Juvenile Transfer Laws

Caroline King

Composition 1102

Professor Lamle

25 April 2016

Juvenile Transfer Laws

        The push for juvenile delinquency interference came about in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s when violent crimes committed by adolescents increased dramatically. This rise in violent crime also led to public distrust towards the juvenile justice system and its ability to ensure public safety. Many states began to argue that current correctional facilities had failed to deter future crime. This caused states to start searching for alternative solutions, creating new policies of their own while simultaneously modifying existing ones to help slow the rapid increasing rate of crime committed by juveniles. As a result, state legislators were highly encouraged to alter existing transfer laws, which would create stricter punishments for juveniles put on trial for violent crimes. The reform of transfer laws also expanded the types of offenses and offenders who were qualified for transfer, in addition to lifting age restrictions. The purpose behind transferring juveniles into adult criminal court, where they would be tried and sentenced as adults, was to prevent recidivism among juvenile offenders from continually rising. However, scholar researchers are challenging these current transfer laws by questioning whether juvenile transfer is the most effective approach towards the deterrence of young offenders. By detailing the extent of the pros and cons regarding juvenile transfer, further explains why current transfer laws are another failed attempt when it comes to curtailing juvenile delinquency.

Research scholars Edward Mulvey and Carol Schubert discuss the effects of juvenile transfer in their online bulletin by conducting studies on violent juvenile offenders who are incarcerated in Arizona. They compare current research with findings from the Pathways to Desistance study, which is a multidisciplinary study that attempts to answer the question “How and why do many serious adolescent offenders stop offending while others continue to commit crimes” (Mulvey and Schubert 2). First, Mulvey and Schubert suggest the reconsideration of the current transfer policy because many, including scholar Richard E. Redding, are questioning the knowledge that goes behind the current transfer policy. They also voice two concerns about the potential impacts caused from transferring juveniles into adult criminal court. The first concern is about the fairness transferred juveniles must face when they are placed in an environment where they are surrounded by conditions that are considered to be extreme. The second concern is about utility, which questions whether the transferring of adolescents into adult criminal courts rather than keeping them in juvenile courts has any effect on reducing the rate of serious crimes from occurring. Following these concerns are possible detrimental effects that occur from the transfer of juvenile offenders into adult criminal courts. These potential negative effects include longer sentences, disruptions in development, and victimization. Redding proves transferred juveniles receive longer sentences in his 1996 Texas study which reports, “87 percent of a sample of 946 juveniles received longer sentences in criminal court than they would have received in juvenile court” (Mulvey and Schubert 4). During these longer sentences, juveniles lack supportive relationships with peers. According to Mulvey and Schubert, this lack of positivity results in the delay of identity development for the transferred adolescent. Mulvey and Schubert explain further how juvenile transfer has a negative effect on an adolescent’s identity formation by stating, “Adolescents in these settings are forming a sense of who they are in an environment that tells them they should not trust anyone and they should not try to be different” (Mulvey and Schubert 5). One could argue that the disruption of development for a transferred juvenile is a direct result of victimization. Researchers Malcolm Young and Jenni Gainsborough support the claim on juvenile transfer increasing the likeliness of a youth to be victimized when they state, “Children in adult correctional facilities suffer higher rates of physical and sexual abuse and suicide” (Young and Gainsborough 6). 

        The second concern about the potential impacts caused from juvenile transfer is about utility and how effective juvenile transfer is for reducing the violent crime rate. Scholars Benjamin Steiner and Emily Wright argue how deterrence cannot be achieved through juvenile transfer (Steiner and Wright 1460). Their research resembles Redding’s when discussing the disparities in recidivism rates between juveniles who are waived to adult criminal court and youths who remain in the juvenile justice system (Steiner and Wright 1456). Findings from their studies concluded that indeed, adolescents who were transferred into adult court had higher recidivism rates compared to those who remained in the juvenile justice system (Redding 7). In addition, Redding chooses to reference other experts’ research in his study to help detect a possible explanation for why transferred juveniles experience higher recidivism rates than youths who remain in the juvenile justice system. Possible explanations are the labeling of juveniles as convicted felons, the sense of resentment and injustice juveniles feel towards being sentenced and punished as an adult, and the decreased focus on rehabilitation and family support in adult correctional facilities (Redding 7). As mentioned earlier, the lack of support in adult incarceration for a convicted juvenile negatively affects the way they identify themselves. One could also argue that labeling a youth as a felon affects their identity as well. A felony conviction means certain civil rights and privileges are taken away from an individual, causing the option of future employment to substantially reduce (Redding 7). Receiving such a harsh label as a juvenile transfer can cause them to experience psychological effects, which ultimately may lead them to accept their label as a felon. This acknowledgement by the adolescent results in the perpetuation of their criminal behavior. In addition, juveniles who are incarcerated in adult correctional facilities are not offered the proper rehabilitation amenities that juvenile facilities provide. Instead, the placement of juveniles in adult facilities exposes them to adult criminals who are knowledgeable enough to teach them the ropes on how to become better criminals. Young and Gainsborough define juvenile transfer as being “a radical rethinking of the traditional view that delinquent children need help to turn their lives around and belong in a system that focuses primarily on rehabilitation rather than punishment” (Young and Gainsborough 10).