Juvenile Justice: a Century of Change

ENT OF M JU U.S. Department of Justice T S R T A I P C E E D

O J Office of Justice Programs C S F A V M F O I N A C I J S R E BJ G O OJJ DP O F PR Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention JUSTICE 1999 National DECEMBER 1999 Report Series Juvenile Justice: Juvenile Justice Bulletin A Century of Change

As the amenable to intervention. At its best, the juvenile Shay Bilchik, Administrator Nation court balances rehabilitation and treatment with moves into appropriate sanctions—including incarceration, the 21st when necessary. century, the reduction The Illinois statute also gave the court jurisdiction of juvenile over dependent, neglected, and delinquent children. crime, vio- This understanding of the link between child victim- lence, and ization, family disorder, and the potential for child victimization victims to become offenders without early and constitutes one of effective intervention continues to be an important the most crucial chal- part of the juvenile court philosophy. lenges of the new mil- lennium. To meet that This Bulletin provides a thorough, easily understood challenge, reliable informa- description of the development of the juvenile justice tion is essential. Juvenile Offend- system in the United States. It also uses the most ers and Victims: 1999 National current data available to look at where we are headed, Report offers a comprehensive and it examines the recent trend of transferring certain overview of these pervasive problems juvenile cases to adult criminal court. and the response of the juvenile justice system. The National Report brings Contrary to what some people believe, today’s U.S. together statistics from a variety of sources juvenile justice system is not an “easy out” that gives on a wide array of topics, presenting the a meaningless slap on the wrist to violent youth. Nor information in clear, nontechnical text is it a breeding ground for gangs, drugs, and adult enhanced by more than 350 easy-to-read crime. Instead, the juvenile justice system provides tables, graphs, and maps. youthful offenders and their victims with a comprehensive, yet balanced approach to justice. Probation, This Bulletin series is designed to give readers treatment, and restitution are widely used. For most quick, focused access to some of the most critical juveniles who enter the system, this approach works: findings from the wealth of data in the National Report. 54 percent of males and 73 percent of females never Each Bulletin in the series highlights selected themes return to juvenile court on a new referral. at the forefront of juvenile justice policymaking and extracts relevant National Report sections (including Certainly, there are areas in the juvenile justice system selected graphs and tables). that need improvement. For example, the system needs to prepare to handle more female offenders and Administrator’s Message offenders under the age of 13, two groups whose numbers are increasing. Still, the roots of the juvenile In 1899, when the first proceeding of a juvenile court justice system remain strong and need to be supported convened in Chicago, it is unlikely that those in the by all those committed to improving the lives of our courtroom were aware of the momentous impact of children. At OJJDP, we intend to continue our efforts their actions. Yet, that beginning provided the foun- to strengthen the juvenile justice system and achieve dation for how our Nation deals with juvenile offenders. the goals for which the juvenile court was first A century ago, the focus of the juvenile justice system established. was on the juvenile offender—rather than the offense— and that remains largely true today. The juvenile court system is based on the principle that youth are Shay Bilchik developmentally different from adults and more Administrator The juvenile justice system was founded on the concept of rehabilitation through individualized justice

Early in U.S. history, children reform movements. These earlier re- Juvenile courts flourished for the who broke the law were treated form movements changed the per- first half of the 20th century the same as adult criminals ception of children from one of mini- ature adults to one of persons with By 1910, 32 States had established Throughout the late 18th century, less than fully developed moral and juvenile courts and/or probation “infants” below the age of reason cognitive capacities. services. By 1925, all but two States (traditionally age 7) were presumed had followed suit. Rather than to be incapable of criminal intent As early as 1825, the Society for the merely punishing delinquents for and were, therefore, exempt from Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency their crimes, juvenile courts sought prosecution and punishment. Chil- was advocating the separation of ju- to turn delinquents into productive dren as young as 7, however, could venile and adult offenders. Soon, fa- citizens—through treatment. stand trial in criminal court for of- cilities exclusively for juveniles fenses committed and, if found were established in most major cit- The mission to help children in guilty, could be sentenced to prison ies. By mid-century, these privately trouble was stated clearly in the or even to death. operated youth “prisons” were un- laws that established juvenile der criticism for various abuses. courts. This benevolent mission led The 19th-century movement that Many States then took on the re- to procedural and substantive dif- led to the establishment of the juve- sponsibility of operating juvenile ferences between the juvenile and nile court in the U.S. had its roots in facilities. criminal justice systems. 16th-century European educational The first juvenile court in this During the next 50 years, most juve- country was established in Cook nile courts had exclusive original County, Illinois, in 1899 jurisdiction over all youth under age John Augustus—planting the 18 who were charged with violating seeds of juvenile probation Illinois passed the Juvenile Court criminal laws. Only if the juvenile (1847) Act of 1899, which established the court waived its jurisdiction in a Nation’s first juvenile court. The case could a child be transferred to “I bailed nineteen boys, from 7 to 15 British doctrine of parens patriae criminal court and tried as an adult. years of age, and in bailing them it Transfer decisions were made on a was understood, and agreed by the (the State as parent) was the ratio- nale for the right of the State to in- case-by-case basis using a “best court, that their cases should be interests of the child and public” continued from term to term for sev- tervene in the lives of children in a standard, and were thus within the eral months, as a season of proba- manner different from the way it in- realm of individualized justice. tion; thus each month at the calling tervenes in the lives of adults. The of the docket, I would appear in doctrine was interpreted to mean court, make my report, and thus the that, because children were not of The focus on offenders and not cases would pass on for 5 or 6 full legal capacity, the State had the offenses, on rehabilitation and months. At the expiration of this inherent power and responsibility not punishment, had substantial term, twelve of the boys were to provide protection for children procedural impact brought into court at one time, and whose natural parents were not pro- the scene formed a striking and viding appropriate care or supervi- Unlike the criminal justice system, highly pleasing contrast with their sion. A key element was the focus appearance when first arraigned. where district attorneys select on the welfare of the child. Thus, cases for trial, the juvenile court The judge expressed much plea- the delinquent child was also seen sure as well as surprise at their ap- controlled its own intake. And un- as in need of the court’s benevolent pearance, and remarked, that the like criminal prosecutors, juvenile intervention. object of law had been accom- court intake considered extra-legal plished and expressed his cordial as well as legal factors in deciding approval of my plan to save and how to handle cases. Juvenile court reform.” intake also had discretion to handle cases informally, bypassing judicial action.

2 1999 National Report Series As public confidence in the Some juvenile codes emphasize prevention and treatment goals, treatment model waned, due some stress punishment, but most seek a balanced approach process protections were There is much variation in the way equivalent to that which they introduced State statutes define the purposes of should have given him.” their juvenile courts. Some declare ■ In several other States, the pur- In the 1950’s and 1960’s, many came their goals in exhaustive detail, even pose clause is based on the lan- to question the ability of the juve- listing specific programs and sen- guage contained in the Legislative nile court to succeed in rehabilitat- tencing options; others mention only Guide for Drafting Family and Ju- ing delinquent youth. The treatment broad aims. Most States seek to pro- venile Court Acts, a publication is- tect the interests of the child, the fam- techniques available to juvenile jus- sued in the late 1960’s. The Guide tice professionals never reached the ily, the community, or a combination declares four purposes: (a) “to desired levels of effectiveness. Al- of the three. Nearly all States also in- provide for the care, protection, though the goal of rehabilitation clude protections of the child’s consti- and wholesome mental and tutional and statutory rights. Many physical development of children” through individualized justice—the States have amended their purpose involved with the juvenile court; basic philosophy of the juvenile jus- clauses, reflecting philosophical shifts (b) “to remove from children com- tice system—was not in question, or changes in emphasis in the overall mitting delinquent acts the conse- professionals were concerned about approach to juvenile delinquency. quences of criminal behavior, and the growing number of juveniles ■ Several states have purpose to substitute therefor a program of institutionalized indefinitely in the clauses that are modeled on the supervision, care and rehabilita- name of treatment. one in the Standard Juvenile tion;” (c) to remove a child from Court Act. The Act was originally the home “only when necessary In a series of decisions beginning in issued in 1925, but the most influ- for his welfare or in the interests the 1960’s, the U.S. Supreme Court ential version was prepared of public safety;” and (d) to assure required that juvenile courts be- in 1959. The declared purpose all parties “their constitutional and come more formal—more like crimi- was that “each child coming with- other legal rights.” nal courts. Formal hearings were in the jurisdiction of the court ■ As of the end of 1997 legisla- now required in waiver situations, shall receive...the care, guidance, tive session, in 17 States, the ju- and delinquents facing possible con- and control that will conduce to venile court purpose clause incor- finement were given protection his welfare and the best interest porates the language of the against self-incrimination and rights of the state, and that when he is balanced and restorative justice to receive notice of the charges removed from the control of his philosophy, emphasizing offender against them, to present witnesses, parents the court shall secure for accountability, public safety, and him care as nearly as possible to question witnesses, and to have competency development. an attorney. Proof “beyond a reason- Source: Authors’ adaptation of Griffin’s Frequently asked questions: Juvenile court purpose able doubt” rather than merely “a clauses. State profiles [web site]. Pittsburgh, PA: NCJJ. preponderance of evidence” was now required for an adjudication. The Supreme Court, however, still In the courtroom, juvenile court A range of dispositional options was held that there were enough “differ- hearings were much less formal available to a judge wanting to help ences of substance between the than criminal court proceedings. In rehabilitate a child. Regardless of of- criminal and juvenile courts . . . to this benevolent court—with the ex- fense, outcomes ranging from warn- hold that a jury is not required in press purpose of protecting chil- ings to probation supervision to the latter.” (See Supreme Court deci- dren—due process protections af- training school confinement could sions later in this Bulletin.) forded criminal defendants were be part of the treatment plan. deemed unnecessary. In the early ju- Dispositions were tailored to “the Meanwhile Congress, in the Juvenile venile courts, and even in some to best interests of the child.” Treat- Delinquency Prevention and Control this day, attorneys for the State and ment lasted until the child was Act of 1968, recommended that chil- the youth are not considered essen- “cured” or became an adult (age dren charged with noncriminal (sta- tial to the operation of the system, 21), whichever came first. tus) offenses be handled outside especially in less serious cases. the court system. A few years later,

December 1999 3 Congress passed the Juvenile Jus- tice and Delinquency Prevention Act The core requirements of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency of 1974, which as a condition for Prevention Act primarily address custody issues State participation in the Formula The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency ■ The “disproportionate confinement Grants program required deinstitu- Prevention Act of 1974, as amended, of minority youth” requirement tionalization of status offenders and (the Act) establishes four custody- (1992) specifies that States deter- nonoffenders as well as the separa- related requirements: mine the existence and extent of tion of juvenile delinquents from ■ The “deinstitutionalization of status the problem in their State and dem- adult offenders. (In the 1980 amend- offenders and nonoffenders” require- onstrate efforts to reduce it where it ments to the 1974 Act, Congress ment (1974) specifies that juveniles exists. added a requirement that juveniles not charged with acts that would be Regulations effective December 10, be removed from adult jail and crimes for adults “shall not be 1996, modify the Act’s requirements in lockup facilities.) Community-based placed in secure detention facilities several ways: programs, diversion, and deinstitution- or secure correctional facilities.” ■ Clarify the sight and sound separa- alization became the banners of ■ The “sight and sound separation” tion requirement—in nonresidential juvenile justice policy in the 1970’s. requirement (1974) specifies that, areas brief, accidental contact is “juveniles alleged to be or found to not a reportable violation. In the 1980’s, the pendulum began be delinquent and [status offend- ■ Permit time-phased use of nonresi- ers and nonoffenders] shall not be to swing toward law and order dential areas for both juveniles and detained or confined in any institu- adults in collocated facilities. tion in which they have contact ■ Expand the 6-hour grace period to During the 1980’s, the public per- with adult persons incarcerated include 6 hours both before and af- ceived that serious juvenile crime because they have been convicted ter court appearances. was increasing and that the system of a crime or are awaiting trial on was too lenient with offenders. Al- criminal charges.” This requires ■ Allow adjudicated delinquents to be though there was substantial that juvenile and adult inmates transferred to adult institutions once misperception regarding increases cannot see each other and no con- they have reached the State’s age in juvenile crime, many States re- versation between them is possible. of full criminal responsibility, where such transfer is expressly autho- sponded by passing more punitive ■ The “jail and lockup removal” re- rized by State law. laws. Some laws removed certain quirement (1980) states that juve- classes of offenders from the juveniles shall not be detained or con- The revised regulations offer flexibility nile justice system and handled fined in adult jails or lockups. to States in carrying out the Act’s re- them as adult criminals in criminal There are, however, several ex- quirements. States must agree to com- court. Others required the juvenile ceptions to the jail and lockup re- ply with each requirement to receive justice system to be more like the moval requirement. Regulations Formula Grants funds under the Act’s criminal justice system and to treat implementing the Act exempt juve- provisions. States must submit plans certain classes of juvenile offenders niles held in secure adult facilities outlining their strategy for meeting the requirements and other statutory plan as criminals but in juvenile court. if the juvenile is being tried as a criminal for a felony or has been requirements. Noncompliance with core requirements results in the loss of As a result, offenders charged with convicted as a criminal felon. In addition, there is a 6-hour grace 25% of the State’s annual Formula certain offenses are excluded from period that allows adult jails and Grants program allocation. juvenile court jurisdiction or face lockups to hold delinquents tempo- As of 1998, 55 of 57 eligible States and mandatory or automatic waiver to rarily until other arrangements can territories are participating in the For- criminal court. In some States, con- be made. Jails and lockups in rural mula Grants program. Annual State current jurisdiction provisions give areas may hold delinquents up to monitoring reports show that the vast prosecutors the discretion to file 24 hours under certain conditions. majority are in compliance with the re- certain juvenile cases directly in Some jurisdictions have obtained quirements, either reporting no viola- criminal court rather than juvenile approval for separate juvenile de- tions or meeting de minimis or other court. In some States, some adjudi- tention centers that are collocated compliance criteria. cated juvenile offenders face manda- with an adult jail or lockup facility. tory sentences.

4 1999 National Report Series The 1990’s have been a time of unprecedented change as State From 1992 through 1997, legislatures in 47 States and the District legislatures crack down on of Columbia enacted laws that made their juvenile justice systems juvenile crime more punitive

Changes in Changes in Five areas of change have emerged State law or court rule* State law or court rule* as States passed laws designed to crack down on juvenile crime. These Alabama T C Montana T S C laws generally involve expanded eli- Alaska T C Nebraska gibility for criminal court processing Arizona T S C Nevada T C and adult correctional sanctioning and reduced confidentiality protec- Arkansas T S C New Hampshire T S C tions for a subset of juvenile offend- California T C New Jersey S C ers. Between 1992 and 1997, all but Colorado T S C New Mexico T S C three States changed laws in one or Connecticut T S C New York more of the following areas: Delaware T S C North Carolina T C ■ Transfer provisions—Laws made D. of Columbia T S North Dakota T C it easier to transfer juvenile of- Florida T S C Ohio T S C fenders from the juvenile justice Georgia T S C Oklahoma T S C system to the criminal justice Hawaii T C Oregon T S C system (45 States). Idaho T S C Pennsylvania T C ■ Sentencing authority—Laws gave Illinois T S C Rhode Island T S C criminal and juvenile courts ex- Indiana T S C South Carolina T C panded sentencing options (31 Iowa T S C South Dakota T States). Kansas T S C Tennessee T S C Kentucky T S C Texas T S C ■ Confidentiality—Laws modified or removed traditional juvenile Louisiana T S C Utah T C court confidentiality provisions Maine C Vermont by making records and proceed- Maryland T C Virginia T S C ings more open (47 States). Massachusetts T S C Washington T C Michigan S C West Virginia T C In addition to these areas, there was Minnesota T S C Wisconsin T S C change relating to: Mississippi T C Wyoming T C ■ Victims rights—Laws increased Missouri T S C the role of victims of juvenile *T = Transfer provisions, S = Sentencing authority, C = Confidentiality crime in the juvenile justice pro- Source: Authors’ adaptation of Torbet et al.’s State responses to serious and violent juve- cess (22 States). nile crime and Torbet and Szymanski’s State legislative responses to violent juvenile crime: 1996–97 update. ■ Correctional programming—As a result of new transfer and sentencing laws, adult and juvenile tem and offender accountability, of- ■ Hold juveniles accountable for correctional administrators de- fender competency development, criminal behavior. veloped new programs. and community protection. Juvenile ■ Provide effective deterrents. code purpose clauses also incorpo- ■ Protect the public from criminal rate restorative justice language (of- The 1980’s and 1990’s have seen sig- activity. nificant change in terms of treating fenders repair the harm done to vic- ■ more juvenile offenders as crimi- tims and communities and accept Balance attention to offenders, nals. Recently, States have been at- responsibility for their criminal ac- victims, and the community. tempting to strike a balance in their tions). Many States have added to ■ Impose punishment consistent juvenile justice systems among sys- the purpose clauses of their juvenile with the seriousness of the codes phrases such as: crime.

December 1999 5 U.S. Supreme Court cases have had an impact on the character and procedures of the juvenile justice system

The Supreme Court has made its Court, Kent’s attorney argued that “Do you have big bombers?” Identi- mark on juvenile justice the judge had not made a complete fied by the neighbor, the youth were investigation and that Kent was de- arrested and detained. nied constitutional rights simply be- Issues arising from juvenile delin- cause he was a minor. The victim did not appear at the quency proceedings rarely come be- adjudication hearing, and the court fore the U.S. Supreme Court. Begin- The Court ruled the waiver invalid, never resolved the issue of whether ning in the late 1960’s, however, the stating that Kent was entitled to a Gault made the “obscene” remarks. Court decided a series of landmark hearing that measured up to “the es- Gault was committed to a training cases that dramatically changed the sentials of due process and fair school for the period of his minor- character and procedures of the treatment,” that Kent’s counsel ity. The maximum sentence for an juvenile justice system. should have had access to all adult would have been a $50 fine or records involved in the waiver, and 2 months in jail. Kent v. United States that the judge should have provided 383 U.S. 541, 86 S.Ct. 1045 (1966) a written statement of the reasons An attorney obtained for Gault after for waiver. the trial filed a writ of habeas cor- In 1961, while on probation from an pus that was eventually heard by earlier case, Morris Kent, age 16, Technically, the Kent decision ap- the U.S. Supreme Court. The issue was charged with rape and robbery. plied only to D.C. courts, but its im- presented in the case was that Kent confessed to the offense as pact was more widespread. The Gault’s constitutional rights (to no- well as to several similar incidents. Court raised a potential constitu- tice of charges, counsel, questioning Assuming that the District of Colum- tional challenge to parens patriae as of witnesses, protection against self- bia juvenile court would consider the foundation of the juvenile court. incrimination, a transcript of the waiving jurisdiction to the adult sys- In its past decisions, the Court had proceedings, and appellate review) tem, Kent’s attorney filed a motion interpreted the equal protection were denied. requesting a hearing on the issue of clause of the 14th amendment to jurisdiction. mean that certain classes of people The Court ruled that in hearings could receive less due process if a that could result in commitment to The juvenile court judge did not “compensating benefit” came with an institution, juveniles have the rule on this motion filed by Kent’s this lesser protection. In theory, the right to notice and counsel, to ques- attorney. Instead, he entered a mo- juvenile court provided less due tion witnesses, and to protection tion stating that the court was waiv- process but a greater concern for against self-incrimination. The Court ing jurisdiction after making a “full the interests of the juvenile. The did not rule on a juvenile’s right to investigation.” The judge did not de- Court referred to evidence that this appellate review or transcripts, but scribe the investigation or the compensating benefit may not exist encouraged the States to provide grounds for the waiver. Kent was in reality and that juveniles may re- those rights. subsequently found guilty in crim- ceive the “worst of both worlds”— inal court on six counts of house- “neither the protection accorded to The Court based its ruling on the breaking and robbery and sen- adults nor the solicitous care and fact that Gault was being punished tenced to 30 to 90 years in prison. regenerative treatment postulated rather than helped by the juvenile for children.” court. The Court explicitly rejected Kent’s lawyer sought to have the the doctrine of parens patriae as the criminal indictment dismissed, argu- In re Gault founding principle of juvenile justice, ing that the waiver had been invalid. 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428 (1967) describing the concept as murky and He also appealed the waiver and of dubious historical relevance. The Court concluded that the handling filed a writ of habeas corpus asking Gerald Gault, age 15, was on proba- of Gault’s case violated the due the State to justify Kent’s detention. tion in Arizona for a minor property process clause of the 14th amend- Appellate courts rejected both the offense when, in 1964, he and a ment: “Juvenile court history has appeal and the writ, refused to scru- friend made a crank telephone call again demonstrated that unbridled tinize the judge’s “investigation,” to an adult neighbor, asking her, discretion, however benevolently and accepted the waiver as valid. In “Are your cherries ripe today?” and appealing to the U.S. Supreme

6 1999 National Report Series motivated, is frequently a poor sub- Winship was adjudicated delinquent juvenile court process. The Court stitute for principle and procedure.” and committed to a training school. rejected lower court arguments that New York juvenile courts operated juvenile courts were not required to In re Winship under the civil court standard of a operate on the same standards as 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068 (1970) “preponderance of evidence.” The adult courts because juvenile courts court agreed with Winship’s attor- were designed to “save” rather than ney that there was “reasonable to “punish” children. The Court Samuel Winship, age 12, was doubt” of Winship’s guilt, but based ruled that the “reasonable doubt” charged with stealing $112 from a its ruling on the “preponderance” of standard should be required in all woman’s purse in a store. A store evidence. delinquency adjudications. employee claimed to have seen Winship running from the scene just Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, before the woman noticed the McKeiver v. Pennsylvania the central issue in the case was money was missing; others in the 403 U.S. 528, 91 S.Ct. 1976 (1971) whether “proof beyond a reason- store stated that the employee was able doubt” should be considered not in a position to see the money Joseph McKeiver, age 16, was among the “essentials of due pro- being taken. charged with robbery, larceny, and cess and fair treatment” required receiving stolen goods. He and 20 to during the adjudicatory stage of the 30 other youth allegedly chased 3

A series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions made juvenile courts more like criminal courts but maintained some important differences Breed v. Jones (1975) Waiver of a juvenile to criminal court Kent v. United States (1966) following adjudication in juvenile court Courts must provide the “essen- constitutes double jeopardy. tials of due process” in transferring juveniles to the adult system. Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. District Court (1977) Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co. (1979) In re Gault (1967) The press may report juvenile court proceedings under certain circumstances. In hearings that could result in commitment to an institution, juveniles have Eddings v. Oklahoma (1982)* four basic constitutional rights. Defendant’s youthful age should be considered a mitigating factor in deciding In re Winship (1970) whether to apply the death penalty. In delinquency matters, the State must prove its case beyond a Schall v. Martin (1984) reasonable doubt. Preventive “pretrial” detention of juveniles is allowable under certain circumstances. McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971) Jury trials are not constitutionally Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988)* required in juvenile court hearings. Stanford v. Kentucky (1989)* Minimum age for death penalty is set at 16.

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 *For discussion of death penalty case decisions, see page 211 of Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report.

December 1999 7 youth and took 25 cents from them. court violated the double jeopardy case is lawfully obtained by the me- McKeiver met with his attorney for clause of the fifth amendment. The dia, the first amendment interest in only a few minutes before his adju- court denied this petition, saying a free press takes precedence over dicatory hearing. At the hearing, his that Jones had not been tried twice the interests in preserving the ano- attorney’s request for a jury trial because juvenile adjudication is not nymity of juvenile defendants. was denied by the court. He was a “trial” and does not place a youth subsequently adjudicated and in jeopardy. Schall v. Martin placed on probation. 467 U.S. 253, 104 S.Ct. 2403 (1984) Upon appeal, the U.S. Supreme The State supreme court cited re- Court ruled that an adjudication in Gregory Martin, age 14, was ar- cent decisions of the U.S. Supreme juvenile court, in which a juvenile is rested in 1977 and charged with rob- Court that had attempted to include found to have violated a criminal bery, assault, and possession of a more due process in juvenile court statute, is equivalent to a trial in weapon. He and two other youth al- proceedings without eroding the es- criminal court. Thus, Jones had legedly hit a boy on the head with a sential benefits of the juvenile court. been placed in double jeopardy. The loaded gun and stole his jacket and The State supreme court affirmed Court also specified that jeopardy sneakers. the lower court, arguing that of all applies at the adjudication hearing due process rights, trial by jury is when evidence is first presented. Martin was held pending adjudica- most likely to “destroy the traditional Waiver cannot occur after jeopardy tion because the court found there character of juvenile proceedings.” attaches. was a “serious risk” that he would commit another crime if released. The U.S. Supreme Court found that Oklahoma Publishing Company Martin’s attorney filed a habeas cor- the due process clause of the 14th v. District Court in and for pus action challenging the funda- amendment did not require jury tri- Oklahoma City mental fairness of preventive deten- als in juvenile court. The impact of 480 U.S. 308, 97 S.Ct. 1045 (1977) tion. The lower appellate courts the Court’s Gault and Winship deci- reversed the juvenile court’s deten- sions was to enhance the accuracy tion order, arguing in part that pre- of the juvenile court process in the The Oklahoma Publishing Company trial detention is essentially punish- fact-finding stage. In McKeiver, the case involved a court order prohib- ment because many juveniles Court argued that juries are not iting the press from reporting the detained before trial are released known to be more accurate than name and photograph of a youth in- before, or immediately after, judges in the adjudication stage and volved in a juvenile court proceed- adjudication. could be disruptive to the informal ing. The material in question was atmosphere of the juvenile court, obtained legally from a source out- The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the tending to make it more adversarial. side the court. The U.S. Supreme Court found the court order to be constitutionality of the preventive an unconstitutional infringement on detention statute. The Court stated Breed v. Jones freedom of the press. that preventive detention serves a 421 U.S. 519, 95 S.Ct. 1779 (1975) legitimate State objective in protecting both the juvenile and society Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing In 1970, Gary Jones, age 17, was from pretrial crime and is not in- charged with armed robbery. Jones Company tended to punish the juvenile. The appeared in Los Angeles juvenile 443 U.S. 97, 99 S.Ct. 2667 (1979) Court found there were enough pro- court and was adjudicated delin- cedures in place to protect juveniles quent on the original charge and The Daily Mail case held that State from wrongful deprivation of liberty. two other robberies. law cannot stop the press from pub- The protections were provided by lishing a juvenile’s name that it ob- notice, a statement of the facts and At the dispositional hearing, the tained independently of the court. reasons for detention, and a prob- judge waived jurisdiction over the Although the decision did not hold able cause hearing within a short case to criminal court. Counsel for that the press should have access time. The Court also reasserted the Jones filed a writ of habeas corpus, to juvenile court files, it held that if parens patriae interests of the State arguing that the waiver to criminal information regarding a juvenile in promoting the welfare of children.

8 1999 National Report Series State statutes define who is under the jurisdiction of juvenile court

State statutes define age limits adults who committed offenses while the public, even for older juveniles for the original jurisdiction of the juveniles. Many States exclude mar- who have reached the age at which juvenile court ried or otherwise emancipated juve- original juvenile court jurisdiction niles from juvenile court jurisdiction. ends. In most States, the juvenile court Oldest age over which the juvenile Many States have statutory excep- has original jurisdiction over all court may retain jurisdiction for disposi- youth charged with a law violation tions to basic age criteria. The ex- tion purposes in delinquency matters: who were below the age of 18 at the ceptions, related to the youth’s age, alleged offense, and/or prior court Age State time of the offense, arrest, or refer- 17 Arizona*, North Carolina ral to court. Since 1975, four States history, place certain youth under the original jurisdiction of the crimi- 18 Alaska, Iowa, Kentucky, Ne- have changed their age criteria: Ala- braska, Oklahoma, Tennessee nal court. In some States, a combi- bama increased its upper age from 19 Mississippi, North Dakota nation of the youth’s age, offense, 15 to 16 in 1976 and to 17 in 1977; 20 Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, and prior record places the youth Wyoming reduced its upper age Delaware, District of Columbia, from 18 to 17 in 1993; and New under the original jurisdiction of Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Hampshire and Wisconsin lowered both the juvenile and criminal Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Mary- their upper age from 17 to 16 in courts. In these situations where ju- land, Massachusetts, Michigan, 1996. venile and criminal courts have con- Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, current jurisdiction, the prosecutor New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oldest age for original juvenile court ju- has the authority to decide which New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, risdiction in delinquency matters: court will initially handle the case. Rhode Island, South Carolina, Age State South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Ver- 15 Connecticut, New York, North Statutes in 16 States determine mont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming Carolina the lowest age of juvenile court 16 Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mas- 22 Kansas delinquency jurisdiction sachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, 24 California, Montana, Oregon, Wis- New Hampshire, South Carolina, consin Texas, Wisconsin Youngest age for original juvenile court ** Colorado, Hawaii, New Jersey 17 Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkan- jurisdiction in delinquency matters: *Arizona statute extends jurisdiction through sas, California, Colorado, Dela- Age State age 20, but a 1979 State Supreme Court de- ware, District of Columbia, 6 North Carolina cision held that juvenile court jurisdiction ter- Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, 7 Maryland, Massachusetts, minates at age 18. Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, New York **Until the full term of the disposition order. Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, 8 Arizona Note: Extended jurisdiction may be restricted Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, 10 Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, to certain offenses or juveniles. New Jersey, New Mexico, North Louisiana, Minnesota, Missis- Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, sippi, Pennsylvania, South Da- In some States, the juvenile court Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, kota, Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin may impose adult correctional sanc- South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, tions on certain adjudicated delin- Vermont, Virginia, Washington, In most States, juvenile court quents that extend the term of con- West Virginia, Wyoming finement well beyond the upper age authority over a youth may of juvenile jurisdiction. Such sen- extend beyond the upper age Many States have higher upper ages tencing options are included in the of original jurisdiction of juvenile court jurisdiction in sta- set of dispositional options known tus offense, abuse, neglect, or de- as “blended sentencing.” pendency matters—typically Through extended jurisdiction through age 20. mechanisms, legislatures enable the court to provide sanctions and ser- In many States, the juvenile court vices for a duration of time that is in has original jurisdiction over young the best interests of the juvenile and

December 1999 9 The juvenile justice system differs from the criminal justice system, but there is common ground

The juvenile justice system to delinquent youth. An understand- philosophy. Recently, there has grew out of the criminal ing of what was retained and what been some discussion about the justice system was changed helps to make clear possibility of essentially merging the basic differences between the the juvenile and criminal systems. After working within the criminal two systems as they exist today. An understanding of similarities and justice system, designers of the differences between the two sys- juvenile justice system retained During its nearly 100-year history, tems is valuable in assessing the many of the components of the the juvenile justice system in the implications of the proposed criminal justice system as they con- U.S. has seen fundamental changes changes. structed a new process to respond in certain aspects of process and

Although the juvenile and criminal justice systems are more alike in some jurisdictions than in others, generalizations can be made about the distinctions between the two systems and about their common ground

Juvenile justice system Common ground Criminal justice system Operating Assumptions

■ Youth behavior is malleable. ■ Community protection is a primary ■ Sanctions should be proportional ■ Rehabilitation is usually a viable goal. to the offense. goal. ■ Law violators must be held ■ General deterrence works. ■ Youth are in families and not accountable. ■ Rehabilitation is not a primary independent. ■ Constitutional rights apply. goal.

Prevention

■ Many specific delinquency preven- ■ Educational approaches are taken ■ Prevention activities are general- tion activities (e.g., school, church, to specific behaviors (drunk driv- ized and are aimed at deterrence recreation) are used. ing, drug use). (e.g., Crime Watch). ■ Prevention is intended to change individual behavior and is often focused on reducing risk factors and increasing protective factors in the individual, family, and community.

Law Enforcement

■ Specialized “juvenile” units are ■ Jurisdiction involves the full range ■ Open public access to all informa- used. of criminal behavior. tion is required. ■ Some additional behaviors are ■ Constitutional and procedural ■ Law enforcement exercises dis- prohibited (truancy, running away, safeguards exist. cretion to divert offenders out of curfew violations). ■ Both reactive and proactive ap- the criminal justice system. ■ Some limitations are placed on proaches (targeted at offense public access to information. types, neighborhoods, etc.) are ■ A significant number of youth are used. diverted away from the juvenile ■ Community policing strategies are justice system, often into alterna- employed. tive programs.

10 1999 National Report Series Juvenile justice system Common ground Criminal justice system

Intake—Prosecution

■ In many instances, juvenile court ■ Probable cause must be ■ Plea bargaining is common. intake, not the prosecutor, decides established. ■ The prosecution decision is based what cases to file. ■ The prosecutor acts on behalf of largely on legal facts. ■ The decision to file a petition for the State. ■ Prosecution is valuable in building court action is based on both history for subsequent offenses. social and legal factors. ■ Prosecution exercises discretion ■ A significant portion of cases are to withhold charges or divert of- diverted from formal case fenders out of the criminal justice processing. system. ■ Intake or the prosecutor diverts cases from formal processing to services operated by the juvenile court, prosecutor’s office, or outside agencies.

Detention—Jail/lockup

■ Juveniles may be detained for their ■ Accused offenders may be held in ■ Accused individuals have the right own protection or the community’s custody to ensure their appear- to apply for bond/bail release. protection. ance in court. ■ Juveniles may not be confined ■ Detention alternatives of home or with adults unless there is “sight electronic detention are used. and sound separation.”

Adjudication—Conviction

■ Juvenile court proceedings are ■ Standard of “proof beyond a rea- ■ Defendants have a constitutional “quasi-civil” (not criminal) and may sonable doubt” is required. right to a jury trial. be confidential. ■ Rights to be represented by an at- ■ Guilt must be established on indi- ■ If guilt is established, the youth is torney, to confront witnesses, and vidual offenses charged for adjudicated delinquent regardless to remain silent are afforded. conviction. of offense. ■ Appeals to a higher court are ■ All proceedings are open. ■ Right to jury trial is not afforded in allowed. all States. ■ Experimentation with specialized courts (i.e., drug courts, gun courts) is under way.

December 1999 11 Juvenile justice system Common ground Criminal justice system

Disposition—Sentencing

■ Disposition decisions are based ■ Decisions are influenced by cur- ■ Sentencing decisions are bound on individual and social factors, rent offense, offending history, and primarily by the severity of the cur- offense severity, and youth’s social factors. rent offense and by the offender’s offense history. ■ Decisions hold offenders criminal history. ■ Dispositional philosophy includes accountable. ■ Sentencing philosophy is based a significant rehabilitation ■ Decisions may give consideration largely on proportionality and component. to victims (e.g., restitution and “no punishment. ■ Many dispositional alternatives contact” orders). ■ Sentence is often determinate, are operated by the juvenile court. ■ Decisions may not be cruel or based on offense. ■ Dispositions cover a wide range of unusual. community-based and residential services. ■ Disposition orders may be di- rected to people other than the offender (e.g., parents). ■ Disposition may be indeterminate, based on progress demonstrated by the youth.

Aftercare—Parole

■ Function combines surveillance ■ The behavior of individuals re- ■ Function is primarily surveillance and reintegration activities (e.g., leased from correctional settings is and reporting to monitor illicit family, school, work). monitored. behavior. ■ Violation of conditions can result in reincarceration.

12 1999 National Report Series All States allow juveniles to be tried as adults in criminal court under certain circumstances

Transferring juveniles to criminal court is not a new phenomenon Most States have a combination of transfer provisions Once an adult/ In some States, provisions that en- Judicial waiver Concurrent Statutory Reverse always an abled transfer of certain juveniles to Discretionary Presumptive Mandatory jurisdiction exclusion waiver adult Total number criminal court were in place before of States: 46 15 14 15 28 23 31 the 1920’s. Other States have per- mitted transfers since at least the Alabama 1940’s. For many years, all States Alaska Arizona have had at least one provision for Arkansas trying certain youth of juvenile age California Colorado as adults in criminal court. Such Connecticut provisions are typically limited by Delaware age and offense criteria. Transfer Dist. of Columbia Florida mechanisms vary regarding where Georgia the responsibility for transfer deci- Hawaii sionmaking lies. Idaho Illinois Indiana Transfer provisions fall into three Iowa general categories: Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Judicial waiver: The juvenile court Maine judge has the authority to waive ju- Maryland Massachusetts venile court jurisdiction and trans- Michigan fer the case to criminal court. States Minnesota Mississippi may use terms other than judicial Missouri waiver. Some call the process certifi- Montana cation, remand, or bind over for Nebraska Nevada criminal prosecution. Others trans- New Hampshire fer or decline rather than waive New Jersey jurisdiction. New Mexico New York North Carolina Concurrent jurisdiction: Original ju- North Dakota risdiction for certain cases is shared Ohio Oklahoma by both criminal and juvenile Oregon courts, and the prosecutor has dis- Pennsylvania cretion to file such cases in either Rhode Island South Carolina court. Transfer under concurrent ju- South Dakota risdiction provisions is also known Tennessee prosecutorial waiver prosecutor Texas as , Utah discretion, or direct file. Vermont Virginia Washington Statutory exclusion: State statute West Virginia excludes certain juvenile offenders Wisconsin from juvenile court jurisdiction. Un- Wyoming der statutory exclusion provisions, ■ In States with a combination of transfer mechanisms, the exclusion, mandatory waiver, or concur- cases originate in criminal rather rent jurisdiction provisions generally target the oldest juveniles and/or those charged with the most serious offenses, while those charged with relatively less serious offenses and/or younger juve- than juvenile court. Statutory exclu- niles may be eligible for discretionary waiver. sion is also known as legislative Source: Authors’ adaptation of Torbet and Szymanski’s State legislative responses to violent juve- exclusion. nile crime: 1996–97 update.

December 1999 13 Many States have changed the “once an adult/always an adult” pro- Statutes establish waiver criteria boundaries of juvenile court visions require that the youth must other than age and offense jurisdiction have been convicted of the offenses that triggered the initial criminal In some States, waiver provisions Traditionally, discretionary judicial prosecution. target youth charged with offenses waiver was the transfer mechanism involving firearms or other weapon which most States relied. Begin- Judicial waiver is the most ons. Most State statutes also limit ning in the 1970’s and continuing common transfer provision judicial waiver to juveniles who are through the present, however, State “no longer amenable to treatment.” legislatures have increasingly In all States except Nebraska, New The specific factors that determine moved juvenile offenders into crimi- Mexico, and New York, juvenile lack of amenability vary, but typi- nal court based on age and/or of- court judges may waive jurisdiction cally include the juvenile’s offense fense seriousness, without the case- over certain cases and transfer history and previous dispositional specific consideration offered by them to criminal court. Such action outcomes. Such amenability criteria the discretionary juvenile court ju- is usually in response to a request are generally not included in statu- dicial waiver process. by the prosecutor; in several States, tory exclusion or concurrent juris- however, juveniles or their parents diction provisions. State transfer provisions changed may request judicial waiver. In most extensively in the 1990’s. From 1992 States, statutes limit waiver by age Many statutes instruct juvenile through 1997, all but six States en- and offense. courts to consider other factors acted or expanded transfer provi- when making waiver decisions, such sions. An increasing number of State Waiver provisions vary in terms of as the availability of dispositional al- legislatures have enacted manda- the degree of decisionmaking flex- ternatives for treating the juvenile, tory waiver or exclusion statutes. ibility allowed. Under some waiver the time available for sanctions, Less common, then and now, are provisions, the decision is entirely public safety, and the best interests concurrent jurisdiction provisions. discretionary. Under others, there is of the child. The waiver process a rebuttable presumption in favor of must also adhere to certain consti- In most States, juveniles waiver. Under others, waiver is man- tutional principles of fairness (see Supreme Court decisions earlier in convicted in criminal court datory once the juvenile court judge this Bulletin). cannot be tried in juvenile court determines that certain statutory for subsequent offenses criteria have been met. Mandatory waiver provisions are distinguished In 31 States, juveniles who have from statutory exclusion provisions been tried as adults must be pros- in that the case originates in juve- ecuted in criminal court for any sub- nile rather than criminal court. sequent offenses. Nearly all of these

14 1999 National Report Series In most States, juvenile court judges can waive juvenile court jurisdiction over certain cases and transfer them to criminal court Minimum Judicial waiver offense and minimum age criteria, 1997 age for Any Certain Certain Certain Certain judicial criminal Certain Capital person property drug weapon State waiver offense felonies crimes Murder offenses offenses offenses offenses

Alabama 14 14 Alaska NS NS NS Arizona NS NS Arkansas 14 14 14 14 14 14 California 14 16 16 14 14 14 14 Colorado 12 12 12 12 Connecticut 14 14 14 14 Delaware NS NS 15 a NS NS 16b 16b Dist. of Columbia NS 15 15 15 15 15 NS Florida 14 14 Georgia 13 15 13 14 c 14c 15 b Hawaii NS 14 NS NS Idaho NS 14 NS NS NS NS NS Illinois 13 13 15 Indiana NS 14 NS b 10 16 Iowa 14 14 15 Kansas 10 10 14 14 14 Kentucky 14 14 14 Louisiana 14 14 14 Maine NS NS NS Maryland NS 15 NS Michigan 14 14 Minnesota 14 14 Mississippi 13 13 Missouri 12 12 Montana NS NS Nevada 14 14 14 14 New Hampshire 13 15 13 13 15 New Jersey 14 14b 14 14 14 14 14 North Carolina 13 13 13 North Dakota 14 16 14b 14 14 14 Ohio 14 14 14 14 16 Oklahoma NS NS Oregon NS 15 NS NS 15 Pennsylvania 14 14 15 15 Rhode Island NS 16 NS 17 17 South Carolina NS 16 14 NS NS 14 14 South Dakota NS NS Tennessee NS 16 NS NS Texas 14 14 14 14 Utah 14 14 16 16 16 Vermont 10 10 10 10 Virginia 14 14 14 14 Washington NS NS West Virginia NS N NS NS NS NS Wisconsin 14 15 14 14 14 14 14 Wyoming 13 13

Examples: Alabama allows waiver for any delinquency (criminal) offense involving a juvenile age 14 or older. Arizona allows waiver for any juvenile charged with a felony. New Jersey allows waiver for juveniles age 14 or older who are charged with murder or certain person, property, drug, or weapon offenses. In New Jersey, juveniles age 14 or older who have prior adjudications or convictions for certain offenses can be waived regardless of the current offense. Note: Ages in minimum age column may not apply to all offense restrictions, but represent the youngest possible age at which a juvenile may be judicially waived to criminal court. “NS” indicates that in at least one of the offense restrictions indicated, no minimum age is specified. aOnly if committed while escaping from specified juvenile facilities. bRequires prior adjudication(s) or conviction(s), which may be cOnly if committed while in custody. required to have been for the same or a more serious offense type. Sources: Authors’ adaptation of Griffin et al.’s Trying juveniles as adults in criminal court: An analysis of State transfer provisions.

December 1999 15 Few States allow prosecutorial is equivalent to the routine charg- lent, or repeat crimes or offenses in- discretion, but many juveniles ing decisions made in criminal volving firearms or other weapons. are tried as adults in this way cases. Thus, prosecutorial transfer Juvenile and criminal courts often is considered an “executive func- also share jurisdiction over minor As of the end of the 1997 legislative tion,” which is not subject to judi- offenses such as traffic, watercraft, session, 15 States had concurrent cial review and is not required to or local ordinance violations. jurisdiction provisions, which gave meet the due process standards both juvenile court and criminal established in Kent. Some States, There are no national data at the court original jurisdiction in certain however, have written prosecutorial present time on the number of juve- cases. Thus, prosecutors have dis- transfer guidelines. nile cases tried in criminal court un- cretion to file such cases in either der concurrent jurisdiction provi- court. Concurrent jurisdiction is typically sions. Florida alone reports an limited by age and offense criteria. average of nearly 5,000 such trans- State appellate courts have taken Often concurrent jurisdiction is lim- fers per year. the view that prosecutor discretion ited to cases involving serious, vio-

In States with concurrent jurisdiction, the prosecutor has discretion to file certain cases, generally involving juveniles charged with serious offenses, in either criminal court or juvenile court Minimum Concurrent jurisdiction offense and minimum age criteria, 1997 age for Any Certain Certain Certain Certain concurrent criminal Certain Capital person property drug weapon State jurisdiction offense felonies crimes Murder offenses offenses offenses offenses

Arizona 14 14 Arkansas 14 14 14 14 14 14 Colorado 14 14 14 14 14 14 Dist. of Columbia 16 16 16 16 Florida NS 16 a 16 NSb 14 14 14 14 Georgia NS NS Louisiana 15 15 15 15 15 Massachusetts 14 14 14 14 Michigan 14 14 14 14 14 14 Montana 12 12 12 16 16 16 Nebraska NS 16 c NS Oklahoma 15 15 15 15 16 15 Vermont 16 16 Virginia 14 14 14 Wyoming 14 17 14 Examples: In Arizona, prosecutors have discretion to file directly in criminal court those cases involving juveniles age 14 or older charged with certain felonies (defined in State statutes). In Florida, prosecutors may “direct file” cases involving juveniles age 16 or older charged with a misdemeanor (if they have a prior adjudication) or a felony offense, as well as those age 14 or older charged with murder or certain person, property, or weapon offenses; no minimum age is specified for cases in which a grand jury indicts a juvenile for a capital offense. Note: Ages in minimum age column may not apply to all offense restrictions, but represent the youngest possible age at which a juvenile may be filed directly in criminal court. “NS” indicates that in at least one of the offense restrictions indicated, no minimum age is specified. aApplies to misdemeanors and requires prior adjudication(s), which may be bRequires grand jury indictment. required to have been for the same or a more serious offense type. cApplies to misdemeanors. Source: Authors’ adaptation of Griffin et al.’s Trying juveniles as adults in criminal court: An analysis of State transfer provisions.

16 1999 National Report Series Statutory exclusion accounts for cases involving youth under the age Criminal courts may transfer the largest number of juveniles of 18 could have faced trial in crimi- cases to juvenile court or order tried as adults in criminal court nal court in 1996 because the offend- juvenile sanctions ers were defined as adults under Legislatures “transfer” large num- State laws. Of the 35 States with statutory ex- bers of young offenders to criminal clusion or concurrent jurisdiction court by enacting statutes that ex- Many States exclude certain serious provisions, 20 also have provisions clude certain cases from juvenile offenses from juvenile court juris- for transferring “excluded” or “di- court jurisdiction. As of the end of diction. State laws typically also set rect filed” cases from criminal court the 1997 legislative session, 28 age limits for excluded offenses. to juvenile court under certain cir- States had statutory exclusions. Al- The offenses most often excluded cumstances. This procedure is though not typically thought of as are capital crimes and murders, and sometimes referred to as “reverse” transfers, large numbers of youth other serious offenses against per- waiver or transfer. In some States, under age 18 are tried as adults in sons. Some States exclude juveniles juveniles tried as adults in criminal the 13 States where the upper age of charged with felonies if they have court may be transferred to juvenile juvenile court jurisdiction is 15 or prior felony adjudications or convic- court for disposition. Some States 16. If the 1.8 million 16- and 17-year- tions. Minor offenses, such as traf- allow juveniles tried as adults in olds in these 13 States are referred fic, watercraft, fish, or game viola- criminal court to receive disposi- to criminal court at the same rate tions, are often excluded from tions involving either criminal or ju- that 16- and 17-year-olds are re- juvenile court jurisdiction in States venile court sanctions, under what ferred to juvenile court in other where they are not covered by con- have come to be known as “blended States, then as many as 218,000 current jurisdiction provisions. sentencing” provisions.

In most States, no minimum age is specified in at least one judicial waiver, concurrent jurisdiction, or statutory exclusion provision for transferring juveniles to criminal court

Minimum transfer age indicated in section(s) of juvenile code specifying transfer provisions, 1997 No minimum age 10 12 13 14 15 Alaska Nevada* Kansas Colorado Illinois Alabama New Mexico Arizona Oklahoma* Vermont Missouri Mississippi Arkansas Delaware Oregon* Montana New Hampshire California Dist. of Columbia Pennsylvania New York Connecticut Florida Rhode Island North Carolina Iowa Georgia* South Carolina Wyoming Kentucky Hawaii South Dakota Louisiana Idaho* Tennessee Massachusetts Indiana Washington* Michigan Maine West Virginia Minnesota Maryland Wisconsin New Jersey Nebraska North Dakota Ohio Texas Utah Virginia *Other sections of State statute specify an age below which children cannot be tried in criminal court. This minimum age for criminal responsibility is 14 in Idaho, 12 in Georgia, 8 in Nevada and Washington, and 7 in Oklahoma. In Washington, 8- to 12-year-olds are presumed to be incapable of committing a crime. In Oklahoma, in cases involving 7- to 14-year-olds, the State must prove that at the time of the act, the child knew it was wrong. Source: Authors’ adaptation of Griffin et al.’s Trying juveniles as adults in criminal court: An analysis of State transfer provisions.

December 1999 17 In States with statutory exclusion provisions, certain cases involving juveniles originate in criminal court rather than juvenile court Minimum Statutory exclusion offense and minimum age criteria, 1997 age for Any Certain Certain Certain Certain statutory criminal Certain Capital person property drug weapon State exclusion offense felonies crimes Murder offenses offenses offenses offenses

Alabama 16 16 16 16 Alaska 16 16 16 Arizona 15 15 a 15 15 Delaware 15 15 Florida NS NS a NS Georgia 13 13 13 Idaho 14 14 14 14 14 Illinois 13 15 b 13 15 15 15 Indiana 16 16 16 16 16 16 Iowa 16 16 16 16 Louisiana 15 15 15 Maryland 14 14 16 16 16 Massachusetts 14 14 Minnesota 16 16 Mississippi 13 13 13 Montana 17 17 17 17 17 17 Nevada NS NS a NS 16 a New Mexico 15 15 c New York 13 13 14 14 Oklahoma 13 13 Oregon 15 15 15 Pennsylvania NS NS 15 South Carolina 16 16 South Dakota 16 16 Utah 16 16 d 16 Vermont 14 14 14 14 Washington 16 16 16 16 Wisconsin NS 10 NS e

Examples: In Delaware, juveniles age 15 or older charged with certain felonies must be tried as adults. In Arizona, juveniles age 15 or older must be tried as adults if they are charged with murder or certain person offenses or they have prior felony adjudications and are charged with a felony. Note: Ages in minimum age column may not apply to all offense restrictions, but represent the youngest possible age at which a juvenile may be excluded from juvenile court. “NS” indicates that in at least one of the offense restrictions indicated, no minimum age is specified. aRequires prior adjudication(s) or conviction(s), which may be required to have been for the same or a more serious offense type. bOnly escape or bail violation while subject to prosecution in criminal court. dRequires prior commitment in a secure facility. cRequires grand jury indictment. eOnly if charged while confined or on probation or parole. Sources: Authors’ adaptation of Griffin et al.’s Trying juveniles as adults in criminal court: An analysis of State transfer provisions.

18 1999 National Report Series New laws have had a dramatic impact on sentencing for serious or violent juvenile offenders

A trend away from traditional Blended sentencing options create a “middle ground” between juvenile dispositions is emerging traditional juvenile sanctions and adult sanctions Juvenile court dispositions were tra- Blended sentencing option State ditionally based on the offender’s in- Juvenile-exclusive blend: The juvenile court may impose New Mexico dividual characteristics and situa- a sanction involving either the juvenile or adult correctional tion. Dispositions were frequently systems. indeterminate and generally had re- Juvenile habilitation as a primary goal. As Juvenile court or many States have shifted the purpose of juvenile court away from re- Adult habilitation and toward punishment, accountability, and public safety, the Juvenile-inclusive blend: The juvenile court may impose Connecticut emerging trend is toward disposi- both juvenile and adult correctional sanctions. The adult Kansas tions based more on the offense sanction is suspended pending a violation and revocation. Minnesota than the offender. Offense-based Montana Juvenile dispositions tend to be determinate and proportional to the offense; ret- Juvenile court and ribution and deterrence replace re- Adult habilitation as the primary goal.

Juvenile-contiguous blend: The juvenile court may Colorado1 Many State legislatures have impose a juvenile correctional sanction that may remain Massachusetts changed disposition and in force after the offender is beyond the age of the court’s Rhode Island sentencing options extended jurisdiction, at which point the offender may be South Carolina transferred to the adult correctional system. Texas From 1992 through 1997, statutes re- Juvenile court Juvenile Adult quiring mandatory minimum peri- ods of incarceration for certain violent or serious offenders were added Criminal-exclusive blend: The criminal court may impose California a sanction involving either the juvenile or adult correctional Colorado2 or modified in 16 States. systems. Florida Juvenile Idaho States have also raised the maxi- Criminal court or Michigan mum age of the juvenile court’s con- Adult Oklahoma tinuing jurisdiction over juvenile of- Virginia fenders. Such laws allow juvenile West Virginia courts to order dispositions that extend beyond the upper age of origi- Criminal-inclusive blend: The criminal court may impose Arkansas nal jurisdiction, most often to age both juvenile and adult correctional sanctions. The adult Iowa 21. From 1992 through 1997, 17 sanction is suspended, but is reinstated if the terms of the Missouri States extended their age limit for juvenile sanction are violated and revoked. Virginia3 delinquency dispositions. Juvenile Criminal court and Perhaps the most dramatic change will result from “blended sentences.” Adult Blended sentencing statutes, which Note: Blends apply to a subset of juveniles specified by State statute. allow courts to impose juvenile and/ 1Applies to those designated as “aggravated juvenile offenders.” or adult correctional sanctions on 2Applies to those designated as “youthful offenders.” certain young offenders, were in 3Applies to those designated as “violent juvenile felony offenders.” place in 20 States at the end of 1997. Source: Authors’ adaptation of Torbet and Szymanski’s State legislative responses to violent juvenile crime: 1996–97 update.

December 1999 19 U.S. Department of Justice PRESORTED STANDARD Office of Justice Programs POSTAGE & FEES PAID DOJ/OJJDP Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention PERMIT NO. G–91

Washington, DC 20531 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

Bulletin NCJ 178995

Sources For information on OJJDP initiatives related to the reduction Information for this Bulletin was taken from chapter 4 of juvenile crime, violence, and of Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National victimization, contact the Juvenile Report. For a full listing of sources for this chapter, Justice Clearinghouse (JJC) at see page 109 of the National Report. www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org or call 800–638–8736.

Resources Acknowledgments Answers to frequently asked questions about juvenile Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National justice statistics as well as periodic updates of data Report, from which this Bulletin is drawn, was presented in Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 prepared by the National Center for Juvenile Jus- National Report are available on the Internet in the tice (NCJJ). The authors are Howard N. Snyder and OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book, which can be accessed Melissa Sickmund. The National Report benefited through the OJJDP home page at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org from the assistance of many individuals in addition through the JJ Facts & Figures prompt. to the authors, including staff at NCJJ, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. How To Get Your Free Copy Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report (NCJ 178257) is available online from the OJJDP Web site (www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org) under the JJ Facts & Figures Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the section and the Publications section or can be ordered authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of from OJJDP’s Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. Send an OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice. e-mail to [email protected]; call 800–638–8736 (select option 2); or write to the Juvenile Justice Clearing- The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the house, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849–6000. Be Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the sure to ask for NCJ 178257. National Institute of Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.