The effect of transfer mechanism from juvenile court on conviction on a target offense in criminal court

Verrecchia, P.J.

doi:10.1080/10282580.2011.565976

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The research on deterrence theory suggests that it is not effective in lowering crime rates; studies have indicated (see Mears, 2003;Redding, 2003) that severe treatment of juvenile offenders in the criminal justice system does not necessarily ensure greater community protection (i.e., no deterrent effect). And, at best, there has been inconsistent support that the deterrence model actually fulfills its promise to guarantee greater punishment (Myers, 2001;Verrecchia, 2003).…”

Section: Pathways To Incarcerationmentioning

confidence: 96%

Female Delinquents and Restorative Justice

Verrecchia

2009

Women & Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Pathways To Incarcerationmentioning

confidence: 96%

Female Delinquents and Restorative Justice

Verrecchia

2009

Women & Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although traditional judicial waiver represents a discretionary mechanism by which to send serious, violent, or chronic juvenile offenders to adult court, newer forms of transfer emphasize the offense rather than individualized consideration of the offender (Steiner, Hemmens, and Bell, ). Some scholars have argued that this shift—including the automatic transfer of youth for commission of certain types of crimes—likely results in more first‐time offenders being waived to criminal court than what may occur through judicial waiver (Rainville, ; Verrecchia, ).…”

Section: Expansion Of Transfer Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Juvenile Transfer and the Specific Deterrence Hypothesis

Zane

Welsh

Mears

2016

Criminology & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research Summary We conducted a systematic review of recidivism outcomes for juveniles transferred to adult court, incorporating meta‐analytic techniques. Nine studies—based on nine statistically independent samples—met the inclusion criteria. Pooled analysis suggests that juvenile transfer had no statistically significant effect on recidivism. However, the distribution of effect sizes was highly heterogeneous and, given the strength of the research designs, suggests that in some instances transfer may decrease recidivism and in others may increase it. Policy Implications The practice of transferring juvenile offenders to the criminal justice system has decreased from its peak in the mid‐1990s, but it is still estimated to affect tens of thousands of juveniles in the United States each year. As such, a coherent rationale for transfer policy is needed. The present review casts doubt on one prominent justification for transfer, that it creates a specific deterrent effect for transferred juveniles. Indeed, the results suggest that transfer may in fact increase offending. More generally, the results underscore the need for more high‐quality research to identify the conditions under which transfer may decrease or increase recidivism.

show abstract

“…As a result, we do not know how these children fared in adult criminal court; some cases could have been dismissed while other children were sent to state prisons. Current research, however, suggests that youths who are transferred to adult criminal courts by judges are more likely to be convicted than those who are statutorily excluded (Verrecchia, ).…”

Section: Transfers To Adult Criminal Courtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a result, we do not know how these children fared in adult criminal court; some cases could have been dismissed while other children were sent to state prisons. 5 Current research, however, suggests that youths who are transferred to adult criminal courts by judges are more likely to be convicted than those who are statutorily excluded (Verrecchia, 2011). 5 Most state correctional systems have procedures to separate youngsters sentenced as adults from their adult counterparts (e.g., by keeping juveniles in separate housing units until they have reached the state's age of majority).…”

Section: Transfers To Adult Criminal Courtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transferring Pre‐Teens to Adult Criminal Courts: Searching for a Justification

Ruddell¹,

Mays²

2012

Juvenile Family Court J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research examined the demographic and offense‐related characteristics of 1,488 children who were 12 years of age or younger when transferred by juvenile court judges to criminal courts in the United States from 1985 to 2009. Juvenile court statistics show a twofold increase in the number of these children transferred between 2005 and 2009, compared to the five‐year era between 1985 and 1989. Examination of the data revealed that the major offense that precipitated most of these transfers was a nonviolent act. Given these facts, a number of key questions emerged from this study: (1) Are these transfers desirable given the potential lifelong consequences of a criminal conviction for these youngsters; (2) Do these practices accomplish a legitimate crime control function; and (3) Are these transfers just and fair given the developmental status of these children?

show abstract

The effect of transfer mechanism from juvenile court on conviction on a target offense in criminal court

Cited by 7 publications

References 9 publications

Female Delinquents and Restorative Justice

Female Delinquents and Restorative Justice

Juvenile Transfer and the Specific Deterrence Hypothesis

Transferring Pre‐Teens to Adult Criminal Courts: Searching for a Justification

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About