judgments of risk, maturity, and treatment amenability. Scores on RSTI Risk, Criminal Sophistication, and Treatment Amenability scales and SAVRY Total and Protective scales were significantly associated with adult sentences. Further, RSTI Criminal Sophistication explained significant additional variance in the adult sentencing decision beyond other legal criteria such as offense severity. However, scores on the RSTI Sophistication-Maturity scale were not associated with adult sentences. Results provide support for the use of the RSTI and the SAVRY, underscore the potential importance of psychological characteristics to adult sentencing decisions, and reflect challenges inherent in psycho-legal assessments of maturity.

show abstract

“…Bishop and colleagues have published several studies comparing the recidivism rates of juveniles who are transferred to the adult system with those who are not (Bishop et al 1996;Winner et al 1997). In one study (Bishop et al 1996), they match transferred and nontransferred juveniles on observable covariates (for example, number of prior offenses, offense seriousness, sex, race, and age).…”

Section: Prior Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Decriminalizing Delinquency: The Effect of Raising the Age of Majority on Juvenile Recidivism

Loeffler¹,

Grunwald²

2015

The Journal of Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the last decade, a number of states have expanded the jurisdiction of their juvenile courts by increasing the maximum age to 18. Proponents argue that these expansions reduce crime by increasing access to the beneficial features of the juvenile justice system. Critics counter that the expansions risk increasing crime by reducing deterrence. In 2010, Illinois raised the maximum age for juvenile court for offenders who commit a misdemeanor. By examining the effect of this law on juvenile offenders in Chicago, this paper provides the first empirical estimates of the consequences of recent legislative activity to raise the age of criminal majority. Applying a difference-in-differences design with multiple control groups, we find little evidence of an effect. Our results suggest that-contrary to the expectations of both advocates and opponents-increasing the maximum age for juvenile court does not affect juvenile recidivism.

show abstract

The Transfer of Juveniles to Criminal Court: Reexamining Recidivism Over the Long Term

Cited by 138 publications

References 8 publications

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

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

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

Decriminalizing Delinquency: The Effect of Raising the Age of Majority on Juvenile Recidivism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About