Trends of the Time: An Examination of Judicial Waiver in One State

Abstract

During the 1990s and 2000s, nearly every state revised its laws or adopted new legislation facilitating the transfer of juvenile offenders from juvenile court to criminal court. Previously, transfer was reserved for the "worst juveniles", or those youths who were charged with serious violent offenses. This paper compares and contrasts girls and boys who were judicially waived to adult court in one state from 1994 to 2000. These data suggest that there may be other factors that influence judicial decision-making on the issue of transfer. Policy considerations are also discussed.

A ‘central paradox’: Judicial decision-making in cases of sexual offending by young people

“…‘Young offenders’ and ‘sex offenders’ are thus positioned as two distinct groups by the criminal justice apparatus. Indeed, in some instances, when a young person commits a sexual offence that is deemed sufficiently serious, they effectively relinquish their right to be dealt with by the court as a young person and are instead heard in an adult court (Burke, 2015; Harris, 2008; Kurlychek & Johnson, 2010; Shook & Goodkind, 2009; Van Dijk et al, 2005). In other words, in legal terms, anyone who commits a sexual offence of sufficient seriousness cannot be considered a young person by definition (Barbaree & Marshall, 2006, p. 3): the categories of ‘young offender’ and ‘sex offender’ are deemed incompatible, and the commission of a serious sexual offence erases the subject position of ‘youth’.…”