Jan-Feb Juveniles Part 1

West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies
TOPIC OVERVIEW..................................................................................................................................2 Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system......................................................................................................................2 RESEARCH GUIDE:................................................................................................................................7 DEFINITIONS:........................................................................................................................................10 AFFIRMATIVE:.......................................................................................................................................11 AFFIRMATIVE EXTENSIONS:.............................................................................................................14 TRANSFER IS CURRENTLY USED FOR FELONIES....................................................................14 JUVENILES GET TOUGHER SENTENCES....................................................................................15 TRANSFER DOES OCCUR...............................................................................................................16 A TRANSFER DECISION IS PREMISED ON COMMUNITY SENTIMENT................................17 THE TRANSFER SYSTEM IS CONSISTENT.................................................................................18 MISCONDUCT INDICATES RECIDIVISM LIKELIHOOD............................................................18 THE TRANSFER SYSTEM IS NOT HARMFUL..............................................................................19 RECIDIVISM HAS ALTERIOR CAUSES.........................................................................................20 OTHER FACTORS CAUSE RECIDIVISM.......................................................................................21 MISCONDUCT CAUSES RECIDIVISM...........................................................................................22 MISCONDUCT AND VIOLENT CRIMES SHOWS RECIVIDISM LIKELIHOOD.......................23 MISCONDUCT INDICATES RECIDIVISM LIKELIHOOD............................................................24 NEGATIVE:.............................................................................................................................................25 NEGATIVE EXTENSIONS: ..................................................................................................................27 TRANSFER IS BAD FOR THE PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH OF JUVENILES...........................27 TRANSFER IS BAD FOR JUVENILES.............................................................................................29 TRANSFER CAUSES HARM TO JUVENILES................................................................................30 JUVENILES ARE LIKELY TO BE TREATED MORE HARSHLY..................................................31 TRANSFER IS HARMFUL TO JUVENILES....................................................................................32 INTERNATIONAL OPPOSITION TO TREATING CHILDREN AS ADULTS IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM..............................................................................................................................................33 UNDERLYING SOCIETAL VALUES WARN AGAINST TREATING JUVENILES AS ADULTS.34 TRANSFER IS SOCIALLY HARMFUL............................................................................................35 TRANSFERS ARE HARMFUL TO REHABILITATION..................................................................36 GRADUATED SANCTIONS CAN SOLVE RECIDIVISM ..............................................................37 GRADUATED SANCTIONS CAN SOLVE RECIDIVISM ..............................................................38 COMMUNITY SENTIMENT IS VARIABLE AND CAN BE EASILY MANIPULATED...............39
TOPIC OVERVIEW
Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system.
Katie Bergus University of Oregon INTRODUCTION From Brenda Ann Spencer, who went on a shooting spree in her school during 1979, killing two people and injuring nine, to Kipland Kinkel, who perpetrated a school shooting in 1988 that killed two and left twenty-two more injured, recent history has been littered with violent crimes committed by youth. Especially with the greater availability of firearms, juvenile school shootings and similar gun violence have risen. In fact, the majority of violent felonies that juveniles commit in more recent times do involve firearms, and almost all cases involve a psychologically troubled perpetrator. Both the rise in firearm availability and the psychological instability of the youth set the strategy of this resolution as a mental health and rehabilitation debate with firearms acting as the outlet of major harm. The following introduction will flesh out several important distinctions within the text of the resolution itself. The second section of this essay will propose several avenues for thinking about the topic for the affirmative. The final section will advance alternative negative points of view. First off, given the use of the word ought in the resolution, there is a moral question that the framers of the resolution had in mind while crafting this debate. Whereas the use of the word should would imply a policy option is appropriate to be proposed, the use of the word ought indicates that when evaluating the resolution, a plan that establishes a policy recommendation will be less favorable than a moralistic guideline suggestion. This means that the affirmative will have to prove that, for the most part, it would be in the best interests of the morals of our society to classify juveniles, when they have committed a harsh and serious crime, as adults. Similarly, the negative will have to prove that either this is not in the best interests of our society or that there is something which would be in the better interests of society that is resolutionally relevant. Secondly, a point of common misunderstanding due to legal inconsistency surrounding the age of majority is likely to arise. Federally, there is not a strict parameter that delineates between a juvenile and adult; instead, this guideline is often granted as eighteen years of age, although some states do not consider a juvenile to enter into adulthood until much later. For instance, Mississippi considers all people under age twenty-one to be juveniles. Without a universal standard by which juveniles are considered adults, there has been a lot of leniency withing the states over when this line is crossed. Because a universal definition would establish a clear guideline, the lack of a universal definition ultimately means that there are a lot of ways that kids can slip through the cracks and be prosecuted for something more serious than their brain could have fully thought through. In many states, serious crimes, such as felonies, juveniles are tried as adults, which means that they are given the same sentence an adult would receive. To effectively win that juveniles should not be tried as adults, that they should be considered juveniles, regardless of the severity of their crime, it is important to convince the judge that even when there is no strict guideline to follow between the states, there is still an amount of thought and intention behind the crime that is enough to qualify the juvenile's crime as an adult's crime. Finally, since felonies are a particular type of crime with great seriousness and severity, it will be important for a good debate round to access not only the superficial level of the resolution, but also accesses the deeper level of the resolution.This turns the round into a question of if juveniles ought to be considered adults before pursuing the extent to which a juvenile should be considered an adults, given the severity of the crime they have committed. Thus, the affirmative will need to defend the age of responsibility for juveniles. The age of responsibility is the age upon which a child is considered to know enough about what they are doing and to be conscious enough of their actions that they can bear the consequences of their actions. In North Carolina, the age of responsibility begins when the individual six years old, whereas in most states it is seven. In most cases, if a juvenile has committed a federal crime, the age of responsibility is ten years. PHILOSOPHICAL OPTIONS Although this resolution does not present a strong philosophical basis for examination, there are still a very possible ways to incorporate philosophy into the round. As the affirmative, arguing for John Stuart Mill's idea of
utilitarianism can be an effective option. This philosophy states that it is most important to do what is in the best interest of the greatest population within society. Under this guideline, the affirmative can easily justify trying a few juveniles as adults in order to send a symbolic message to society that deters future crime, since only a few juveniles would be disadvantaged, or sacrificed, for the welfare of far more people who may have been victim to, perpetrators of, or otherwise affected by a crime that may have occurred without the deterrence of the initial few juveniles. This philosophy can be used to justify other approaches to the resolution, including just the democratic approach to affirming. Since there are some people within our democracy who would not want juveniles to be tried as adults, the affirmative is never going to be able to protect all minority interests while still meeting its resolutional burden. Instead, the affirmative can use utilitarianism to justify compromising the interests of a small segment of the population in order to appease a much greater part of the population. Also, utilitarianism can be used to justify the negative position of having a greater focus on rehabilitation. Since reforming the criminal while they are still young will be in the best interests of society, since that juvenile will be using less tax money going through therapy, rehabilitation, and other similar programs, than they would with recidivism and the damages that causes with their crimes in addition to the time and money spent in court and jail, there is a lot of utility in this approach and this approach is consequencially friendly. A second philosophical concept that can be used as a guide within this resolution is consequencialism. This is the notion that the goodness or badness of an action is determined by its consequences. As is the case in the example above, it is more economically favorable to fix the problem when it is small than to sustain the problem and deal with it every time it gets out of control. This means that in terms of societal harm and the economy, the consequences of the negative approach of capitalizing on rehabilitation is more favorable than the affirmative's advocacy. An additional argument that follows the consequencialist guideline is the affirmative argument that the people who decide whether or not juveniles should be treated as adults are especially susceptible to manipulation, resulting in a lot of inconsistency within the transfer decision. The manipulation of the system in this way is only one of the many structural problems with the juvenile justice system and adult justice system dichotomy, and that this inconsistency establishes unclear precedent, which quickly escalates to unclear decisions and guidelines in the future. Since this has a quickly regressive consequence, the affirmative would argue that a universal standard must be imposed in order to solve this problem. Lastly, John Locke's social contract gives a good justification for a particular affirmative argument. This theory states that the government has an obligation first to the protection of its constituents, since they comprise its body. The affirmative argument that focuses the most on the government's obligation to protect its people is the argument that juveniles and adults are committing the same caliber of heinous crime and should therefore be considered just as much of a danger to society. In using the social contract, the affirmative has a good warrant for why their advocacy quickly becomes a moral imperative John Locke calls for a government to serve its people before anything else. Since this is the number one priority for a government, it is intuitive that the affirmative can explain why their standard should preceed the negative's standard. AFFIRMATIVE OPTIONS To begin, one way the affirmative can interpret the resolution is to capitalize on the use of the word ought.Since running into a negative argument about the impracticality of trying every juvenile as an adult for any sort of felony is likely, interpreting ought within your resolutional analysis can provide you with a helpful out. Ought is a word that denotes that in theory, x is a good idea, though it may be impractical or impossible to actually do. Thus, by functioning in the world of ought, the affirmative can acknowledge that it is likely that their advocacy will never be enacted, but that that does not mean that their advocacy is not a good idea. Lincoln-Douglas debate is a form of debate that focuses on questions of morality instead of analyzing which policy option is the best for the economy or the political climate, which is why Lincoln-Douglas resolutions employ the words just, ought,etc. These types of words denote that the debaters are supposed to analyze the theoretical, philosophical, and moral underpinnings of an issue, not necessarily the practicality or the worth of its implementation. This does not mean that these are not important aspects of an issue to examine, it just means that under a traditional interpretation of Lincoln-Douglas debate, they are not the most important aspects of an issue. Ultimately, because of the wording of the resolution, operating under a theoretical and moralistic interpretation of the resolution is a completely legitimate affirmative approach. As the affirmative, this effectively puts the responsibility of proving that trying juveniles convicted of a felony as adults is the what society is morally obligated to do. There are several ways that the affirmative can prove that this is a moral obligation within the United States. The first option we will explore is America as a democracy. Theoretically, in a democracy, the majority gets what they want, be it a particular piece of legislation or an elected official (most of the time). Since this is the guiding decision calculus in a democracy the will of the majority it is important to investigate how the majority currently feels about juvenile transfer. In a recent study which is included in the research guide below, a team of researchers found that the majority of their studied
population is very willing to transfer juveniles to the adult justice system, especially when there is a death involved in charge. This gives an affirmative looking to make a democratic argument a good starting point, since there is public favor for transfer. What is lacking from this set up is the relative rates at which juveniles commit felonies that involve at least one death, so this will be important for an affirmative researcher to look up. Additionally, there is another article in the research guide that indicates that the public is very willing to transfer juveniles who are charged with a felony to the adult justice system when those juveniles are getting close to the line between adolescence and adulthood. This sort of affirmative will have to do something with the small population of young juveniles who commit a crime that does not involve death. Some options would include emphasizing that those individuals will probably strike some sympathy with the jury and get a shorter incarceration period, that they will have rehabilitory treatment sentenced, etc. Overall, this democracy argument is not infallible, so, like with any other argument, be sure you have a lot of evidence reinforcing your points and a good justification for why the will of the public if the most important factor determining whether or not juveniles ought to be tried as adults. Another problem that the affirmative may choose to focus on is the lack of consistency that exists in the status quo in the decision of whether or not to transfer a juvenile to the adult justice system. The only precedent that indicates guidelines by which this transfer should be determined is from a Supreme Court case from 1966, Kent v. United States. The guidelines enumerated in the decision for this case include the following: severity, intentionality, and if the crime had a victim. If a juvenile commits a crime that is severe, which a felony qualifies as, that is intentional, and that has a victim, they are supposed to be tried as an adult. However, because the age standard among states varies, even if a juvenile meets these criteria, the state overrides the guidelines and the crime is initially processed in the juvenile justice system, from which many cases are moved to the adult justice system in alignment with Kent v. United States. The problem with this switching of where a case is to be processed is that courts are already clogged in the status quo. With such legal congestion, not sending a juvenile who already meets the standards for the adult justice system straight into that justice system is nonsensical. This not only means that people with legitmate and qualified claims are not getting justice in a timely manner, due to tie up with judges and attorneys who have to process the case first in a juvenile court before sending it to adult court, but it also means that juveniles who committed crimes that are not felonies have to wait a longer amount of time before their case, which belongs in the juvenile justice system, is processed. This unnecessarily uses a lot of resources that are already overstreched in addition to establishing a lot of inconsistency between states. Since a universal guideline of crimes committed by juveniles that are felonies immediately being processed in the adult justice system and crimes that are not felonies staying in the juvenile justice system would clear up a lot of waivering in state policy as well as lessen the wasting of judicial resources available to society, an affirmative case that warrants society's moral obligation with this argument as its basis has a lot of specific warrants to choose from. A third general strategic approach the affirmative has available is the argument that if a juvenile could commit such a heinous crime as a felony, then they pose the same amount of danger to society as an adult who committed the same crime, so must be either incarcerated for a longer period of time, or be tried as an adult. This sort of argument, about the crime meriting the punishment basically sends the message that no matter who has done the wrong, the justice system evaluates cases equally and applies the law equally. In most cases, the difference between the punishment in the juvenile justice system and the punishment in the adult justice system is a little bit more time incarcerated and sometimes less rehabilitation time. One thing that the affirmative could do to combat this rehabilitation discrepancy is to advocate a mandate that the rehabilitation time allocated in adult court would mirror the time that would have been allocated in juvenile court, since this is something that the juvenile justice system really values. This argument is nominally extraresolutional, but since this is done in most cases of juveniles being tried as adults, mandating that it is done in all cases is not far-removed from the status quo, so should not be too hard to warrant, if the affirmative so chooses. Included in the research guide is an interesting article that documents the deterrence factor associated with juveniles convicted of felonies being tried as adults. Since the research found that this can send a very symbolic message to society that deters a lot of similar crime, there is additional redeeming value for processing these sorts of cases at a higher level. Another article in the research guide examines the public's opinion about the relative dangerousness of juveniles who commit felonies and of the body examined, many thought that these juveniles were as dangerous as adults who commit the same crimes and that they should be treated appropriately in the judicial system, which effectively means treating them as adults. Since the will of the public backs this argument, there is an additional democratic warrant behind the relative danger of juveniles who commit felonies. Overall, the argument that juveniles who commit felonies are as dangerous as adults who commit felonies, so ought to be tried in the same justice system as adults has a variety of warrants available to an affirmative interesting in employing this tactic. NEGATIVE OPTIONS Since the job of the negative is to disprove the resolution or to provide a better alternative than the advocacy of
the affirmative, there are a lot of different options for how the negative can approach the resolution. With the resolution being a question of what ought to happen, an alternative that is considered resolutionally competitive must have a calculation within it that gauges the relative moral worth of the affirmative and the negative and proves that the latter is more pressing moral obligation on society. Once such approach that the negative may take in terms of proposing an alternative is to suggest an age at which juveniles are automatically sent to the adult justice system if they are being charged with a violent felony, ie. at sixteen. Since the resolution suggests that all juveniles charged with felonies ought to be tried as adults, setting a firm line at which juveniles charged with felonies are or are not tried as adults is a competitive alternative. This can be a good argument for several reasons. First, this acknowledges that there is a moral obligation that society has to take serious crimes seriously. Second, by establishing a firm line, this evades the inconsistency among the states of the age at which juveniles should be tried as adults. Last, setting the age line at sixteen acknowledges that when a lot of juveniles commit heinous crimes, it is because they do not have the same mental advancement that adults do. By waivering away from classifying all juveniles who are charged with felonies as adults, the negative can have a specific advocacy that is also very competitive and pretty strategic, so long as there is a real comparision between the moral obligation to do the affirmative and the moral obligation to do the negative. A second option for an alternative that the negative could propose is one focused on rehabilitation more than time incarcerated. Since the main distinction between the juvenile justice system and the adult justice system is their focus on rehabilitation, a negative that advocates for juveniles to stay in the juvenile justice system in order to have the best access to rehabilitation or a negative that advocates for the affirmative's position with the addition of mandatory rehabilitation tactics can be very compelling. The first approach would be in direct contrast to the resolution, since this position would require very directly proving the resolution wrong by saying that the juvenile justice system is always best for juveniles. There is an article in the research guide that has a lot of good evidence for why adults are sent to the adult justice system while juveniles ought to be kept in the juvenile justice system; it argues that these two systems are seperate because each system is based on different types of goals. Whereas the adult justice system is focused almost exclusively on punishing its convicts, the juvenile justice system focuses on rehabilitating and psychologically treating its convicts in addition to punishing them. Since juveniles are still very impressionable and are more likely to change their behavior than adults, the juvenile justice system is more lenient in its punishment in favor of using its resources to turn the juveniles that pass through its system from a life of crime. The argument that these systems serve different goals and ought to only deal with those who have been initially deemed its basic population, in and of itself, is a solid argument that the negative can make. The second approach above is a permutation of the affirmative's advocacy and rehabilitation tactics. This is competitive by being mutually exclusive with the affirmative because in the status quo, these rehabilitory tactics are not required for juveniles who are being tried as adults, and to say that they would be is extra-resolutional. This is also a good option for approaching the resolution, since it acknowledges that there are things that the juvenile justice system does correctly now in regards to trying to turn young criminals from a life of crime, but it bypasses the debate about whether or not the juveniles should be tried in the adult justice system. Since this type of argument will not require refuting the affirmative, it is very important the the negative spends a lot of time justifying why they should be able to advocate their permutation, why their permutation is competitive, and why the affirmative alone is not enough. Ultimately, the juvenile justice system's focus on rehabilitation can be a god argument for the negative to deploy, in a number of different ways. Another way that the negative can combat the resolution is to take the democratic approach. Since a pretty well supported affirmative can argue that in the United States, a lot of people want juveniles charged with felonies, especially those involving a death, to be tried as adults, having a negative that answers this argument can be helpful. There is an article in the research guide which documents a study that found that people in America want the most appropriate punishment for the crime committed. Since there are young juveniles that commit felonies, Americans are often very reluctant to send young juveniles to be tried in the adult justice system. This is a way in which Americans have emperically proven that they stand against all juveniles who commit felonies being tried as adults. Since there is a basis for exception, an affirmative that ignores this exception does not really reflect the will of the democracy, it just lumps their feelings on one matter together with their feelings on a different issue. This is problematic, because an inaccurate reflection of the will of the public can cause a rejection of and disrespect for the law as well as more dangerous implications, like jury nullification in cases when young juveniles are tried as adults, for instance. Since the will of the public waivers signficantly on this issue, there is room for a lot of clash between affirmative and negative debaters who may choose to use democracy as the crux of their rationale. A very compelling argument that the negative can use on this resolution is that psychologically, teenagers are not fully developed and they lack some higher level decision-making ability. Physiologically, the way the brain develops is in a pyramid sort of fashion, with basic thoughts and functions developing in the basic form of lobes first, and higher level thinking and decision-making developing in the prefrontal cortex last. Although the scientific community is pretty sure with their estimation of twenty-six as the age in which the brain stops its rapid development, it is estimated that at
approximately age eighteen, individuals are able to evaluate problems almost as well as those who are older than them, which is why there are so many freedoms that surround this societal brightline between youth and adulthood. Since before age eighteen, juveniles scientifically do not have the same cognition, reasoning, or foresight of somebody older than them, the negative can make a good argument for people under eighteen always being classified as juveniles and those eighteen and over always being classified as adults, since there is a physiological cognitive difference between juveniles and adults. There is an interesting article included in the research guide which further delves into this notion and does a good job warranting the reasons why the cognition of juveniles is not on par with that of an adult. Even when they are committing the same crimes, a juvenile is doing it for reasons and with thoughts that are not yet mature, whereas an adult would commit the crime with a higher mental capacity and more thought. Due to this structural inequity, the negative can make a very solid argument for keeping juveniles and adults seperate in terms of their judicial status. CONCLUSION Since this is a Lincoln-Douglas resolution, remember to prove the resolution morally compelled or morally a bad idea. By taking the use of the word ought into account, recall that the affirmative advocacy does not have to be a real world recommendation, but that it should be guided by society's moral obligations. Ultimately, there are a lot of different options for how the affirmative and negative can approach this resolution, some of which are included in this essay and others that are less mainstream. Find some arguments and framework that work for you and good luck!
RESEARCH GUIDE:
Amnesty International, human rights organization, November 20, 1998, Amnesty International Web Page, accessed 7/1/2010, http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=D94FCE82406321E18025690000692DCA&lang=e Amnesty International does a good job of investigating the harm incarceration has on juveniles. Although this does not directly answer the question of the resolution, it does provide good materials for negatives that want to point out how the juvenile justice system is less likely to give harsh incarceration sentences to juveniles than the adult justice system would, which makes it a more appropriate place for juveniles to be sentenced within. Also, the juvenile justice system is more likely to place an offender in rehabilitation and have a greater focus on "fixing the problem" with other tools, like therapy and community service, than on hoping incarceration will make it go away. Anne-Marie Iselin, Jamie DeCoster, Randall Salekin, professors at the Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and the University of Alabama, Maturity in Adolescent and Young Adult Offenders: The Role of Cognitive Control, December 30, 2008 Taking a psychological approach to the mental control juveniles have over themselves while committing crimes, this article provides good evidence for a negative looking to prove that juveniles ought not be tried as adults because they are not of the same cognitive advancement. This article would also be helpful for a debater looking particularly for the implications of the criminal maturity on juvenile justice policy and transfers to the adult justice system. This article, as would be expected, finds that older juveniles are more cognitively advanced than younger offenders, which may provide a basis for a negative advocating a universal age of responsibility at an older age, or just advocating the age of responsibility be established at eighteen in all states for all crimes. Benjamin Steiner, assistant professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of South Carolina, The Effects of Juvenile Transfer to Criminal Court on Incarceration Decisions, March 2009 This article is full of good answers for negative arguments about the inconsistency within the justice system. Since this is the greatest problem within the juvenile justice system, an affirmative that proves that the inconsistency can be solved for by establishing a universal standard by which juveniles can be sentenced will be particularly effective. This article, then, is a good tool for affirmatives, because it calls for greater consistency within the justice system by highlighting the problem with specific analysis on the differentiation among sentences between different proximal counties. Additionally, this article gives a good sense of the community's prespective on extended juvenile incarceration sentences, which is a tool that the negative can use to prove that within a democracy, the justice system ought not treat juveniles as adults. Dr Chad Trulson, Dr Matt DeLisi, Dr James Marquart, professors at the University of North Texas, Iowa State University, and the University of Texas, respectively, Institutional Misconduct, Delinquent Background, and Rearrest Frequency Among Serious and Violent Delinquent Offenders, July 20, 2009 This is a good article for affirmatives looking to prove that due to their high correlation in behavior with adult offenders, juveniles ought to be treated as adults. Explicitly enumerated are the criminal background of offending juvenies, their misconduct, and their recidivism frequency, after their initial violent crime. An affirmative can effectively prove that because juveniles who commit violent crimes are dangerous to society in the same way that adults who commit violent crimes are, they should be tried as adults. Courtney Fain, juvenile attorney in New York, graduate of Harvard University and Boston College Law School, What's in a Name The Worrisome Interchange of Juvenile Adjudications with Criminal Convinctions, 2008 Throughout this article, there is a lot of good evidence about the difference between the juvenile and adult justice systems, an important distinction for a strong negative about rehabilitation and the value of the juvenile justice system to make. The article takes the difference between the purpose of these two justice systems further to evaluate the difference between the charges a juvenile would file in each type of justice system and why one is preferable for a juvenile to have to file, simply based on the treatment they will receive. Ultimately, this article has a lot of good points to offer a stock negative interpretation. Donna Bishop, professor at the College of Criminal Justice at Northeastern University, Juvenile Transfer in the United
West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies States, May 29, 2009 This article not only gives a good history of the transfer of juveniles from the juvenile justice system to the adult justice system, but it also investigates childhood innocence and impressionability, something an negative trying to prove that a transfer ought not happen because juveniles who enter the system young did not know what they were doing and will be very susceptible to turning into repeat offenders. The argument that society rejects juveniles being treated as adults while the public still perceives them as too young to really make the decision that the justice system has said they have made in committing their crime, can be effectively warranted with this article. Dr Eric Drogin, attorney and forensic psychologist with Harvard Medical School and the Harvard Longwood Psychiatry Residency Training Program, Trying Juveniles as Adults: A Jurisprudent Science Perspective, 2007
This is a very helpful article for both sides. Dr Drogin does a good job of outlining the history of the juvenile justice system, in addition to evaluating why juveniles have moved from their original designation to an adult classification in some instances. Additionally, this article gives reasons why this may be an improper classification, because the juvenile may not yet be ready in some capacity to be tried as an adult. By establishing the history of why juveniles were originally sent to the adult justice system, (ie. their crime was severe, intentional, and had a victim), affirmatives have a good basis to explain why these parameters exist in the status quo and why they should continue to exist in the future, with a stricter deliniation than the prior qualifications. Erin Flynn, public interest scholar from the University of Pennsylvania Law School, Dismantling the Felony-Murder Rule: Juvenile Deterrence and Retribution Post-Rover v. Simmons, 2007-2008 This is a good article for affirmatives looking to prove that treating juveniles on an equal plane as adults when it comes to harsh crimes, like murder, causes the deterrence of other juvenile violence. In this way, affirmatives can have a lot of good ground in terms of the overall benefit to society that harsh juvenile punishment can have, since it sends such a strong message. Giving juveniles adult-sized punishments interprets the entire punishment process as more symbolic than about rehabilitation, however, which is where affirmatives who use this approach will need to particularly be wary. Dr Jason Washburn, Dr Linda Teplin, Dr Laure Voss, et. al, September 2008, American Psychiatric Association, accessed 7/1/10, http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/ps;59/9/965 This article not only evaluates which juvenile populations are most likely to be prosecuted as adults, which would be helpful for a negative that is trying to prove that the system is racist, something that would be particularly devastating at such a young age, perpetuating racim and structural problems within prisons and containment facilities, but it also investigates the psychiatric disorder(s) that these juveniles present with. The latter argument will be helpful for a negative trying to prove that juveniles ought not be tried as adults because they did not make the decision to commit their crime with the same mental capacity or status of an adult. This could also be a good way to prove that the leniency of the juvenile justice system is lenient for a reason?uvenile have not yet been treated for, or maybe even diagnosed with, the psychiatric disorders that may have contributed to their decision to commit their crime. Jeffery Fagan and Alex Piquero, professor of Law and Public Health at Colombia University, Rational Choice and Developmental Influences on Recidivism Among Adolescent Felony Offenders, December 10, 2007 Arguing that recidivism rates are high among juvenile felony offenders, because of their lack of total cognitive development, this article presents a lot of good evidence for both sides. For the affirmative, this gives good warrants for why juveniles should be tried as adults, largely because if they are not, their recidivism rate is high. Additionally, it gives a possible account for this, that the negative can use: that because juveniles are not as mentally advanced as adult criminals, so rehabilitation and therapy are more important than stringent sentences. Gregg Barak, professor of criminology and criminal justice at Eastern Michical University, Juveniles Treated as Adults, 2009 This article has a particularly effective approach to juveniles being treated as adults in terms of their judicial treatment. It not only evaluates the comparative levels of violence among juveniles in the adult justice system and juveniles in the juveniles justice system, but it also analyzes many historical examples of this conflict between whether or not juveniles charged with felonies ought to be considered adults. Since this is a very analytic and historical approach to the resolution, this article serves as a very good background piece for debaters to use. There are good arguments within it, but its most
important function will be to clear up a lot of confusion a debater may have on the resolution, before giving them a starting place. Kareem Jordan and Tina Freiburger, professors at the University of North Florida and the University of WisconsinMilwaukee, respectively, Examining the Impact of Race and Ethnicity on the Sentencing of Juveniles in the Adult Court, June 2010 Instead of approaching sentencing generically, this article evaluates the racial disadvantage juveniles have especially within the adult justice system. Since the juvenile justice system is more lenient in its sentencing than the adult justice system, an additional strife an offender faces in the adult justice system, like racial or ethnic disadvantage, is magnified. This can be an effective argument for negatives looking to highlight the structural problems that are especially prevalent in the adult justice system. Racism within the justice system is bad because within a system that is supposed to equally apply the law, it inherently causes an unfair application of law and entrenches a mindset that says that it is okay to treat somebody more harshly because of their skin color or ethnic association. Kristin Johnson, Dr Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, Dr Jennifer Woolard, professors at the University of Florida and Georgetown University, Disregarding Graduated Treatment: Why Transfer Aggravates Recidivism By comparing correctional histories of juveniles who have remained in the juvenile justice system with juveniles who have been transferred to the adult justice sytem, this article analyzes recidivism rates; the data make this a particularly good article for negatives trying to answer affirmatives who use recidivism as a justification for trying juveniles as adults. This article proves that because juveniles transferred to the adult justice system skip some of the treatment they would have been sentenced to complete within the juvenile justice system, they are more likely to continue to commit crimes after their release from incarceration. On the other hand, this article provides a good solvency mechanism, which the affirmative may want to consider: graduated sanctions. Since transferring into the adult justice system often involves skipping over these sanctions and these sanctions have been proven to be the important factor in whether or not a juvenile will continue committing crimes, if the affirmative could try within the adult justice system and provide gradual sanctions, they would be able to access the lowest recidivism rate possible while affirming. Dr Laurence Steinberg, Dr Alex Piquero, professors at Temple University and the University of Maryland, respectively, Manipulating Public Opinion About Trying Juveniles as Adults: An Experimental Study, April 2, 2009 This is a very interesting article in terms of the role the community places in deciding whether or not a juvenile is tried as an adult. The evidence is particularly useful for a negative that seeks to discredit the decision to transfer a juvenile to the adult justice system, because it is so susceptible to manipulation. On the other hand, given that there is nominal consistency when making the transfer decision, an affirmative could argue that this lack of consistency calls for a strict guideline by which transfer decisions ought to be made, and that is whether or not a juvenile has committed a felony. Nicole Garberd, Dr Terry Libkuman, psychology professors at Central Michigan University, Community Sentiment and the Juvenile Offender: Should Juveniles Charged with Felony Murder be Waived into the Adult Criminal Justice System?, May 13, 2009 This is a pretty good article that gauges the community response to juvenile crimes, which may give a good reinforcement for an affirmative that wants to prove that the American public wants juveniles who have committed felonies to be tried as adults. For an affirmative that is looking to prove that because America is a democracy, and thus ought to follow the will of its people, this sort of argument is going to be a good basis to warrant your claims, since it outlines how the general public wants juveniles to be transferred to the adult justice system in the case of a serious crime, but especially if a death is involved. Dr Robert Hahn, Angela McGowan, Dr Akiva Liberman, Dr Alex Crosby, et. al, November 30, 2007, Center For Disease Control Web Page, accessed 7/1/2010, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5609a1.htm?s_cid=rr56 Dr Hahn and company do a very good job of enumerating the ways in which violence among juveniles rises when they are transferred from the juvenile to the adult justice system in this article. The arguments within this article are especially good for negatives that intend to prove that a good reason for juveniles to always be tried as juveniles is that they pose a greater risk to society while in prison and after their release if they are tried as adults.
10
DEFINITIONS:
JUVENILES a person who is under age (usually below 18), who is found to have committed a crime in states which have declared by law that a minor lacks responsibility and thus may not be sentenced as an adult. However, the legislatures of several states have reduced the age of criminal responsibility for serious crimes or for repeat offenders to as low as 14. [by The People's Law Dictionary] The primary question of the resolution is whether or not a juvenile ought to be tried as an adult in certain cases, so knowing who qualifies as a subject of the resolution is very important. Since juveniles are often considered just between the ages of fourteen and eighteen in the United States, this limits the body of people accessed by the question of the resolution, which can be very helpful to the affirmative, so be sure to use it to your advantage by not justifying trying young children as adults in the case where they commit a violent felony. VIOLENT FELONY a crime consisting of conduct that presents a serious risk of potential injury to another or that is punishable by imprisonment for more than one year used esp. in federal sentencing of career criminals guilty of crimes involving use of a weapon [by Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law] This is one of the most important words of the resolution, because it significantly slims the affirmative burden. By firmly establishing what qualifies as a violent felony, a strong affirmative will have a better guide to when the negative is trying to lump in other, irrelevant felonies with their criticisms of the violent felonies the resolution indicates. This definition is particularly good, because it indicates that the crime is serious, can involve a victim, and has a harsh penalty. These parts of the definition reveal that the crime the juvenile is being charged with is actually a very serious matter, not a victimless of nominally important crime. OUGHT used to express obligation <ought to pay our debts>, advisability <ought to take care of yourself>, natural expectation <ought to be here by now>, or logical consequence <the result ought to be infinity> [by Merriam-Webster] Since ought is a word use to denote a moral obligation, this transforms the resolution into a question of moral advisibility. This will be an important part of the resolution for the affirmative to dwell on in order to solidfy the theoretical terms that the wording of the resolution suggests. Whereas the use of the word should would imply a policy option is appropriate to be proposed, the use of the word ought indicates that when evaluating the resolution, a plan that establishes a policy recommendation will be less favorable than a moralistic guideline suggestion. Ought is a word that denotes that in theory, x is a good idea, though it may be impractical or impossible to actually do. Thus, by functioning in the world of ought, the affirmative can acknowledge that it is likely that their advocacy will never be enacted, but that that does not mean that their advocacy is not a good idea. TREATED AS This is a phrase that will need to be interpreted together within the context of the resolution. Finding a definition in a dictionary, be it legal or otherwise, will give you a start for what this phrase should mean, but it is important to reflect the consideration implied in the resolution when interpreting this phrase. Your interpretation should be considered resolutional analysis more so than a definition.
11
AFFIRMATIVE:
I stand to affirm: Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system. RESOLUTIONAL ANALYSIS Oughtis a word that denotes that in theory, x is a good idea, though it may be impractical or impossible to actually do. Thus, by functioning in the ?orld of ought,the affirmative can acknowledge that it is likely that their advocacy will never be enacted, but that that does not mean that their advocacy is not a bad idea. DEFINITIONS VALUE The value for the round is justice, defined as giving each their due. This is the most important value within the round, because the resolution bases itself in the US legal system, the primary purpose of which is to deliver justice. Thus, justice is the most appropriate value to use. CRITERION The criterion for the round is utilitarianism, defined as doing the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. By acting in the best interests of the greatest portion of society, utilitarianism is able to bring justice to more people and to widely effect the welfare of society more than any other criterion, making it the most important standard in the round. CONTENTION 1 The system is ready for the line to be drawn The juvenile justice system has had a lot of practice transferring juveniles to the adult justice system and would be able to continue to do this. This means that not only does society have a moral obligation to require this transfer, but it also has easy accessibility to this transition. THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS IN PLACE TO EASILY MOVE OFFENDERS TO THE ADULT JUSTICE SYSTEM Dr Jason Washburn, Dr Linda Teplin, Dr Laure Voss, et. al, September 2008, American Psychiatric Association, accessed 7/1/10, http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/ps;59/9/965 An increasing number of juveniles are now transferred to adult criminal court by using automatic transfers (29 states) and prosecutorial direct file (15 states) (1). Automatic transfers exclude juveniles from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court sole- ly on the basis of the type of offense, criminal history, and age of the youths; judges are not involved in this form of transfer. Prosecutorial direct- file mechanisms allow prosecutors to determine when to file certain juvenile cases directly in criminal court. Additionally, since the transfer process the exists now is less harmful to serious offenders, making the transition will not be hard for juveniles who have been charged with violent felonies. This means that there are protections in place now to ensure quality treatment of offenders, and that the conditions will only improve as they are used more.
12
TRANSFERS ARE LESS HARMFUL FOR SERIOUS OFFENDERS Dr Robert Hahn, Angela McGowan, Dr Akiva Liberman, Dr Alex Crosby, et. al, November 30, 2007, Center For Disease Control Web Page, accessed 7/1/2010, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5609a1.htm?s_cid=rr56 The effects of transfer policies on violence and other crime across levels of severity of crime for which the juvenile was initially charged (e.g., misdemeanors or felonies) require further study. To assure comparability, the reviewed studies control for the severity of the crime for which the juvenile is at risk for being transferred and, where possible, for the juvenile's criminal history. These studies did not generally assess whether transfer had different effects for juveniles with more or less serious offenses and offense histories. Transfer might be more effective or less harmful if restricted to the most serious offenders. The Florida studies indicated that a large number of juveniles committing misdemeanors were transferred to adult court and found greater harm (i.e., recidivism) for these offenders than for juveniles transferred for more serious offenses. In any case, the possibility of transferring the most serious juvenile offenders was available in all court systems before the strengthening and formalizing of the transfer policies. The changes assessed in this review have resulted in lowering the thresholds for the seriousness of crimes for which juveniles are transferred, thereby facilitating transfer. CONTENTION 2 COMMUNITY SENTIMENT FAVORS TRANSFER Currently, juveniles are transferred into the adult justice system if their evaluators believe that they have had significant involvement in a crime. This means that the community sentiment is in favor of a more serious punishment of juveniles who commit more serious crimes, since it is regarded as in the best interests of the most amount of people. JUVENILES ARE TRANSFERRED BASED ON THEIR PERCEIVED INVOLVEMENT IN A CRIME Nicole Garberd, Dr Terry Libkuman, psychology professors at Central Michigan University, Community Sentiment and the Juvenile Offender: Should Juveniles Charged with Felony Murder be Waived into the Adult Criminal Justice System?, May 13, 2009 In our studies, juveniles were consistently transferred based on their perceived involvement in the crime. First, in all three experiments the triggerman was much more likely to be transferred than the other three defendants (see Figure 1). This pattern is identical to the Finkel and Duff (1991) and Finkel and Smith (1993) verdict results and is consistent with the predictions from attribution theory (Shaver, 1985; Weiner, 1995). More specifically, Finkel and Smith (1993) noted that the variables of role, intention, effort, control, and criminal history determine the extent to which the defendants are attributed responsibility and morale blame. It is therefore understandable that the triggerman would be convicted (or transferred) more often than the other defendants because of the increased role, intent, effort, and control exhibited by the triggerman. Second, although transfer, in general, declined starting with the triggerman and ending with the getaway driver, differences among the sidekick, lookout, and getaway driver were not appreciable. Collapsed across experiments transfer percentages for the triggerman, sidekick, lookout and getaway driver were 75, 46, 41, and 38, respectively. It is possible that involvement is less distinguishable in our experiments because in all of our experiments all four defendants were armed. This was not the case in the Finkel and Duff experiments, where in Experiment 1 only the triggerman possessed a weapon and in Experiment 2 the triggerman, sidekick, and lookout carried a weapon. In spite of these differences, however, the results are remarkably similar. Not only is the community in strong agreement that violent offenders ought to be transferred to the adult justice system, but the Supreme Court also reflects this community sentiment, aligning with the protection of the greatest amount of happiness in society.
13
THE SUPREME COURT IS CONSISTENT WITH COMMUNITY SENTIMENT Nicole Garberd, Dr Terry Libkuman, psychology professors at Central Michigan University, Community Sentiment and the Juvenile Offender: Should Juveniles Charged with Felony Murder be Waived into the Adult Criminal Justice System?, May 13, 2009 Although the following research and opinion dealt with adult defendants tried in adult criminal court, this information is important to our research because of the issues surrounding community sentiment and the felony murder rule. Furthermore, our methodology is modeled after the Finkel and Duff (1991) study. Finkel and Duff examined the Supreme Court Justices rulings in the cases of Enmund v Florida (1982) and Tison v Arizona (1987). In the Tison case, the court cited community sentiment as support for upholding the death sentences of Ricky and Raymond Tison, who were charged under the felony murder rule. However, in the interim the Supreme Court reached a decision in Enmund v. Florida (1982), a case that also involved the felony murder rule. The Supreme Court reversed Enmunds death sentence, stating that it was cruel and unusual punishment because Enmund was not aware that a murder has been planned. The Tison brothers entered an appeal claiming that the Enmund case required the reversal of their death sentences as well under the Eighth Amendments cruel and unusual punishment clause. The Tison court upheld the death sentences, stating that, in contrast to Enmund, the Eighth Amendment did not apply. The majority of Supreme Court justices in the Tison case supported their ruling by stating that their decision, in part, was reflective of community sentiment. Citing current legislation and past jury decisions as indicative and reflective of popular public opinion, the court argued that a combination of factors may justify the death penalty even without a specific intent to kill (p. 146). Furthermore, the court stated that the combination of reckless indifference for human life and a major role in a felony may be sufficient grounds for the death penalty. In the courts view, the Tison brothers were aware that deadly force could have been used and they did not attempt to prevent it from occurring. Therefore, even though a specific intent to kill may be virtually absent from a case, the Tison court ruling indicated that defendants who exhibit reckless indifference for human life and play a major role in the felony could be charged and sentenced equally, making all persons involved in the felony equally responsible for a victims death if such a death should occur.
14
AFFIRMATIVE EXTENSIONS:
TRANSFER IS CURRENTLY USED FOR FELONIES
1. TRANSFER IS RESERVED FOR SERIOUS OFFENDERS Dr Robert Hahn, Angela McGowan, Dr Akiva Liberman, Dr Alex Crosby, et. al, November 30, 2007, Center For Disease Control Web Page, accessed 7/1/2010, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5609a1.htm?s_cid=rr56 A major methodologic concern in studies of specific deterrence is selection bias: transfer to adult criminal court is typically intended for those youth who are considered to be more serious offenders. Consequently, transferred youth would be expected to have greater risk for subsequent violence, independent of any effect of their experience with the adult criminal justice system. 2. TRANSFERS ARE LESS HARMFUL FOR SERIOUS OFFENDERS Dr Robert Hahn, Angela McGowan, Dr Akiva Liberman, Dr Alex Crosby, et. al, November 30, 2007, Center For Disease Control Web Page, accessed 7/1/2010, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5609a1.htm?s_cid=rr56 The effects of transfer policies on violence and other crime across levels of severity of crime for which the juvenile was initially charged (e.g., misdemeanors or felonies) require further study. To assure comparability, the reviewed studies control for the severity of the crime for which the juvenile is at risk for being transferred and, where possible, for the juvenile's criminal history. These studies did not generally assess whether transfer had different effects for juveniles with more or less serious offenses and offense histories. Transfer might be more effective or less harmful if restricted to the most serious offenders. The Florida studies indicated that a large number of juveniles committing misdemeanors were transferred to adult court and found greater harm (i.e., recidivism) for these offenders than for juveniles transferred for more serious offenses. In any case, the possibility of transferring the most serious juvenile offenders was available in all court systems before the strengthening and formalizing of the transfer policies. The changes assessed in this review have resulted in lowering the thresholds for the seriousness of crimes for which juveniles are transferred, thereby facilitating transfer. 3. THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS IN PLACE TO EASILY MOVE OFFENDERS TO THE ADULT JUSTICE SYSTEM Dr Jason Washburn, Dr Linda Teplin, Dr Laure Voss, et. al, September 2008, American Psychiatric Association, accessed 7/1/10, http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/ps;59/9/965 An increasing number of juveniles are now transferred to adult criminal court by using automatic transfers (29 states) and prosecutorial direct file (15 states) (1). Automatic transfers exclude juveniles from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court sole- ly on the basis of the type of offense, criminal history, and age of the youths; judges are not involved in this form of transfer. Prosecutorial direct- file mechanisms allow prosecutors to determine when to file certain juvenile cases directly in criminal court. 4. TRANSFER IS MORE LIKELY WHEN A DEATH IS INVOLVED Nicole Garberd, Dr Terry Libkuman, psychology professors at Central Michigan University, Community Sentiment and the Juvenile Offender: Should Juveniles Charged with Felony Murder be Waived into the Adult Criminal Justice System?, May 13, 2009 The transfer percentages for the triggerman were also quite similar across the three experiments for intentional, accidental, and no death (see Figure 1). In each experiment, transfer was highest for intentional death, followed by accidental death, and finally no death. Collapsed across experiments, the percentages of transfer for intentional, accidental, and no death were 88, 69, and 59%, respectively. Although more defendants were transferred in the intentional and accidental death conditions than in the no death condition, the only statistical support we found for the hypothesis that more transfer would occur for the death conditions than the no death condition occurred in Experiment 1 and only for the triggerman. Basically, the sidekick, lookout, and getaway driver were more likely to be transferred based on their involvement, and not on the basis of whether a death occurred.
15
JUVENILES GET TOUGHER SENTENCES

1. JUVENILES ARE MORE LIKELY TO COMMIT CRIMES IN GROUP, MAKING THEM VULNERABLE TO HARSH PUNISHMENT Nicole Garberd, Dr Terry Libkuman, psychology professors at Central Michigan University, Community Sentiment and the Juvenile Offender: Should Juveniles Charged with Felony Murder be Waived into the Adult Criminal Justice System?, May 13, 2009 Juveniles are more likely than adult offenders to commit crimes in groups. This tendency makes the juvenile offender more susceptible to the felony murder rule. In three experiments we tested the notion that juveniles arrested and charged under the felony murder rule would be transferred into the adult criminal justice system based on an equalistic (i.e. the application of the felony murder rule) or a proportional (i.e. the just deserts philosophy) rule. Participants read case descriptions of an armed robbery (no death, accidental death, or intentional death) in which defendants had different levels of involvement in the crime (getaway driver, lookout, sidekick, or triggerman). 2. JUVENILES CHARGED WITH VERY SERIOUS CRIMES, ESPECIALLY MURDER, ARE FREQUENTLY SENT TO THE ADULT JSTICE SYSTEM IN THE STATUS QUO Nicole Garberd, Dr Terry Libkuman, psychology professors at Central Michigan University, Community Sentiment and the Juvenile Offender: Should Juveniles Charged with Felony Murder be Waived into the Adult Criminal Justice System?, May 13, 2009 The transfer of juveniles to adult courts continues to increase, with 50 states allowing for transfer (Fagan & Zimring, 2000, Patapis, 2006). Factors that predict transfer include the offenders age, the age at onset of delinquent behavior, dangerousness, sophisticationmaturity, presence of a prior record, previous detainment in a juvenile detention center, using a firearm in the commission of the offense, being charged with murder, manslaughter, or drug sales, committing a heinous or injurious offense, and having more than one victim (Brannen et al., 2006; Fagan & Deschenes, 1990; Fritsch, Caeti, & Hemmens, 1996; Poulos & Orchowsky, 1994; Salekin, 2002; Salekin, Yff, Neumann, Leistico, & Zalot, 2002). The one factor that is most predictive of transfer tends to remain the same across the United States: juvenile offenders charged with murder are the most likely of all defendants to be transferred into the criminal justice system (Fagan & Deschenes, 1990; Fritsch et al., 1996; Fagan, Forst, & Vivona, 1987; Rudman, Hartstone, Fagan, & Moore, 1986). Specifically, 40% of juveniles arrested for murder each year are transferred into the criminal justice system (Zimring, 1999). 3. GROUPS OF JUVENILES ARE LIKELY TO FACE HARSH SENTENCES IN THE ADULT JUSTICE SYSTEM Nicole Garberd, Dr Terry Libkuman, psychology professors at Central Michigan University, Community Sentiment and the Juvenile Offender: Should Juveniles Charged with Felony Murder be Waived into the Adult Criminal Justice System?, May 13, 2009 Juveniles tend to commit crimes in groups (Fagan & Deschenes, 1990; Zimring, 1999), and therefore these offenders may be at a higher risk of being charged under the felony murder rule than adult offenders, who are less likely to commit crimes in groups. The felony murder rule states that if during the commission of a felony a death results, all those who partook in the commission of that felony may be charged with murder (Zimring, 1999). The felony murder rule is present in all jurisdictions, with only three states without the rule (Flynn, 2008). Although juveniles convicted in adult court can no longer be executed because of the Supreme Courts decision (Roper v. Simmons, 2005) to ban the death penalty, juveniles are now being sentenced to life without parole (LWOP) (Fagan, 2007). For example, in Pennsylvania, Bilingit (2008) reported that over 400 minors who were convicted using the felony murder rule are serving life sentences. More generally, it has been reported (Amnesty International & Human Rights Watch, 2008) that 26% of the juveniles sentenced to LWOP were charged with felony murder. Finally, Flynn (2008) has estimated that, of the approximately 2225 youthful offenders in state or federal facilities as of 2004, 25 50% of the LWOP sentences were a result of convictions under the felony murder rule.
16
TRANSFER DOES OCCUR

1. EVEN THOUGH TRANSFER THEORETICALLY SHOULDN'T BE AN EXTRALEGAL MATTER, IT IS Benjamin Steiner, assistant professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of South Carolina, The Effects of Juvenile Transfer to Criminal Court on Incarceration Decisions, March 2009 By virtue of the transfer, a legal decision in one jurisdiction (juvenile court) becomes an extralegal characteristic in another (criminal court). In criminal court, transfer status is not an individual feature that should guide court actors' decisions in the same way as offense seriousness or prior record. Instead, transferred juveniles should be treated the same way as other similarly situated adult defendants. Therefore, even though transfer of a juvenile offender to criminal court often results from a court actor's (e.g., prosecutor, juvenile court judge) legal decision, a juvenile's status as transferred to criminal court is an extralegal characteristic that may disadvantage an individual in front of a criminal court in much the same way as particular categories of a defendant's age, race, gender, or class. In support of this perspective, Kurlychek and Johnson (2004) revealed that juveniles transferred to criminal court in Pennsylvania were sentenced more severely than young adults between the ages of 18 to 24. Expanding on their main findings, Kurlychek and Johnson (2004) also determined that legally relevant factors operated in different ways for waived juveniles than they did for young adults. Specifically, they found that the effects of the Pennsylvania Sentencing Commission offense gravity score and prior record score were weaker for waived juvenile defendants than young adult defendants; however, waived juveniles were sentenced more harshly for person offenses than the young adults. Interestingly, being waived to criminal court did not interact with any of the other extralegal characteristics (e.g., race), although this may suggest that the Pennsylvania judiciary considers all defendants under 24 who possess certain extralegal characteristics a risk to the community. Only main effects were observed for age, ethnicity (Hispanic), and gender (Kurlychek & Johnson, 2004). 2. TRANSFER DOES NOT EFFECT RELEASE ON BAIL Benjamin Steiner, assistant professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of South Carolina, The Effects of Juvenile Transfer to Criminal Court on Incarceration Decisions, March 2009 Being transferred to criminal court had no effect on the likelihood of being denied bail or the likelihood of being released without bail. Females, however, were more likely to be released on their own recognizance and less likely to be denied bail than males. Consistent with Demuth's (2003) findings, Hispanic defendants were less likely to be released without bail, although ethnicity did not effect whether bail was granted in this study. A defendant's race had no effect on the initial detention decision, which is counter to what Demuth (2003) observed in his study. Regarding the legal factors, the results of this study are generally consistent with Demuth's (2003) findings. An arrest for homicide had a positive effect on the likelihood of being denied bail and a negative effect on the likelihood of being released. Being arrested for a violent offense, multiple charges, and a prior arrest all reduced the odds of a defendant being released, while an active relationship with the court increased the likelihood a defendant was denied bail. Neither a drug arrest nor a prior failure to appear had an effect on the initial detention decision. 3. STATES HAVE MADE EFFORTS TO MAKE JUVENILE TRANSFER EASIER FOR VIOLENT OFFENDERS Benjamin Steiner, assistant professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of South Carolina, The Effects of Juvenile Transfer to Criminal Court on Incarceration Decisions, March 2009 Juvenile transfer or waiver laws allow youthful defendants who have not reached the age of adulthood (as statutorily defined for a particular jurisdiction) to be transferred out of the juvenile court and into adult criminal court where they are subject to prosecution as if they were an adult. In the 1970s and early 1980s, following from the Supreme Court's decisions in Kent v. United States and In re Gault, most states amended their transfer statutes, along with their existing juvenile codes, in an effort to curb judicial discretion and afford juvenile defendants procedural protections during juvenile court proceedings (Feld, 1987, 2003). In the 1980s and 1990s, however, many states toughened their juvenile laws in response to the rise in arrests for juvenile crime, particularly violent juvenile crime, which began to increase in 1980s and peaked in the early 1990s (Feld, 1999, 2003; Fritsch & Hemmens, 1995; Ruth & Reitz, 2003; Snyder, 1997; Snyder & Sickmund, 1999; Steiner & Hemmens, 2003). Regarding transfer statutes, virtually every state modified its juvenile court jurisdiction in order to make it easier to prosecute juvenile offenders in criminal court. Most states added offenses that were judicial waiver-eligible and lowered the age at which a juvenile could be transferred to criminal court. Many states also added or expanded the scope of statutory exclusion and direct file statutes (Fritsch & Hemmens, 1995; Steiner & Hemmens, 2003).
17
A TRANSFER DECISION IS PREMISED ON COMMUNITY SENTIMENT

1. JUVENILES ARE TRANSFERRED BASED ON THEIR PERCEIVED INVOLVEMENT IN A CRIME Nicole Garberd, Dr Terry Libkuman, psychology professors at Central Michigan University, Community Sentiment and the Juvenile Offender: Should Juveniles Charged with Felony Murder be Waived into the Adult Criminal Justice System?, May 13, 2009 In our studies, juveniles were consistently transferred based on their perceived involvement in the crime. First, in all three experiments the triggerman was much more likely to be transferred than the other three defendants (see Figure 1). This pattern is identical to the Finkel and Duff (1991) and Finkel and Smith (1993) verdict results and is consistent with the predictions from attribution theory (Shaver, 1985; Weiner, 1995). More specifically, Finkel and Smith (1993) noted that the variables of role, intention, effort, control, and criminal history determine the extent to which the defendants are attributed responsibility and morale blame. It is therefore understandable that the triggerman would be convicted (or transferred) more often than the other defendants because of the increased role, intent, effort, and control exhibited by the triggerman. Second, although transfer, in general, declined starting with the triggerman and ending with the getaway driver, differences among the sidekick, lookout, and getaway driver were not appreciable. Collapsed across experiments transfer percentages for the triggerman, sidekick, lookout and getaway driver were 75, 46, 41, and 38, respectively. It is possible that involvement is less distinguishable in our experiments because in all of our experiments all four defendants were armed. This was not the case in the Finkel and Duff experiments, where in Experiment 1 only the triggerman possessed a weapon and in Experiment 2 the triggerman, sidekick, and lookout carried a weapon. In spite of these differences, however, the results are remarkably similar. 2. THE SUPREME COURT IS CONSISTENT WITH COMMUNITY SENTIMENT Nicole Garberd, Dr Terry Libkuman, psychology professors at Central Michigan University, Community Sentiment and the Juvenile Offender: Should Juveniles Charged with Felony Murder be Waived into the Adult Criminal Justice System?, May 13, 2009 Although the following research and opinion dealt with adult defendants tried in adult criminal court, this information is important to our research because of the issues surrounding community sentiment and the felony murder rule. Furthermore, our methodology is modeled after the Finkel and Duff (1991) study. Finkel and Duff examined the Supreme Court Justices rulings in the cases of Enmund v Florida (1982) and Tison v Arizona (1987). In the Tison case, the court cited community sentiment as support for upholding the death sentences of Ricky and Raymond Tison, who were charged under the felony murder rule. However, in the interim the Supreme Court reached a decision in Enmund v. Florida (1982), a case that also involved the felony murder rule. The Supreme Court reversed Enmunds death sentence, stating that it was cruel and unusual punishment because Enmund was not aware that a murder has been planned. The Tison brothers entered an appeal claiming that the Enmund case required the reversal of their death sentences as well under the Eighth Amendments cruel and unusual punishment clause. The Tison court upheld the death sentences, stating that, in contrast to Enmund, the Eighth Amendment did not apply. The majority of Supreme Court justices in the Tison case supported their ruling by stating that their decision, in part, was reflective of community sentiment. Citing current legislation and past jury decisions as indicative and reflective of popular public opinion, the court argued that a combination of factors may justify the death penalty even without a specific intent to kill (p. 146). Furthermore, the court stated that the combination of reckless indifference for human life and a major role in a felony may be sufficient grounds for the death penalty. In the courts view, the Tison brothers were aware that deadly force could have been used and they did not attempt to prevent it from occurring. Therefore, even though a specific intent to kill may be virtually absent from a case, the Tison court ruling indicated that defendants who exhibit reckless indifference for human life and play a major role in the felony could be charged and sentenced equally, making all persons involved in the felony equally responsible for a victims death if such a death should occur.
18
THE TRANSFER SYSTEM IS CONSISTENT

1. THE ADULT JUSTICE SYSTEM IS MORE CONSISTENT FOR TRANSFERS Benjamin Steiner, assistant professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of South Carolina, The Effects of Juvenile Transfer to Criminal Court on Incarceration Decisions, March 2009 Comparisons between sentencing outcomes for juveniles transferred to criminal court and other adult offenders have an advantage in that both groups are sentenced by the same set of judges who have at their disposal the same dispositional options (Kurlychek & Johnson, 2004). Similarly, the same statutes govern the sentencing of all defendants who are dispositioned in criminal court in a particular state, whereas juvenile court defendants are typically sentenced under a state's juvenile code. When making comparisons, these distinctions may be important because many states currently have guidelines in place which structure the sentencing of criminal defendants; however, because of the juvenile court's rehabilitative design, most state juvenile codes allow for individualized and indeterminate sentences (Feld, 1999). Thus, a better understanding of the effects of being waived to criminal court may be gained by comparing juveniles transferred to criminal court to other adult offenders who are processed in the same court (Kurlychek & Johnson, 2004).
MISCONDUCT INDICATES RECIDIVISM LIKELIHOOD

1. MISCONDUCT PROVIDES A GOOD INDICATOR OF RECIDIVISM FOR JUVENILES Dr Chad Trulson, Dr Matt DeLisi, Dr James Marquart, professors at the University of North Texas, Iowa State University, and the University of Texas, respectively, Institutional Misconduct, Delinquent Background, and Rearrest Frequency Among Serious and Violent Delinquent Offenders, July 20, 2009 On a more practical level, research on the relationship of misconduct to recidivism can provide important information to practitioners charged with the release of state delinquents from juvenile incarceration. Notwithstanding other important benefits to examining the misconductrecidivism relationship, this study suggests that misconduct may still provide some insight into the recidivism of youth as they transition from juvenile incarceration to freedom and from late adolescence into young adulthood. As mentioned, offenders transitioning from juvenile incarceration are, as a whole and as supported by postrelease recidivism research, still largely on the escalation side of the aggregate agecrime curve and represent some of the most risky juvenile offenders relative to reoffending. Involvement in institutional misconduct may signal a risk for continuity in offending postrelease and, at the least, the need for heightened attention to such offenders. As such, further attention should be placed on misconduct as part of the repertoire of information in terms of deciding who should get released and, perhaps more important, when they should be released. Almost all state juvenile commitments will eventually be released directly from juvenile incarceration (as opposed to adult prison transfer, for example), and with that fact in mind, institutional misconduct may serve as an additional early warning whereby further intervention efforts could be explored before release and transition back to society. Specific to the sample in this study, the results also suggest that such decisions should also give further credence to delinquent history variables, for example, gang membership and the length and seriousness of previous offending, including substance abuse history. These variables also appear relevant as an early warning sign for those offenders who may need different or lengthier services prior to their release from institutionalization to improve their chances for success postrelease.
19
THE TRANSFER SYSTEM IS NOT HARMFUL

1. JUVENILES ARE NOT HURT BY TRANSFERS Benjamin Steiner, assistant professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of South Carolina, The Effects of Juvenile Transfer to Criminal Court on Incarceration Decisions, March 2009 The second hypothesis was not supported by the findings. Unlike Kurlychek and Johnson's (2004) observations, these analyses did not reveal that transfer status interacted with any legal or extralegal factors to disadvantage defendants at either the pretrial or sentencing stage of the process. Only the effect of being convicted via a jury trial conditioned the effect of being transferred to criminal court. The magnitude of the effect of convicted via a jury trial, however, was weaker for the transferred juveniles than it was for the young adult defendants.Unlike previous studies of transferred youth, this study of legal decisions in 37 urban counties added an examination of county contextual factors. Regarding the detention decision (hypothesis three), the normality of violent juvenile crime, measured here by the percent homicide arrests juveniles, negatively impacted the rate of pretrial detention use. Family disruption was the only indicator of structural disadvantage that affected both the rate of detention and the rate of imprisonment. Although concentrated disadvantage and racial inequality were positively related to prison sentence rates, the slightly improved model fit for family disruption, coupled with the finding in the detention model, suggests that level of family disruption in the county may be the most relevant indicator of structural disadvantage that influences the court community's decisions to control the young defendants that come before them. Regardless, these findings lend strong support to the third hypothesis and suggest that future studies should consider the county context in which juveniles and young adult defendants are sentenced (see also Armstrong & Rodriguez, 2004; Fearn, 2005; Ulmer & Johnson, 2004). 2. NEGATIVE JUVENILE TRANSFER EFFECTS ARE WEAK IN AREAS WITH A LOT OF CRIME Benjamin Steiner, assistant professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of South Carolina, The Effects of Juvenile Transfer to Criminal Court on Incarceration Decisions, March 2009 Regarding the fourth hypothesis, the effect of transferred juvenile varied across counties in both the model of the detention decision and the model of prison sentences. None of the contextual factors examined here, however, could account for the variation in the detention model. In partial support of the fourth hypothesis, though, the normality of juvenile violence worked in favor of transferred juveniles at the sentencing stage. The relationship between transferred juvenile and prison sentence became weaker in counties where juvenile homicide was more common. Altogether, this study builds on the work of Kurlychek and Johnson (2004), and also provides several avenues for future research. As noted above, future studies might include measures of social class in the defendant level models to evaluate more precisely the role of economic disadvantage on the court outcomes of young defendants. Similarly, researchers may want to evaluate the relative effects of other county-level influences on court community's decisions. While this study was restricted by data from only 37 counties, richer data sets incorporating from more counties might be able to provide additional insights on the subject by allowing the inclusion of more county level predictors. Although the social control perspective used here seems well suited to explaining court community's use of court-imposed sanctions, other researchers may wish to examine the role of sponsoring organizations, jail space, and other practical constraints on court community's decisions (see Eisenstein et al., 1988). Similarly, other studies may want to examine the effects of the exogenous influences of social control on interjudge variation. The findings regarding which categories of defendants are detained at the pretrial stage, when considered with the effects of pretrial detention on later decisions (e.g., sentencing), underscores the importance of examining multiple decisions in one study. As noted above, the findings here demonstrate how individuals who cannot make bail may become disadvantaged at subsequent stages of the court process by virtue of their custody status. More studies of multiple decisions across the court process are sorely needed. Only after a reliable number of studies evaluating the role of being transferred to criminal court on different stages of the process have been conducted can we gain a better understanding of the effects of the waiver decision on the unique subpopulation of offenders it creates.
20
RECIDIVISM HAS ALTERIOR CAUSES

1. RECIDIVISM IS NOT BASED ON INSTITUTIONAL MISCONDUCT Dr Chad Trulson, Dr Matt DeLisi, Dr James Marquart, professors at the University of North Texas, Iowa State University, and the University of Texas, respectively, Institutional Misconduct, Delinquent Background, and Rearrest Frequency Among Serious and Violent Delinquent Offenders, July 20, 2009 Based on data from 1,804 serious and violent male delinquents released from a large southern juvenile correctional system, this research found limited support for institutional misconduct as a determinant of recidivism. Of all measures of misconduct, only the rate of total misconduct infractions was related to postrelease rearrest, and this effect was generally small and found only in the rearrest frequency model, not the dichotomous rearrest model. 2. FACTORS THAT ARE THOUGHT TO DETERMINE RECIDIVISM RATES NOW ARE BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS, NOT DATA THAT CORRELATE THEM Dr Chad Trulson, Dr Matt DeLisi, Dr James Marquart, professors at the University of North Texas, Iowa State University, and the University of Texas, respectively, Institutional Misconduct, Delinquent Background, and Rearrest Frequency Among Serious and Violent Delinquent Offenders, July 20, 2009 There is growing recognition that institutional misconduct may be an important determinant of recidivism following release from institutionalization (Langan, Camp, & Saylor, 2004; Maruna & Toch, 2005). It is unfortunate that misconduct behavior while institutionalized has generally been disconnected from an understanding of postrelease recidivism outcomes (DeLisi, 2003), and little empirical research exists on this subject for adult (Huebner, Varano, & Bynum, 2007; Langan et al., 2004) or juvenile offenders (Lattimore, MacDonald, Piquero, Linster, & Visher, 2004; Trulson, Marquart, Mullings, & Caeti, 2005). Measures of offender behavior preincarceration, such as prior arrests and delinquent adjudications, have been staples in recidivism research involving juvenile offenders (Lattimore, Visher, & Linster, 1995)in particular the body of recent recidivism research on institutionalized and released juvenile offenders (Benda, Corwyn, & Toombs, 2001a, 2001b; Cottle, Lee, & Heilbrun, 2001; Lattimore et al., 2004; Piquero, Brame, Mazerolle, & Haapanen, 2002; Ryan, Davis, & Yang, 2001; Trulson et al., 2005). The lack of research on the relationship of institutional misconduct to recidivism is thus surprising considering that misconduct behavior is a key indicator of continuity in delinquent and other antisocial behaviors. Moreover, factors found determinative of misconduct among institutionalized delinquent offenders (e.g., Kuanliang, Sorensen, & Cunningham, 2008; MacDonald, 1999; Trulson, 2007) are some of the same factors that have traditionally provided insight into postrelease recidivism (Cottle et al., 2001; Lattimore et al., 1995; Trulson et al., 2005). 3. INSTITUTIONAL MISCONDUCT IS A GOOD PREDICTOR OF REARREST AND NUMBER OF REARRESTS Dr Chad Trulson, Dr Matt DeLisi, Dr James Marquart, professors at the University of North Texas, Iowa State University, and the University of Texas, respectively, Institutional Misconduct, Delinquent Background, and Rearrest Frequency Among Serious and Violent Delinquent Offenders, July 20, 2009 In a second study, Lattimore and colleagues (2004) examined the postrelease rearrest rate of more than 3,000 California Youth Authority (CYA) wards during the first 3 years after their release from institutionalization. Lattimore and colleagues found that those youth who engaged in gangrelated activity while confined had an increased expected arrest rate of 9% and youth involved in CYA violence had an increased expected arrest rate of 14%, net the effects of a number of variables. Moreover, the rate of total misconduct infractions was also related to the expected arrest rate. Negative binomial and generalized negative binomial estimates revealed that a one unit increase in the wards infraction rate increased the expected arrest rate by 7%. Further analyses examining the predicted probability of rearrest relative to other variables found that those who engaged in misconduct while institutionalized had a higher predicted probability of arrest as their number of arrests increased. Thus, not only were various forms of misconduct associated with an increased expected arrest rate net the effects of other con- trols, but wards with misconduct problems also demonstrated a higher probability of rearrest as the number of rearrests increased.
21
OTHER FACTORS CAUSE RECIDIVISM

1. INSTITUTIONAL MISCONDUCT IS A GOOD INDICATOR OF RECIDIVISM Dr Chad Trulson, Dr Matt DeLisi, Dr James Marquart, professors at the University of North Texas, Iowa State University, and the University of Texas, respectively, Institutional Misconduct, Delinquent Background, and Rearrest Frequency Among Serious and Violent Delinquent Offenders, July 20, 2009 On one hand, the results of this study provide very limited support for the relationship of institutional misconduct to recidivism as found in the small body of extant research (although all misconduct coefficients were positive in relation to the postrelease rearrest rate, and this finding was generally true in the dichotomous models). For example, Lattimore and colleagues (2004) found that gang involvement, violent activity, and the total infraction rate while confined were some of the strongest predictors of the expected rearrest rate among a cohort of youth released from California juvenile facilities, independent of the effects of several social, familial, and delinquent history variables. Trulson and colleagues (2005) revealed that being an institutional danger significantly increased the odds of rearrest, net the effects of numerous delinquent and social history variables. Although the rate of total misconduct incidents as measured in this study was related to an increase in the expected rearrest rate (see also Huebner et al., 2007, finding a significant effect for an omnibus measure of total misconduct on reconviction timing), the effect was small. The bottom line is that the findings of this study generally support previous research on the effect of misconduct on recidivism, just not to the same extent, and such support appears to depend somewhat on whether the outcome examined is a rearrest rate versus variation in being rearrested. 2. INSTITUTIONAL MISCONDUCT IS CONSISTENTLY A GOOD PREDICTOR OF RECIDIVISM Dr Chad Trulson, Dr Matt DeLisi, Dr James Marquart, professors at the University of North Texas, Iowa State University, and the University of Texas, respectively, Institutional Misconduct, Delinquent Background, and Rearrest Frequency Among Serious and Violent Delinquent Offenders, July 20, 2009 To the best of our knowledge, only two research studies have empiri- cally examined the relationship of misconduct to recidivism among institutionalized juvenile offenders. In the first, Trulson and colleagues (2005) examined the recidivism outcomes of a sample of 2,436 state incarcerated delinquents released from Texass state juvenile facilities. Logistic regression analyses revealed that state delinquents categorized as institutional dangers while incarcerated had significantly higher odds of rearrest during a 5-year period postrelease. The odds of rearrest for institutional dangers increased by 40% for any offense and by 47% for a felony offense postrelease, independent of the effects of a number of delinquent and social history variables. In fact, institutional misconduct emerged as the strongest predictor of recidivism postrelease. 3. DELINQUENT ARREST RATE INCREASES FREQUENCY OF REARREST Dr Chad Trulson, Dr Matt DeLisi, Dr James Marquart, professors at the University of North Texas, Iowa State University, and the University of Texas, respectively, Institutional Misconduct, Delinquent Background, and Rearrest Frequency Among Serious and Violent Delinquent Offenders, July 20, 2009 Measures of total, assaultive, and generally antisocial misconduct provided little insight into the rearrest outcomes of serious and violent delinquent offenders postrelease. Although the measure of total misconduct was significant, its effect on the expected rearrest rate was extremely small and this finding was limited to the negative binomial model. Being a gang member, a substance abuser, and having incurred a lengthier and more serious adjudication record prior to commitment all delinquent history preincarceration measureswere related to significant increases in the expected rearrest rate, net the effects of other variables. However, gang membership was not significant in the dichotomous model, being a substance abuser was significant only in the felony arrest model, and total previous adjudications was significant only in the any rearrest model.
22
MISCONDUCT CAUSES RECIDIVISM

1. MISCONUCT FREQUENCY WHILE INSTITUTIONALIZED HAS A CORRELATIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH RECIDIVISM Dr Chad Trulson, Dr Matt DeLisi, Dr James Marquart, professors at the University of North Texas, Iowa State University, and the University of Texas, respectively, Institutional Misconduct, Delinquent Background, and Rearrest Frequency Among Serious and Violent Delinquent Offenders, July 20, 2009 The findings of the Trulson et al. and Lattimore et al. studies are also consistent with one recent research effort focused on a sample of young adult prisoners (e.g., ages 17-24). Huebner et al. (2007) found that the frequency of institutional misbehavior was one of the strongest predictors of timing to reconviction, controlling for other important variables. Prisoners rated as high on misconduct frequency while institutionalized (e.g., 12 and more infractions) were reconvicted more than a year earlier than those with low misconduct frequency and nearly 3 years sooner than those with zero recorded incidents of misconduct while confined. The small amount of research on the relationship of misconduct to recidivism has demonstrated that continuity in offending while institutionalized may have important effects on postrelease recidivism. 2. MISCONDUCT MUST BE ANALYZED IN PREDICTING RECIDIVISM RATES FOR SEVERAL REASONS Dr Chad Trulson, Dr Matt DeLisi, Dr James Marquart, professors at the University of North Texas, Iowa State University, and the University of Texas, respectively, Institutional Misconduct, Delinquent Background, and Rearrest Frequency Among Serious and Violent Delinquent Offenders, July 20, 2009 Although research remains limited, further inquiry into the relationship of misconduct to postrelease recidivism for juvenile offenders is important on a number of fronts. First, studies have confirmed that time institutionalized is for many juvenile offenders time to continue offending on the inside (MacDonald, 1999; Poole & Regoli, 1983; Trulson, 2007) and, for some, at a relatively frequent and serious pace (Kuanliang et al., 2008; Trulson, 2007). If such offenders demonstrate continuity in delinquent and other antisocial behaviors while institutionalized, despite the suppressive environment characteristic of institutionalization, there is little reason to believe that these offenders will cease offending in the immediate period following their release from institutionalization. In short, offending continuity inside may emerge as an important precursor of continued offending on the outside. Second, indicators of institutional misconduct are often the most proximate recorded behaviors demonstrated by delinquent offenders at their point of release from institutionalization. Delinquent history measures and other preincarceration variables routinely correlated with recidivism, for example, are often years divorced from a delinquents behavior while institutionalized, and even further separated from an offenders release from incarceration. If current behavior is most closely associated with the proximate past, the more recent behavioral measures of misconduct may then serve to advance our understanding of the determinants of postrelease recidivism. Indeed, a growing body of literature has found that local life circumstances are an important part of explaining current behavior (Piquero, Brame, et al., 2002; Piquero, MacDonald, & Parker, 2002; Sampson & Laub, 2003), and institutional misconduct measures shore up some of the time gap in knowledge on the behavior of institutionalized offenders. Third and finally, the relationship between misconduct and recidivism has important practical implications for those responsible for releasing juvenile offenders, especially for the release of the most serious, violent, and chronic of all state committed juvenile offenders. Youthful offenders who reach state incarceration are the most problematic offenders in the juvenile justice system. As a whole, they are offenders who are still on the escalation side of the aggregate agecrime curve (Sampson & Laub, 2003) are the most extreme of all left-hand side offenders (Piquero, Brame, et al., 2002), and, when released from state juvenile incarceration, represent some of the most risky offenders relative to recidivism. Greater insight into the potential of misconduct as a risk factor for recidivism postrelease, independent of the effects of traditionally used delinquent history indicators, would improve on knowledge in this area.
23
MISCONDUCT AND VIOLENT CRIMES SHOWS RECIVIDISM LIKELIHOOD

1. MISCONDUCT IS MOST RELEVANT FOR OFFENDERS WHO HAVE COMMITTED VIOLENT CRIMES Dr Chad Trulson, Dr Matt DeLisi, Dr James Marquart, professors at the University of North Texas, Iowa State University, and the University of Texas, respectively, Institutional Misconduct, Delinquent Background, and Rearrest Frequency Among Serious and Violent Delinquent Offenders, July 20, 2009 On the other hand, the findings of this study are more consistent with the body of research on the recidivism outcomes of state committed delinquents, in general, that delinquent history variables are some of the strongest determinants of recidivism (Cottle et al., 2001). For example, gang affiliation emerged as the strongest predictor of the expected rearrest rate, and this finding is consistent with a number of recent studies (Benda et al., 2001a, 2001b; Trulson et al., 2005; Wiebush, Wagner, McNulty, Wang, & Le, 2005). Prior adjudications was also related to the expected rearrest rate and rearrest, consistent with previous research (Cottle et al., 2001; Lattimore et al., 2004; Ryan et al., 2001; Trulson et al., 2005; Wiebush et al., 2005), as was the measure for substance abuse (Benda et al., 2001a, 2001b; Cottle et al., 2001). Although we found limited support for institutional misconduct relative to the expected rearrest rate, it is important to note some differences with this study compared to the body of previous research. First, this study examined an exclusive cohort of serious and violent state commitments. The sample in this study appears to represent a more serious and violent group of delinquents than used in previous research. This is not to criticize previous research but, rather, to recognize that institutional misconduct indicators, as measured in this study, may be more relevant among more generalized or mixed samples of institutionalized delinquent offenders than strictly serious and violent state commitments. Indeed, the sample of focus in this study was composed of a group of male offenders sentenced under a blended sentencing statute strictly reserved for the most serious and violent offenders in the state under study. In short, our results may not general- ize to less serious samples of institutionalized juvenile offenders. These findings imply that it is premature to close the door on the relationship of misconduct to recidivism, especially for serious and violent state commitments. This study is then a prompt for further research examining different offender samples and, in particular, the most serious of all state committed delinquents. Second and related, this research used several measures of misconduct. With the exception of one additive measure of total misconduct, all were individual measures of misconduct, and the diversity of misconduct measures in this study appears to be lacking in the juvenile literature (e.g., Steiner & Wooldredge, 2008). An avenue for further research would be to examine multiple types of misconduct and their relevance to both general institutionalized offender samples and more serious and violent institutionalized offender samples. Beyond the above considerations, there are limitations to this study that if improved may have provided further insight into the effect of misconduct on postrelease recidivism. The limitations herein also provide avenues for further research. First, we were not able to account for the seriousness of postrelease rearrests in the negative binomial model and were forced to treat all rearrest activity equally. Although basic descriptive statistics showed that less than one half of the entire release cohort were subsequently rearrested for a felony level offense, and the rank seriousness of the most serious postrelease rearrest was, on average, a low-level felony in the state under study, it would have been advantageous to estimate additional rearrest frequency models disaggregated by offense seriousness. Although we were able to estimate a logistic regression model based on the dichotomous outcomes of any rearrest and felony rearrest only, the structure of the data did not allow such disaggregation by rearrest frequency. 2. IT IS IMPORTANT TO INVESTIGATE REARREST RATES IN NONVIOLENT CRIMES IN ORDER TO DETERMINE IF VIOLENT CRIMES HAVE A HIGHER RECIDIVISM RATE Dr Chad Trulson, Dr Matt DeLisi, Dr James Marquart, professors at the University of North Texas, Iowa State University, and the University of Texas, respectively, Institutional Misconduct, Delinquent Background, and Rearrest Frequency Among Serious and Violent Delinquent Offenders, July 20, 2009 Because institutional misconduct of various types may have a different effect relative to different outcome indicators, a promising line of further research would be to explore the contributions of misconduct on rearrest frequency for serious and nonserious forms of rearrest, and even for specific types of offenses (e.g., violent vs. nonviolent felonies) within those broader categories of seriousness. Such research initiatives could be further disaggregated by type of offender, for example, homicidal offenders versus property offenders. Moreover, we were not able to assess the final disposition of rearrests. In short, we did not have information on whether the offender was eventually convicted. Information on final disposition would have provided more validity to our outcome measure and previous suggested analyses could be conducted for rearrests and supplemented with conviction outcomes.
24
MISCONDUCT INDICATES RECIDIVISM LIKELIHOOD

1. RISKY OFFENDERS EXPERIENCE PERIODS OF INCARCERATION POST-RELEASE Dr Chad Trulson, Dr Matt DeLisi, Dr James Marquart, professors at the University of North Texas, Iowa State University, and the University of Texas, respectively, Institutional Misconduct, Delinquent Background, and Rearrest Frequency Among Serious and Violent Delinquent Offenders, July 20, 2009 This research would have also benefited from information on postrelease incarceration time possibly experienced by released offenders. Periods of postrelease incarceration time reduce exposure and impose limitations on the potential frequency of rearrest postrelease and thus potential variation on the dependent variable. Although we do not know the effect that this limitation had on this analysis and did not have access to this information, previous research suggests that accounting for postrelease incarceration lends greater specificity to questions of continuity versus lulls or desistance in offending behavior postrelease (Lattimore et al., 2004; Piquero et al., 2001; Piquero, Brame, et al., 2002; Sampson & Laub, 2003). Although the absence of postrelease incarceration time is a frequent limitation in recidivism follow-ups and this study is no exception, Piquero et al. (2001) demonstrated that periods of incarceration had modest effects on criminal offending trajectories in their long-term follow-up of released institutionalized offenders. In their study, Piquero and colleagues revealed that controlling for periods of postrelease incarceration led to a 20% difference in catego- rizing offenders as desisting versus persisting based on their rearrest trajectories (Piquero et al., 2001). Inasmuch as this study was interested in rearrest frequency among serious and violent juvenile offenders, it is logical to assume that at least some of these risky offenders experienced periods of incarceration postrelease and those periods of incarceration time would have affected their ability to accumulate arrests and affected their postrelease rearrest rate.6 2. POSTRELEASE RECIDIVISM MAY BE RELATED TO MISCONDUCT TIMING Dr Chad Trulson, Dr Matt DeLisi, Dr James Marquart, professors at the University of North Texas, Iowa State University, and the University of Texas, respectively, Institutional Misconduct, Delinquent Background, and Rearrest Frequency Among Serious and Violent Delinquent Offenders, July 20, 2009 Finally, we believe it would be useful to explore the timing of misconduct relative to release from institutionalization. Although the data did not allow an examination of misconduct timing, we believe that the relevance of misconduct in explaining postrelease recidivism may be related to the timing of misconduct, not just its frequency and/or seriousness. For example, misconduct during the early years of incarceration may be less relevant than misconduct closer to release from incarceration. Indeed, the offenders of focus in this study served roughly 3.5 years incarcerated on average, and misconduct in the initial months and years of incarceration may be less relevant to postrelease behavior (and other outcomes such as adult prison transfer vs. release under blended sentencing statutes) than misconduct during the middle or later years of institutionalization. This presents another future research implication and, if such a study were conducted, would shed further light on the relationship of institutional misconduct to postrelease recidivism. 3. FREQUENCY AND SERIOUSNESS OF POST-RELEASE REARRESTS INDICATE THAT VIOLENT OFFENDERS ARE LESS VIOLENT POST-RELEASE Dr Chad Trulson, Dr Matt DeLisi, Dr James Marquart, professors at the University of North Texas, Iowa State University, and the University of Texas, respectively, Institutional Misconduct, Delinquent Background, and Rearrest Frequency Among Serious and Violent Delinquent Offenders, July 20, 2009 Despite the limitations above, we believe that this study adds to the small literature on the relationship of misconduct to postrelease recidivism for institutionalized delinquent offenders and provides a foundation for further and more specific research on this topic. We also believe that this study is relevant despite its limitations because it focuses on a cohort of perhaps the most serious and violent individuals to be released from juvenile correctional facilities under a blended sentencing statute. It is interesting that descriptive information on the frequency and seriousness of postrelease rearrests revealed that the serious and violent offenders in this study appeared less serious and frequent overall in their postrelease behavior than state delinquent samples in previous research (e.g., Ezell & Cohen, 2005; Parker, Morton, Lingefelt, & Johnson, 2005; Trulson et al., 2005).
25
NEGATIVE:
I stand to negate: Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system. VALUE The value for the round is societal welfare, defined as doing what is in the best interest of society as a whole. Since this resolution has a legal basis within the US, it is important that we evaluate the implications of the impacts of the round on the US as a whole. This is the most important value within the round, because it encompasses all other values with its overarching concern for welfare throughout every population within the US. CRITERION The criterion for the round is minority rights protection. In addition to protecting the rights of ethnic and racial minorities, I would argue that protecting the rights of people with psychological disorders, which are often overlooked in the justice system. CONTENTION 1 Transfer harms minorities disproportionately Although there are structural tendencies within the legal system to disadvantage minorities, these inequalities are exacerbated when deciding whether or not to send a juvenile to the adult justice system. THE ADULT JUSTICE SYSTEM IS VERY BIASED AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES Dr Jason Washburn, Dr Linda Teplin, Dr Laure Voss, et. al, September 2008, American Psychiatric Association, accessed 7/1/10, http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/ps;59/9/965 Transferred youths are disproportionately from underserved so- ciodemographic groups. Numerous studies indicate that transferred youths are disproportionately male and from racialethnic minority groups (4,6,116). Although disproportion- ate confinement of members of racialethnic minority groups is found at all levels of the juvenile justice system, it is even greater among youths transferred to adult criminal court. One study in California found that youths from racial-ethnic minority groups who were arrested for a violent crime were 3.1 times more likely to be transferred and convicted than non-His- panic white youths arrested for a violent crime (17). Males and youths from racial-ethnic minority groups were found to be significantly less likely than females and non-Hispanic white youths to receive needed mental health treatment after they are detained (18). Little, however, is known about racial-ethnic disparities in mental health needs among youths transferred to adult criminal court. THE LEGAL SYSTEM IS RACIST AND SEXIST; PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDERS ARE COMMON AMONG OFFENDERS Dr Jason Washburn, Dr Linda Teplin, Dr Laure Voss, et. al, September 2008, American Psychiatric Association, accessed 7/1/10, http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/ps;59/9/965 Males, African Americans, Hispanics, and older youths had greater odds of being processed in adult criminal court than females, non-Hispanic whites, and younger youths, even after the analyses controlled for felony-level violent crime. Among youths processed in adult criminal court, 68% had at least one psychiatric disorder and 43% had two or more types of disorders. Prevalence rates and the number of comorbid types of disorders were not significantly different between youths processed in adult criminal court and those processed in juvenile court. Among youths processed in adult criminal court, those sentenced to prison had significantly greater odds than those receiving a less severe sentence of having a disruptive behavior disorder, a substance use disorder, or comorbid affective and anxiety disorders. This exacerbating of the racial and psychological inequity within the judicial system is ultimately very harmful for society, because it entrenches racism and degredation of difference among people. Additionally, since people with psychologically disorders are not getting the treatment they need in order to offset their disorder, they are uniquely disadvantaged by their incarceration. This targetted racism can be particularly devastating at such an early age, because
West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies of the malleability of the minds of the juveniles being incarcerated.
26
27
NEGATIVE EXTENSIONS:
TRANSFER IS BAD FOR THE PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH OF JUVENILES
1. CHILDREN FACE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF HARDSHIP WHILE INCARCERATED Amnesty International, human rights organization, November 20, 1998, Amnesty International Web Page, accessed 7/1/2010, http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=D94FCE82406321E18025690000692DCA&lang=e Once they enter the justice system of the USA, many children experience violations of their fundamental human rights. Children in custody have been subjected to brutal physical force and cruel punishments, including placing them in isolation for lengthy periods. Many children are incarcerated when other action could or should have been taken. Children are often held in facilities that are seriously overcrowded and cannot provide adequate educational, mental health and other important services. A growing number of children are being tried as adults in the general criminal justice system and are subject to the same punishments as adults. Children are also held for months in jails before they are tried. There, they may be denied access to education and adequate opportunity to exercise. Thousands of convicted children are sent to prisons where they are not separated from adult prisoners, putting them at serious risk of physical and sexual abuse. 2. CHILDREN ARE UNIQUELY MENTALLY DIFFERENT FROM ADULTS WHEN THEY COMMIT CRIMES Dr Robert Hahn, Angela McGowan, Dr Akiva Liberman, Dr Alex Crosby, et. al, November 30, 2007, Center For Disease Control Web Page, accessed 7/1/2010, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5609a1.htm?s_cid=rr56 In general, juveniles differ from adults in their biologic development and mental processes and capacities. Juveniles are less aware of consequences, less able to regulate impulses or inhibit behavior, and thus less culpable for their actions than adults. In addition, juveniles have less ability to understand and thus participate in the standard adult judicial process. Finally, juveniles are more malleable and amenable to reform of their behavior. Therefore, an emphasis of the judicial response to their deviant behavior should be on reform rather than, or in addition to, punishment -- in contrast to the punitive focus of the adult criminal justice system. 3. TRANSFERRED JUVENILES ARE MORE LIKELY TO RECEIVE A HARSHER SENTENCE Dr Jason Washburn, Dr Linda Teplin, Dr Laure Voss, et. al, September 2008, American Psychiatric Association, accessed 7/1/10, http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/ps;59/9/965 Findings from an experimental study suggest that jurors may be biased against a youth being tried in an adult court, leading to a greater likelihood of a finding of guilt, higher confi- dence in the defendant? guilt, and a lower standard of proof for guilt (27). Indeed, youths processed in adult criminal court are more likely to be convicted and to receive more stringent sentences than those processed in juvenile court (20,22,28,29). Trans- ferred youths are also more likely to receive more severe punishments than young adults charged with similar crimes in adult criminal court (30). Nearly 60% of all transferred youths charged with violent offenses are adju- dicated to prison, compared with 26% of similarly charged adults (22). Ap- proximately 5,400 convicted youths are housed in adult prison facilities (6), where they may not receive age-appropriate interventions (31). Before we can develop age-appropriate interventions and plan for their implementation in the adult correctional system, we need to know which psychiatric disorders are most prevalent. 4. PSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS ARE MORE COMMON AMONG JUVENILES SENT TO THE ADULT JUSTICE SYSTEM Dr Jason Washburn, Dr Linda Teplin, Dr Laure Voss, et. al, September 2008, American Psychiatric Association, accessed 7/1/10, http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/ps;59/9/965 Our findings indicate that the prevalence rates of specific and comorbid psychiatric disorders are as high or higher for youths processed in adult criminal court as for youths processed in juvenile court. These findings are consistent with the clinical data reported by Beyer (32), who found no differences on a clinical assessment between youths processed in adult criminal court and in juvenile court. To our knowledge, the study reported here provides the first evidence that many transferred youths, like their peers processed in juvenile court, have substantial need for psychiatric and substance abuse services.These findings also suggest that transferred youths may have a greater need for psychiatric services than detained adults. Previous research indi-
West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies cates that less than 35% of detained adult males have a psychiatric disor-der (excluding antisocial personality disorder) (38); in contrast, 64% of transferred youths have a psychiatric disorder, even when conduct disorder is excluded. This study found that the six-month prevalence rate of major depression for transferred youths (16%) was three times greater than the lifetime rate among adult male detainees (5%) (38)
28
29
TRANSFER IS BAD FOR JUVENILES

1. JUVENILES HAVE A LESSER CAPACITY FOR REASONING AND MORAL JUDGEMENT Donna Bishop, professor at the College of Criminal Justice at Northeastern University, Juvenile Transfer in the United States, May 29, 2009 A fundamental tenet is that adolescents are immature (Bernard 1992; Scott and Grisso 1997; Feld 1999). Their lesser capacities for reasoning and moral judgment diminish their culpability and render them undeserving of the full burden of retributive punishments (Zimring 1981, 1991, 1998; Forst and Blomquist 1991; Scott and Grisso 1997). Moreover, from a purely util- itarian perspective, their limited ability to anticipate and weigh long- term consequences makes it unlikely that threats of criminal sanctions will deter them (Teitelbaum 1991).2 Finally, cultural conceptions of children and adolescents have traditionally emphasized youths' dependency and vulnerability, characteristicsthat tend to evoke compassion- ate responses rather than punitive ones. 2. TRANSFERRED JUVENILES HAVE A GREATER NEED FOR REHABILITATION Dr Jason Washburn, Dr Linda Teplin, Dr Laure Voss, et. al, September 2008, American Psychiatric Association, accessed 7/1/10, http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/ps;59/9/965 We also found that the odds of having a psychiatric disorder were greater among transferred youths sentenced to prison than those who received less severe sentences. The specific disorders associated with increased odds for a prison sentence were, not surprisingly, disruptive behavior and substance use disorders. Higher rates of disruptive behavior and substance use disorders may rea- sonably be expected among youths with greater antisocial traits, assuming that a sentence to prison is a proxy for greater antisociality. In other words, disruptive behavior and substance use disorders may reflect underlying antisocial traits. A parallel result has been found among adult male prisoners, of whom approximately half meet criteria for antisocial personality disorder (40). The higher prevalence of comorbid disorders found among prisonbound youths, however, is not as easily ex- plained by underlying antisocial traits. On average, youths transferred to adult criminal court and sentenced to prison had more than one psychiatric disorder, and 15% had all four major types of psychiatric disorders. Furthermore, the types of comorbid disorders were not limited to behavioral or substance use disorders; receiving a prison sentence was associated with greater odds of having comorbid affective and anxiety disorders. These findings suggest that transferred youths sentenced to prison not only have greater needs for behavioral rehabilitation to address disruptive behavior and substance use disorders than transferred youths receiving less severe sentences, but they also have greater needs for psychiatric treatment of major affective and anxiety disorders. 3. IF TEENS ARE MALLEABLE, TRANSFER IS A BAD DECISION, BECAUSE THE ADULT JUSTICE SYSTEM IS HARSHER Donna Bishop, professor at the College of Criminal Justice at Northeastern University, Juvenile Transfer in the United States, May 29, 2009 Another foundational assumption is that teens are more malleable than adults. Adolescence is understood as a transitional period that involves exploration of new roles and behaviors. In this view, youths' bad actions are more often transitory than prophetic. Prudent social policy gives youths "room to reform" (Zimring 1982, 1998) by responding to adolescent missteps in ways that do not interfere with the normal transition to responsible adulthood (Zimring 1982, 1998). From this perspective, transfer is ill advised because it exposes young people to the stigmatizing consequences of a criminal conviction and because it may result in lengthy incarceration that fosters dependency at a critical stage when youths should be moving toward independence. Malleability also implies that young people are especially susceptible to external influences. It suggests that they are well suited to efforts to shape them in positive ways (Scott and Grisso 1997), making rehabilitative strategies particularlyattractive.It also denotes that they need to be shielded from negative influences. The traditional view has been that criminal punishment might do serious harm by exposing youths to the corrupting influence of mature and experienced offenders in adult correctional facilities. Indeed, the perceived evil of mixing impressionable young offenders with adult criminals was a primary force behind the development of a separate juvenile justice system (Fox 1970; Whi- senand and McLaughlin 1982). For all these reasons, then, resort to the criminal court has historically been viewed as appropriateonly in instances where youths were seen as irredeemable, either on moral grounds or as a matter of fact.
30
TRANSFER CAUSES HARM TO JUVENILES

1. TRANSFERRED JUVENILES REJECT THEIR TRANSFER AND THE SYSTEM Kristin Johnson, Dr Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, Dr Jennifer Woolard, professors at the University of Florida and Georgetown University, Disregarding Graduated Treatment: Why Transfer Aggravates Recidivism, February 10, 2009 Transfer to adult systems, even those that promote treatment, may be counterproductive. From youths perspectives, both the transferred youth who had prior experiences in the juvenile justice system and the nontransferred youth who were retained in the juvenile system possessed favorable views of juvenile courts and their processes and outcomes (Lane, Lanza-Kaduce, Frazier, & Bishop, 2002). On the other hand, youth transferred to the adult system held negative views of the criminal justice system as illegitimate, unfair, and hostile toward them. 2. THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM IS BETTER EQUIPPED TO HANDLE JUVENILES THAN THE ADULT JUSTICE SYSTEM IS Kristin Johnson, Dr Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, Dr Jennifer Woolard, professors at the University of Florida and Georgetown University, Disregarding Graduated Treatment: Why Transfer Aggravates Recidivism, February 10, 2009 These results are consistent with other research that suggests that the juvenile justice system is better equipped to handle most juvenile offenders. The findings of the present study suggest that unwarranted transfer detrimentally affects recidivism. If treatment matches the ideal, the fact that a juvenile is back in the system, no matter what for, means that prior treatment efforts did not work, so the next step should be taken. If graduated interventions help, the sanction issued for the current offense needs to be more intensive than the previous sanction provided. The implication of these results is that deep-end juvenile placements or transfer should be used only if it is the next step in the correctional continuum. Because of the importance of this implication, more research examining correctional histories is warranted. 3. TRANSFER DENOTES THAT A JUVENILE IS BEYOND REHABILITATION Benjamin Steiner, assistant professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of South Carolina, The Effects of Juvenile Transfer to Criminal Court on Incarceration Decisions, March 2009 As noted previously, the expansion of state transfer statutes that occurred in the 1980s and 1990s was largely a response to the increase in juvenile arrests for violent crime (Feld, 2003; Steiner & Hemmens, 2003). Empirical findings regarding disproportional juvenile offending (e.g., Wolfgang, Figlio, & Sellin, 1972) and a growing youth population fueled discussions of juvenile super predators who were responsible for large percentages of the serious and violent crime (see, e.g., Bennett, DiIulio, & Walters, 1996; Zimring, 1998). It was perceived that these violent youth originated from disadvantaged urban areas characterized by environmental features such as poverty, high mobility, considerable drug activity, and racial heterogeneity (Feld, 1999, 2003; see also Wilson, 1987). In short, these youth were perceived as a particularly threatening element of the supposed dangerous class. Many state transfer laws were amended so as to provide a formal response which would afford these dangerous youth the control and punishment the rehabilitative-driven juvenile court could not provide (Feld, 1999, 2003; Ruth & Reitz, 2003). It follows that being transferred to criminal court may portray a youth as high risk and beyond rehabilitative repair (Kurlychek & Johnson, 2004).
31
JUVENILES ARE LIKELY TO BE TREATED MORE HARSHLY

1. TRANSFERRED JUVENILES ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE HELD ON BAIL AND SENTENCED HARSHER THAN ADULTS Benjamin Steiner, assistant professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of South Carolina, The Effects of Juvenile Transfer to Criminal Court on Incarceration Decisions, March 2009 Recall that these models were only estimated for their potential to explain why defendants with particular extralegal characteristics may be disadvantaged at later stages of the court process. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that being transferred to criminal court had no effect on bail amount, yet transferred juveniles were more likely to be held on bail. Females received lower bail amounts than males, and being Hispanic was associated with receiving a higher bail amount. African American defendants were more likely to be held on bail, despite the null effect of a defendant's race on bail amount. For both transferred juveniles and African Americans, the odds of being held on bail were about 4 percent higher than their reference groups.6 A similar assortment of findings were observed by Demuth (2003), and consistent with his observations, the findings from this study suggest that African American, Hispanic and transferred juveniles are unlikely to make bail. Thus, bail for defendant groups which are more likely to be economically disadvantaged may effectively function to deny release (Demuth, 2003). Defendants who were transferred to criminal court were more likely to be sentenced to prison than adult defendants. Being transferred to criminal court corresponded with a 16 percent increase in the odds of imprisonment. Thus, the results from this study are consistent with Kurlychek and Johnson's (2004) findings. Regarding the other extralegal characteristics, female defendants were less likely to be sentenced to prison, while neither race nor ethnicity had effects on judicial decisions regarding incarceration. 2. VIOLENT OFFENDERS ARE LESS LIKELY TO BE RELEASED ON BAIL Benjamin Steiner, assistant professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of South Carolina, The Effects of Juvenile Transfer to Criminal Court on Incarceration Decisions, March 2009 The percent homicide arrests juveniles was negatively related to the level of detention use in all the models, suggesting that in counties where homicide perpetrated by juveniles was more common, young defendants accused of such crimes were less likely to be denied bail. Family disruption was positively related to detention use, while racial inequality and concentrated disadvantage did not have an effect on the rate of detention. Although the level-1 effect of transferred juvenile varied across counties for both outcomes, none of the contextual measures could account for these differences. As such, the county-level variables were dropped from the models of the level-1 slopes. 3. TRANSFERRED JUVENILES ARE MORE LIKELY TO HAVE HARSHER SENTENCES THAN ADULTS Benjamin Steiner, assistant professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of South Carolina, The Effects of Juvenile Transfer to Criminal Court on Incarceration Decisions, March 2009 Regarding the pretrial detention decision, the result of the analysis revealed no differences between the transferred juveniles and adult defendants in terms of whether they were released without bail or denied bail. Thus, hypothesis one was not supported by this analysis. Juveniles transferred to criminal court, however, were less likely to make bail. Consistent with Demuth's (2003) observations regarding other economically disadvantaged groups (e.g., Hispanics); transferred juveniles were more likely to be detained at the pretrial stage because of their inability to pay their bail amount. Taking these findings one step further, this study revealed that being held in pretrial detention was a strong predictor of being sentenced to prison. Thus, a transfer to juvenile court, which affords waived juveniles the right to bail, may operate to disadvantage those juveniles who cannot make bail because they may appear more dangerous to courtroom actors at later stages of the process by virtue of being in custody (see also, Lizotte 1978). By contrast, juveniles do not enjoy the right to bail in the juvenile system (Hemmens, Steiner, & Mueller, 2004). In the juvenile justice system, the decision to detain is generally guided by legal factors, much like the decision to deny bail in the adult system. In addition to the difference in the ability to post bail between transferred juveniles and young adult defendants, the findings from this study also revealed that transferred juveniles were more likely to be sentenced to prison than the adult defendants. This finding supports the first hypothesis, and when considered along with Kurlychek and Johnson's (2004) findings, reinforces the idea that juveniles transferred to criminal court may be labeled as dangerous and perhaps beyond rehabilitative repair. Accordingly, a juvenile's status as transferred becomes an influential factor court actors may use to reduce the uncertainty in the sentencing decision (see, e.g., Albonetti, 1991; Kurlychek & Johnson, 2004; Steffensmeier et al., 1998).
32
TRANSFER IS HARMFUL TO JUVENILES

1. EXTRALEGAL CHARACTERISTICS EFFECT TRANSFERS MORE SERIOUSLY Benjamin Steiner, assistant professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of South Carolina, The Effects of Juvenile Transfer to Criminal Court on Incarceration Decisions, March 2009 Although researchers of criminal courts generally acknowledge that legal factors such as the seriousness of the offense and the defendant's prior record account for most of the variation in legal decisions, these scholars have also typically considered the influence of the age, race, gender, and class of criminal defendants on court actors' decisions at various stages of the legal process (see, e.g., Demuth, 2003; Spohn & Holleran, 2000; Steffensmeier, Ulmer, & Kramer, 1998; Steffensmeier & Demuth, 2001; Ulmer & Johnson, 2004; Wooldredge, Griffin, & Rauschenberg, 2005). Explanations regarding why such extralegal factors may affect legal decision-making have often been framed within a symbolic interactionist perspective. For example, Albonetti (1991), Hawkins (1987), and Steffensmeier et al. (1998) have offered perspectives which describe how judges and other courtroom actors develop a sort of perceptual shorthand to evaluate the risk criminal defendants pose to the community. In making these evaluations, courtroom actors reduce the uncertainty in decision-making by relying on stereotypes derived from defendants' characteristics (Albonetti, 1991). Extralegal characteristics of defendants which are overrepresented in the offender population relative to their distribution in the general population often provide the foundation for such stereotypes. Within this framework, criminal defendants who are young, minorities, male, or from lower socioeconomic strata are perceived as more threatening than other persons because they often symbolize the dangerous class which is thought to pose the greatest threat to society (Steffensmeier et al., 1998). As such, these factors are predicted to be associated with harsher outcomes (e.g., pretrial detention, prison sentences) because of courtroom actors' interest in controlling and reducing crime. Empirical support for the influence of extralegal characteristics on various legal decisions has been provided by Demuth (2003), Johnson (2006), Koons-Witt (2002), Kurlychek and Johnson (2004), Myers and Talarico (1986), Spohn and Holleran (2000), Steffensmeier et al. (1998), Steffensmeier and Demuth (2001), Ulmer and Johnson (2004), Wooldredge and Griffin (2005), Wooldredge et al. (2005), and Zatz (2000), although it should be noted that these researchers found most of the variation in decisions to be accounted for by legal factors. Considering the perspectives discussed above, the extralegal characteristics of criminal defendants may also interact with one another to disadvantage those defendants who possess multiple characteristics perceived as threatening more severely than those defendants who possess only one of these characteristics. For instance, Steffensmeier et al. (1998) uncovered that African American males who were between the ages of 21 and 29 constituted the subgroup of offenders who were sentenced most harshly in Pennsylvania even after all legally relevant criteria and the main effects of the defendants' gender, race, and age were controlled. Other researchers have also found evidence of interactions between extralegal characteristics that have yielded less favorable outcomes for certain offender subgroups (e.g., Demuth, 2003; Spohn, 2000; Spohn & Holleran, 2000; Wooldredge, 1998). Similarly, some studies have determined that court actors evaluate some legal factors differently for particular groups of defendants (e.g., Albonetti, 1991; Kurlychek & Johnson, 2004; Zatz, 2000). 2. WHEN CRIME IS HIGH, THE EFFECT OF A TRANSFER IS LOW Benjamin Steiner, assistant professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of South Carolina, The Effects of Juvenile Transfer to Criminal Court on Incarceration Decisions, March 2009 Turning to the cross-level interaction effects, the percent homicide arrests juveniles had negative effects in all three models. The consistency of this finding suggests that the level-1 effects of being transferred to criminal court become weaker in counties where a higher percentage of homicides were committed by juveniles. Similarly, although contrary to what was expected, the effect of being transferred to criminal court becomes weaker in counties with higher levels of racial inequality.
33
INTERNATIONAL OPPOSITION TO TREATING CHILDREN AS ADULTS IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM

1. AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL URGES THE US TO RATIFY WITHOUT RESERVATION ALL INTERNATIONAL PROTECTIONS FOR CHILDREN Amnesty International, human rights organization, November 20, 1998, Amnesty International Web Page, accessed 7/1/2010, http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=D94FCE82406321E18025690000692DCA&lang=e Disturbingly, however, a number of the violations are actually sanctioned by US laws. The USA has refused to implement fully the protection of the human rights of children provided by international standards. Amnesty International urges the US federal government to ratify without reservations all international standards for the protection of children and calls upon all US authorities to ensure that their laws, policies and practices are fully consistent with these standards. The international community has adopted minimum standards to govern the conduct of states. These are based on the precept that human rights are an international responsibility, not simply an internal matter. International human rights standards articulate the criteria against which the conduct of all states should be measured. The USA's reluctance to accept international human rights treaties and standards denies US children rights and protections which governments in virtually every other country in the world have agreed to recognize. UNDERLYING SOCIETAL VALUES WARN AGAINST TREATING JUVENILES AS ADULTS 1. A CHILD'S RIGHT TO LIBERTY OPPOSES LONG PERIODS OF INCARCERATION Amnesty International, human rights organization, November 20, 1998, Amnesty International Web Page, accessed 7/1/2010, http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=D94FCE82406321E18025690000692DCA&lang=e Libertyis one of the fundamental human rights enshrined in international human rights standards and US law. International standards require authorities to avoid depriving children of their liberty unless there is no appropriate alternative. The incarceration of children is a matter of grave concern not only because liberty is a fundamental human right but because incarceration has inherent risks to the physical and mental integrity of children and may expose them to negative influences rather than promoting their rehabilitation. The harm that children suffer as a consequence of incarceration may be permanent. 2. TRANSFER HAS LITTLE TO NO REDEEMING VALUE Donna Bishop, professor at the College of Criminal Justice at Northeastern University, Juvenile Transfer in the United States, May 29, 2009 Expansive transfer policies send many minor and nonthreatening offenders to the adult system, exacerbateracial disparities, and move adolescents with special needs into correctional systems ill prepared to handle them. Transfer results in more severe penalties for some offenders, but there is no evidence that it achieves either general or specific deterrent effects. There is credible evidence that prosecution and punishment in the adult system increase the likelihood of recidivism, offsetting incapacitative gains. Transfer also exposes young people to heightened vulnerability to a host of unfortunate experiences and outcomes. 3. TRANSFERRING JUVENILES TO THE ADULT JUSTICE SYSTEM DOES NOT DETER CRIME Donna Bishop, professor at the College of Criminal Justice at Northeastern University, Juvenile Transfer in the United States, May 29, 2009 Extant studies of the effectiveness of transfer as a crime control policy are too few to be definitive, but they all point toward the same con- clusions. There is no evidence that transfer has any general deterrent value: the enactment and implementation of well-publicized transfer legislation does not appearto decrease the incidence of target offenses. Similarly,there is no evidence that transferhas marginalspecific deterrent benefits over processing in the juvenile system. The existing re-search indicates that juveniles prosecuted as adults reoffend more quickly and at rates equal to or higher than comparable youths retained in the juvenile system. When transfer is applied broadly to offenders who are neither particularlyserious nor particularlychronic, any short-term incapacitative gains appear to be quickly offset.
34
UNDERLYING SOCIETAL VALUES WARN AGAINST TREATING JUVENILES AS ADULTS

1. PUNISHMENT IS HARSH AND RECIDIVISM IS HIGH AMONG TRANSFERRED JUVENILES Donna Bishop, professor at the College of Criminal Justice at Northeastern University, Juvenile Transfer in the United States, May 29, 2009 Most transferredyouths convicted of violent offenses receive sentences far more severe than could be imposed in the vast majority of the nation's juvenile courts. (This is true except in those few states, such as Texas, that permit the juvenile courts to sentence some categories of violent offenders to lengthy terms of incarceration.) Seventy- eight percent are sentenced to prison, with an average maximum term of nearly twelve years. Even assuming generous gain time provisions, most will serve far longer terms than if they had been retained in the juvenile courts and committed to residential programs.23Nearly half of those convicted of property, drug, and weapons offenses also receive prison sentences, with average maximum terms of 4.25, 6.67, and 5.5 years, respectively. The rest-a slight majority of youths transferred for property, drug, and weapons offenses-receive jail sentences or are placed on probation, sentences well within the range that may be imposed by juvenile courts. Overall, the results suggest that more than half of transferredoffenders who are convicted are sentenced to terms that exceed those they would have received had they remained in the juvenile system. 2. STATUES DELINIATING BETWEEN SERIOUS AND NON-SERIOUS OFFENSES ARE TOO EXPANSIVE Donna Bishop, professor at the College of Criminal Justice at Northeastern University, Juvenile Transfer in the United States, May 29, 2009 Consistent with my observations regarding lowered thresholds of tolerance for juvenile crime, many statutes have been modified to exclude lesser offenses against persons as well as drug, weapons, and property offenses (Griffin, Torbet, and Szymanski 1998). The Illinois experience is instructive. When enacted in 1982, Illinois' exclusion statute applied only to youths fifteen and older charged with first degree murder, aggravated sexual assault, and robbery with a firearm.In 1985, it was amended to include drug and weapons (not simply firearm)offenses that take place in or near schools. In 1990 in an action that clearly had an impact on minorities and the poor, it was modified once again to include drug and weapons (not simply firearm) offenses that take place on or near public housing, as well as gang-related felonies. In 1995, the law was changed yet again to lower the age limit to thirteen for murder and sexual assault (Clarke 1996). Although originally designed to apply to very serious offenders, the statute was expanded incrementally to include felonies of only moderate severity and to encompass youths barely in their teens. 3. VIOLENCE AFTER RELEASE IS HIGHER IN JUVENILES WHO GO THROUGH THE ADULT JUSTICE SYSTEM; DETERRENCE IS UNWARRANTED; TRANSFER LAWS ARE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO PUBLIC SAFETY Dr Robert Hahn, Angela McGowan, Dr Akiva Liberman, Dr Alex Crosby, et. al, November 30, 2007, Center For Disease Control Web Page, accessed 7/1/2010, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5609a1.htm?s_cid=rr56 Review of the effects of transfer laws on subsequent violence indicates that the experience of transfer to the adult criminal justice system is associated with subsequent violence among juvenile participants when compared with violence among juveniles retained in the juvenile justice system. In addition, little evidence supports the idea that transfer laws deter juveniles in the general population from violent crime. These policies might be favored by policymakers or the public for other reasons (e.g., societal retribution in response to serious crime or incapacitation of serious offenders). However, the review indicates that use of transfer laws and strengthened transfer policies is counterproductive to reducing juvenile violence and enhancing public safety.
35
TRANSFER IS SOCIALLY HARMFUL

1. THE ECONOMIC COST OF TRANSFER SHOULD BE CLOSELY EVALUATED Dr Robert Hahn, Angela McGowan, Dr Akiva Liberman, Dr Alex Crosby, et. al, November 30, 2007, Center For Disease Control Web Page, accessed 7/1/2010, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5609a1.htm?s_cid=rr56 In some sense, evaluating costs of interventions (e.g., transfer) that cause net harm seems counterintuitive; ideally, spending that results in increased violence and additional societal costs should be discouraged. However, documenting the variability and relative costs of the two judicial and correctional systems, the distribution of responsibility for these costs across different levels of government and society, and the net balance of program costs, the costs of subsequent crime, and the costs of opportunities lost to the juveniles themselves might allow a constructive discussion of the economic consequences of change. 2. THE ADULT JUSTICE SYSTEM IS VERY BIASED AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES Dr Jason Washburn, Dr Linda Teplin, Dr Laure Voss, et. al, September 2008, American Psychiatric Association, accessed 7/1/10, http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/ps;59/9/965 Transferred youths are disproportionately from underserved so- ciodemographic groups. Numerous studies indicate that transferred youths are disproportionately male and from racialethnic minority groups (4,6,116). Although disproportion- ate confinement of members of racialethnic minority groups is found at all levels of the juvenile justice system, it is even greater among youths transferred to adult criminal court. One study in California found that youths from racial-ethnic minority groups who were arrested for a violent crime were 3.1 times more likely to be transferred and convicted than non-His- panic white youths arrested for a violent crime (17). Males and youths from racial-ethnic minority groups were found to be significantly less likely than females and non-Hispanic white youths to receive needed mental health treatment after they are detained (18). Little, however, is known about racial-ethnic disparities in mental health needs among youths transferred to adult criminal court. 3. THE LEGAL SYSTEM IS RACIST AND SEXIST; PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDERS ARE COMMON AMONG OFFENDERS Dr Jason Washburn, Dr Linda Teplin, Dr Laure Voss, et. al, September 2008, American Psychiatric Association, accessed 7/1/10, http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/ps;59/9/965 Males, African Americans, Hispanics, and older youths had greater odds of being processed in adult criminal court than females, non-Hispanic whites, and younger youths, even after the analyses controlled for felony-level violent crime. Among youths processed in adult criminal court, 68% had at least one psychiatric disorder and 43% had two or more types of disorders. Prevalence rates and the number of comorbid types of disorders were not significantly different between youths processed in adult criminal court and those processed in juvenile court. Among youths processed in adult criminal court, those sentenced to prison had significantly greater odds than those receiving a less severe sentence of having a disruptive behavior disorder, a substance use disorder, or comorbid affective and anxiety disorders. 4. COURT CLOG IS ESPECIALLY BAD IN ADULT COURTS AND THIS IS VERY DAMAGING FOR JUVENILES Dr Jason Washburn, Dr Linda Teplin, Dr Laure Voss, et. al, September 2008, American Psychiatric Association, accessed 7/1/10, http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/ps;59/9/965 Youths transferred to adult criminal court typically wait substan- tially longer for their case to be adju- dicated (that is, a finding of guilt or innocence) than their peers in the juvenile system (191). They are also less likely than adults to be released before adjudication (22). Because transferred youths are incarcerated for longer periods than youths processed in juvenile court, they may be at greater risk of developing psychiatric problems than those held in detention for shorter periods. For example, the conditions associated with extended detention, such as separation from loved ones, crowding, and soli- tary confinement, may increase the risk of suicidal behavior (236).
36
TRANSFERS ARE HARMFUL TO REHABILITATION

1. THE AFF WOULDN'T ALLOW FOR CASE-BY-CASE VARIABILITY Nicole Garberd, Dr Terry Libkuman, psychology professors at Central Michigan University, Community Sentiment and the Juvenile Offender: Should Juveniles Charged with Felony Murder be Waived into the Adult Criminal Justice System?, May 13, 2009 Overall, the most important conclusion from these studies is that the defendants level of involvement in a crime and the heinousness of that crime influenced transfer decisions. Furthermore, defendants were transferred in a manner proportional to their involvement and the severity of the crimes. Therefore, community sentiment does not support the assumption that all defendants charged under the felony murder rule should be regarded as equally culpable and sentenced in an equalistic manner. Defendants in the present studies were transferred in a manner proportional to their level of involvement in the crimes that were committed. As previously mentioned, current automatic legislative waiver policy does not allow for mitigating factors such as a defendants level of involvement in a given crime to be evaluated. Therefore, we recommend, in accordance with Stalans and Henry (1994), that the courts make note of mitigating or aggravating factors prior to issuing a transfer decision. Furthermore, community sentiment is not in accord with the automatic legislative waiver policy, because this policy does not take mitigating factors such as a defendants level of involvement in a crime into consideration when making a transfer decision. 2. TRANSFER IS HIGHLY CORRELATED WITH RECIDIVISM Kristin Johnson, Dr Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, Dr Jennifer Woolard, professors at the University of Florida and Georgetown University, Disregarding Graduated Treatment: Why Transfer Aggravates Recidivism, February 10, 2009 Transfer to the adult system represents the extreme end of the sanction continuum for offenders under 18 years of age. Its popularity continues despite a lack of empirical evidence supporting its efficacy. Comparative studies suggest that waived juveniles are more likely to reoffend, more quickly, at a higher rate, and perhaps with more serious offenses than juveniles retained in the juvenile court (Krisberg & Howell, 1998, p. 358). There is a growing body of such research that indicates that transfer does indeed aggravate recidivism (Barnoski, 2003; Bishop, Frazier, LanzaKaduce, & Winner, 1996; Fagan, 1995; Lanza-Kaduce, Lane, Bishop, & Frazier, 2005; Myers, 2001; Podkopacz & Feld, 1996; Winner, Lanza- Kaduce, Bishop, & Frazier, 1997). 3. THE ADULT CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM DEEMPHASIZES REHABILITATION EFFORTS Kristin Johnson, Dr Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, Dr Jennifer Woolard, professors at the University of Florida and Georgetown University, Disregarding Graduated Treatment: Why Transfer Aggravates Recidivism, February 10, 2009 The adult criminal justice system deemphasizes the treatment prong. To the extent that it emphasizes punishment, a sanction should fit the crime and the criminal history of an offender (Feld, 1987, 1988). Transfer to the adult system may result in incarceration in secure facilities, but it does not guarantee more intensive treatment. Consequently, transfer can be graduated only in the sense that some juveniles are considered to have exhausted all treatment options available within the juvenile justice system, to be unreceptive to treatment, or to need secure punishment that surpasses what the juvenile system can provide to hold the youth sufficiently accountable. In the present study, we incorporated information about prior correctional interventions to examine whether departures from graduated treatment might aggravate recidivism. A particular focus was on transfer to adult criminal courts, which often increases recidivism. Specifically, we examined whether transfer increases recidivism because it leapfrogs over graduated sanctions that may fit young offenders needs.
37
GRADUATED SANCTIONS CAN SOLVE RECIDIVISM

1. TRANFER AGGREVATES RECIDIVISM UNLESS THERE ARE GRADUATED SANCTIONS IN PLACE Kristin Johnson, Dr Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, Dr Jennifer Woolard, professors at the University of Florida and Georgetown University, Disregarding Graduated Treatment: Why Transfer Aggravates Recidivism, February 10, 2009 These data merge correctional histories with official state and courthouse information for a sample of teenage offenders, some of whom had been transferred to the adult system. Previous research indicated that transfer aggravates recidivism after the age of 18. The correctional data allow the examination of the relationship between sanctions and recidivism for repeat offenders. The authors explored whether repeat offenders who received graduated sanctions had lower recidivism after age 18 than those who leap- frogged over graduated sanctions. Transfer often involves leapfrogging over treatment options; sometimes it leads to secure placement in adult facilities but sometimes it results in adult probation. Within the juvenile justice system, some repeat offenders jump over intermediate interventions to deep-end placements. Graduated sanctions lead to less recidivism. When measures of graduated sanctions are included in multivariate analyses, transfer no longer predicts recidivism. 2. GRAUATED SANCTIONS SOLVE RECIDIVISM Kristin Johnson, Dr Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, Dr Jennifer Woolard, professors at the University of Florida and Georgetown University, Disregarding Graduated Treatment: Why Transfer Aggravates Recidivism, February 10, 2009 A continuing concern about this research is the comparability of youth who are transferred into adult criminal courts with those who are retained in juvenile courts (for a recent review, see McGowan et al., 2007). One area that needs more attention is the prior correctional histories of transferred and retained youth and how the pattern of prior sanctions relates to recidivism. For repeat offenders, the pattern of sanctions can represent different approaches to stem juvenile crime that contrast the treatment philosophy of juvenile justice with the punish ment philosophy of adult criminal justice. A key to understanding this difference is graduated sanctions. These gradations form a continuum of intervention options . . . that needs to be paralleled by a continuum of treatment options. As offenders progress in the graduated sanctions system, treatments must become more structured and intensive to effectively deal with the more intractable problems that more difficult and dangerous offenders present. (Krisberg & Howell, 1998, p. 358) 4. TREATMENT WOULD BE MORE EFFECTIVE IF GRADUATED SANCTIONS WERE IN PLACE Kristin Johnson, Dr Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, Dr Jennifer Woolard, professors at the University of Florida and Georgetown University, Disregarding Graduated Treatment: Why Transfer Aggravates Recidivism, February 10, 2009 The position that transfer will reduce recidivism is unsupported. The evidence to date supports the conclusion that retaining juvenile offenders in the juvenile justice system produces lower recidivism rates (Howell, 1996, p. 49). Transfer of youth to the adult criminal justice system makes recidivism worse, regardless of the juveniles levels of risk (Barnoski, 2003; Bishop et al., 1996; Fagan, 1995; Lanza-Kaduce et al., 2005; Myers, 2001; Podkopacz & Feld, 1996; Winner et al., 1997). More effective treatment in the juvenile justice system is one of the possible explanations that Myers (2001) offered for the lower recidivism rates in juvenile courts. One way to make treatment more effective may be to make it graduated. Indeed, several reviews and evaluations of juvenile justice system programs show the effectiveness of graduated sanctions (Krisberg & Howell, 1998, p. 358; see Altschuler & Armstrong, 1994; Hamparian, 1984; Mahoney, 1987; Pennell, Curtis, & Scheck, 1990; Schneider, 1990). Other research has linked graduated sanctions with Tylers (1990) procedural justice theory (see Taxman et al., 1999). A procedure that is perceived as fair is more likely to enhance compliance than one that is not perceived as fair (Taxman et al., 1999, p. 186). We similarly suggest procedural justice theory as an explanation for why a juveniles individual history of correctional interventions may affect recidivism. What happens if sanctions are not graduated from offense to offense? In particular, what happens if transfer leapfrogs juveniles over more suitable sanctions? Such an action may produce a sense of injustice, or perceived unfairness in official processing, which is counterproductive to the treatment ideal (Lanza- Kaduce & Radosevich, 1987). If a juvenile perceives that he or she was treated unfairly by the system, then all of its actions, aims, and decisions will likely be viewed as illegitimate, and the juvenile will be resistant to any efforts to modify his or her behavior. To the extent that juveniles perceive transfer as being unfair, we would expect resistance to intervention. Even if some treatments are effective for some offenders (see Lipsey & Wilson, 1993), their efficacy will be compromised by perceived unfairness.
38
GRADUATED SANCTIONS CAN SOLVE RECIDIVISM

1. GRADUATED SANCTIONS SHOULD BE PROPORTIONALLY INCREMENTALLY HARSHER Kristin Johnson, Dr Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, Dr Jennifer Woolard, professors at the University of Florida and Georgetown University, Disregarding Graduated Treatment: Why Transfer Aggravates Recidivism, February 10, 2009 From a treatment orientation, the sanction should fit the offender (Feld, 1987, 1988), but it does not necessarily need to fit the offense. The commission of another offense indicates that previous treatment was insufficient. We argue that to be graduated, the degree of intervention provided for a new offense should be incremental; it needs to be more intensive than it had been for the previous offenses. In other words, a repeat offender should move further along the intervention continuum. 2. GRADUATED SANCTIONS LOWER RECIDIVISM Kristin Johnson, Dr Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, Dr Jennifer Woolard, professors at the University of Florida and Georgetown University, Disregarding Graduated Treatment: Why Transfer Aggravates Recidivism, February 10, 2009 The reason transfer affects recidivism seems to derive from the fact that it often departs from graduated interventions (i.e., leapfrogging to more severe sanctions). This seems to make matters worse. Of the juveniles transferred to the criminal courts, 60.2% experienced leapfrogging. The effects of leapfrogging and/or failure to use graduated interventions may also occur within the juvenile justice system. For those within the juvenile justice system, subsequent sanctions could skip back toward leniency, a different kind of departure from graduated sanctions that should be studied. The results suggest that graduated interventions may constitute sound crime control policy because it is linked to lower recidivism. Failure to use graduated treatment interventions, specifically by leapfrogging over graduated sanctions, increased recidivism among this sample of juvenile offenders. Such results indicate that transfer should be used only if it is the next step in graduated interventions. Negative experiences within the criminal justice system may contribute to a perceived sense of injustice among juveniles, especially among youth who experienced leapfrogging (Lane et al., 2002). Further research on the sense of injustice or perceived injustice should be pursued. 3. BLENDED SENTENCING STATUTES HELP LOWER RECIDIVISM RATES AMONG JUVENILES WHO COMMIT VIOLENT AND SERIOUS CRIMES Dr Chad Trulson, Dr Matt DeLisi, Dr James Marquart, professors at the University of North Texas, Iowa State University, and the University of Texas, respectively, Institutional Misconduct, Delinquent Background, and Rearrest Frequency Among Serious and Violent Delinquent Offenders, July 20, 2009 In conclusion, this study provided additional insight into the relationship of institutional misconduct to the postrelease rearrest of an extremely serious and violent cohort of institutionalized juvenile offenders sentenced under a blended sentencing statute. Among all institutionalized offenders, this is the population of perhaps most concern relative to policy discussions concerning their release and behavior as they transition back into society. This is especially relevant in the state under study and others that have increasingly adopted blended sentencing statutes to give serious and violent juvenile offenders one more last chance to change before adult imprisonment as juveniles and young adults. As these types of offenders will increasingly be given one last chance to change under blended sentencing schemes, information on potential risk factors for recidivism upon their release should remain important on the juvenile justice research agenda this focus should include further evaluating the effect of institutional misconduct as a barometer of postrelease outcomes.
39
COMMUNITY SENTIMENT IS VARIABLE AND CAN BE EASILY MANIPULATED

1. PUBLIC OPINION VARIES LARGELY ON HOW THE CASE IS PRESENTED Dr Laurence Steinberg, Dr Alex Piquero, professors at Temple University and the University of Maryland, respectively, Manipulating Public Opinion About Trying Juveniles as Adults: An Experimental Study, April 2, 2009 Public attitudes about juvenile crime play a significant role in fashioning juvenile justice policy; variations in the wording of public opinion surveys can produce very different responses and can result in inaccurate and unreliable assessments of public sentiment. Surveys that ask about policy alternatives in vague terms are especially problematic. The authors conducted an experiment in which a large sample of respondents were presented with a crime scenario in which the offenders age and prior record, the type of crime, and the inclusiveness of the policy in question were varied. Respondents were asked about the extent to which they support trying juveniles in adult court. Responses varied significantly as a function of the offenders age, criminal record, and offense but not as a function of inclusiveness. For legislators using public opinion polls to guide their decisions, blanket statements describing the results of vaguely worded surveys items can be misleading and can lead to poorly informed policy making. 2. COMMUNITY SENTIMENT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT TRANSFER DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Nicole Garberd, Dr Terry Libkuman, psychology professors at Central Michigan University, Community Sentiment and the Juvenile Offender: Should Juveniles Charged with Felony Murder be Waived into the Adult Criminal Justice System?, May 13, 2009 In the Stalans and Henry (1994) studies, large samples (n > 800) of community residents read case descriptions of a defendant who was charged with first-degree murder. The defendants age (14 or 16), race (white or black), prior record (no previous conviction or two previous convictions), type of victim (father or next door neighbor), and history of abuse (no abuse or abuse by the father for the previous ten years) were manipulated. Inconsistent with the automatic waiver policy, Stalans and Henry found that (a) defendants with a prior criminal history were more likely to be transferred than first time offenders, (b) non-abused offenders were transferred more often than abused offenders, and (c) offenders who murdered their neighbor were more likely to be transferred than offenders who murdered their father. These results support the notion that community sentiment is not consistent with the automatic transfer process. Potentially mitigating factors, for example, prior abuse, are not addressed under the automatic legislative waiver policy. Therefore, if these cases were to occur in a state with automatic transfer, abused and non-abused defendants would be transferred at equal rates, a practice in opposition to community sentiment.

Jan-Feb Juveniles Part 1

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Jan-Feb Juveniles Part 1

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies

West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies

West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies

West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies

West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies

West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies

West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies

West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies

West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies

West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies

West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies

West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies

West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies

West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies

JUVENILES GET TOUGHER SENTENCES

West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies

TRANSFER DOES OCCUR

West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies

A TRANSFER DECISION IS PREMISED ON COMMUNITY SENTIMENT

West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies

THE TRANSFER SYSTEM IS CONSISTENT

MISCONDUCT INDICATES RECIDIVISM LIKELIHOOD

West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies

THE TRANSFER SYSTEM IS NOT HARMFUL

West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies

RECIDIVISM HAS ALTERIOR CAUSES

West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies

OTHER FACTORS CAUSE RECIDIVISM

West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies

MISCONDUCT CAUSES RECIDIVISM

West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies

MISCONDUCT AND VIOLENT CRIMES SHOWS RECIVIDISM LIKELIHOOD

West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies

MISCONDUCT INDICATES RECIDIVISM LIKELIHOOD

West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies

West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies

West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies

TRANSFER IS BAD FOR JUVENILES

West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies

TRANSFER CAUSES HARM TO JUVENILES

West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies

JUVENILES ARE LIKELY TO BE TREATED MORE HARSHLY

West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies

TRANSFER IS HARMFUL TO JUVENILES

West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies

INTERNATIONAL OPPOSITION TO TREATING CHILDREN AS ADULTS IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM

West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies

UNDERLYING SOCIETAL VALUES WARN AGAINST TREATING JUVENILES AS ADULTS

West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies

TRANSFER IS SOCIALLY HARMFUL

West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies

TRANSFERS ARE HARMFUL TO REHABILITATION

West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies

GRADUATED SANCTIONS CAN SOLVE RECIDIVISM

West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies

GRADUATED SANCTIONS CAN SOLVE RECIDIVISM

West Coast Publishing 2010 NFL LD-Juvenile felonies

COMMUNITY SENTIMENT IS VARIABLE AND CAN BE EASILY MANIPULATED

Potrebbero piacerti anche