Determinants of Judicial Waiver Decisions for Violent Juvenile Offenders

Abstract

The critics argue that the incapacitative sanctions of the criminal court provide greater community-protection, more effective deterrence of future crime, and more proportionate, retributive responses to violent behaviors.

Juvenile and Criminal Justice Systems' Responses to Youth Violence

“…In response to the resurgence of youth crime in the late 1980s, politicians, juvenile justice personnel, and criminologists debated extensively the relative'merits of different strategies to prosecute some serious young offenders in criminal courts (Feld 1987(Feld , 1995Fagan and Deschenes 1990). Jurisdictional waiver represents a type of sentencing decision.…”

“…The first consists of a youth's age and the length of time remaining within juvenile court jurisdiction. Juvenile court judges waive older youths more readily than younger offenders (Fagan and Deschenes 1990;Podkopacz andFeld 1995, 1996; U.S. General Accounting Office 1995). A youth's age in relation to the juvenile court's maximum dispositional jurisdiction limits the court's sanctioning powers and provides the impetus to waive or exclude some older juveniles if the seriousness of the offense deserves a longer sentence than those available in juvenile court.…”

“…Dangerousness variables include the seriousness of the offense, whether the youth used a weapon, and the length of the prior record (Fagan and Deschenes 1990;Podkopacz andFeld 1995, 1996;Howell 1996). Balancing these factors entails a trade-off between offense seriousness and offender persistence.…”

“…Empirical analyses provide compelling evidence that judges apply waiver statutes in an arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory manner (Hamparian et al 1982;Fagan and Deschenes 1990;Feld 1990). States' waiver rates for similar types of offenders vary extensively (Hamparian et al 1982; U.S. General Accounting Office 1995).…”

“…A study of the dispositions received by waived and retained youths in four urban sites whom prosecutors charged with a violent offense and who had a prior felony conviction reported that criminal courts incarcerated over 90 percent and imposed sentences five times longer than those given to youths with similar offense characteristics but who remained in juvenile court (Rudman et al 1986). However, analysts could not identify the factors that juvenile court judges used initially to distinguish between the juveniles whom they waived or retained within this sample of violent youths (Fagan and Deschenes 1990).…”