Juvenile Transfers to Criminal Court in the 1990s: Lessons Learned from Four Studies. OJJDP Summary.

Autor/inn/en	Snyder, Howard N.; Sickmund, Melissa; Poe-Yamagata, Eileen
Institution	Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Titel	Juvenile Transfers to Criminal Court in the 1990s: Lessons Learned from Four Studies. OJJDP Summary.
Quelle	(2000), (69 Seiten) PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Monographie
Schlagwörter	Adolescents; Courts; Criminal Law; Delinquency; Juvenile Justice; Prevention; State Government; State Legislation; Violence; Pennsylvania; South Carolina; Utah + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Adolescent; Adolescence; Adoleszenz; Jugend; Jugendalter; Jugendlicher; Court; Gerichtshof; Strafrecht; Kriminalität; Jugendgerichtshilfe; Prävention; Vorbeugung; Bund-Länder-Beziehung; Landesrecht; Gewalt
Abstract	This report presents information from four studies that investigated factors decision makers considered when transferring cases from the juvenile to the criminal justice system. All states have legal mechanisms whereby some juveniles may be transferred from the juvenile to the criminal justice system for prosecution. These decisions fall into three categories: judicial waiver, statutory exclusion, and concurrent jurisdiction. The decision makers are, respectively, the juvenile court judge, the legislature, and the prosecutor. Most states have historically relied on judicial waiver provisions, though in recent years, many states have implemented statutory exclusion and/or concurrent jurisdiction provisions. Most states now rely on a combination of transfer provisions, the most common being judicial waiver with statutory exclusion. Results from the four studies, which occurred in South Carolina, Utah, and Pennsylvania, found that waiver decisions were based on such factors as offense seriousness, extent of the juvenile court's history, and characteristics of the crime. There was an increase in judicial waivers between 1986-94 in Pennsylvania. The impact of Pennsylvania's 1996 exclusion statute was negligible, though it increased the processing time for cases eventually handled within the juvenile system and placed an additional burden on local jails and the criminal courts. (Contains 27 references.) (SM)
Anmerkungen	Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse/NCJRS, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000. Tel: 410-792-4358.
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC