Evaluating the Georgia Legislative Waiver's Effectiveness in Deterring Juvenile Crime

Abstract

In an effort to curb the reported increases in violent juvenile crime, the growing trend of state legislatures is the removal of crimes specified as serious from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Having been legislatively waived, these offenses are placed within the jurisdiction of the superior court, and the offender, regardless of age, is tried as an adult. This investigation reports on the deterrent effect of the Georgia legislative waiver passed in 1994. A quasi-experimental cohort design is used in a comparison of the mean arrest rates for juveniles arrested for the specified crimes before and after the law's enactment. The analysis of the data suggests that there were no significant reductions in the mean arrest rates for the offenses specified by the law. Findings are consistent with studies that evaluated the legislative waiver in other states and suggest that the law does not reduce serious juvenile crime.Child welfare reformers of the early century believed that the criminal behavior of children, who were victims of poverty and other social ills, was the result of circumstances beyond the children's control. Before 1899, children younger than age 7 were considered incapable of criminal acts. Although the responsibility for behavior of children between the ages of 7 and 14 was debatable, common law allowed for treating youths as young as 14 years as responsible adults in the court system (Feld, 1993;Platt, 1977).A benevolent court separated from the harsh and retributive adult system was established for juveniles that would provide solutions to the problems and address the needs of the individual youth. For decades, under this legal scheme, the law did not hold accountable those offenders under the age of majority in the same manner as it did adults who were considered criminals.

Estimating the Crime Effects of Raising the Age of Majority

“…These results support several conclusions. First, these results add to growing evidence that statutory boundaries between the juvenile and adult justice systems as well as changes to these boundaries have few observable effects on offender behavior (Hjalmarsson, 2009;Jensen and Metsger, 1994;Lee and McCrary, 2009;Risler et al, 1998;Singer and McDowall, 1988). This may be because of the absence of meaningful treatment differences or, consistent with other research on juvenile decision making, the insensitivity of juveniles to these incentives.…”

“…Although the aggregate‐level effects of a shift in the entire age boundary between the juvenile and adult justice systems have not been explored recently, the findings from evaluations of prior and more limited changes to the exclusive jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system have provided limited evidence for such cohort‐wide behavioral effects (Jensen and Metsger, ; Risler, Sweatman, and Nackerud, ; Singer and McDowall, ). Weak evidence has generally been found for the importance of boundary changes.…”

Decriminalizing Delinquency: The Effect of Raising the Age of Majority on Juvenile Recidivism

“…The authors compare the rate of total juvenile arrests in Idaho in the 4 years before and after the statute was enacted with the rate of total juvenile arrests during that period in Wyoming and Montana. Risler, Sweatman, and Nackerud (1998) examine the effect of a 1994 Georgia law requiring the transfer of juveniles over 13 years of age who were charged with the most serious criminal offenses (namely, murder, manslaughter, rape, child molestation, and armed robbery). The authors compare the total juvenile arrest rates in Georgia in the 2 years before and after the law went into effect.…”

Sentencing Convicted Juvenile Felony Offenders in the Adult Court: The Direct Effects of Race

“…In examining the criminal sentencing of adult offenders, they found that those adult defendants who pled guilty and did not go to criminal trial were significantly less likely to receive a severe sentence than their adult counterparts who did not plead guilty and who did go to trial. As expressed by other researchers (Myers, ; Redding, ; Risler, Sweatman, & Nackerud, ), one potential reason for this difference in findings is that, during criminal trials, felony juvenile offenders may be perceived as less of a public safety threat than their adult offender counterparts; therefore, these juveniles receive more lenient sentences. Although there is no published research on this issue that can help to substantiate this possibility, the current study did find that youth who received a trial were significantly more likely to be sentenced to probation or restitution than juveniles who pled guilty and did not go to trial.…”