A national survey of U.S. statutes on juvenile transfer: implications for policy and practice

Paying for the crimes of their children: Public support of parental responsibility

“…The original rehabilitation objective of the juvenile system gave way to punishing juveniles the same way adults were punished (Ainsworth, 1991;Feld, 1991;Heilbrun et al, 1997). In contrast to these two movements toward greater juvenile accountability, a simultaneous movement was taking place that imposed legal responsibility on parents for their children's actions.…”

Psychology and juvenile justice: Human development, law, science, and practice.

“…The expanded use of transfer of juveniles into criminal court has included various mechanisms, such as waiver from juvenile court or direct filing of charges in criminal court, under either statutory guidance or prosecutorial discretion (Heilbrun, Leheny, Thomas, & Huneycutt, 1997). In addition, the enactment of sexually violent predator statutes, which mandate sex offender registration and allow for postsentence civil commitment of sex offenders, have made it possible for juvenile sex offenders to be civilly committed after they have aged out of the juvenile justice system (Caldwell, 2013).…”

Are the effects of juvenile offender stereotypes maximized or minimized by jury deliberation?

“…Although they are practically important to examine, researchers have not yet investigated the effect of stereotypes of juvenile defendants on case judgments. Juveniles' cases are usually adjudicated in juvenile court, but many states have amended their statutes to allow the transfer (or “waiver”) of younger, nonviolent offenders to adult criminal court where there are fewer protections for defendants (Heilbrun, Leheny, Thomas, & Huneycutt, 1997). In 2005, eight of every 1,000 delinquency cases were judicially waived to criminal court (Adams & Addie, 2009).…”