A couple of readers pointed me to this week to a New York Times editorial making "
The Case for Juvenile Courts" (Aug. 13), which argued against state laws allowing juveniles to be tried as adults for serious crime:
This country made a terrible mistake when it began routinely trying youthful offenders as adults. This get-tough approach was supposed to deter crime. But a growing number of government-financed studies have shown that minors prosecuted as adults commit more crimes — and are more likely to become career criminals — than ones processed through juvenile courts.
The editorial takes as a starting point this recent publication from USDOJ, "
Juvenile Transfer Laws: An effective deterrent to delinquency?" (pdf), which provides a good summary of the research surrounding whether transferring youth to adult correctional systems reduces recidivism. According to DOJ (p. 6):
In sum, to date, six large-scale studies have been conducted on the specific deterrent effects of transfer. These studies used large sample sizes (between 494 and 5,476 participants), different methodologies (natural experiment across two juris-dictions, matched groups within the same jurisdictions, or statistical controls), multiple measures of recidivism, and were conducted in five jurisdictions (Florida, New Jersey, New York, Minnesota, Pennsylvania) having different types of transfer laws (automatic, prosecutorial, or judicial).
The strong consistency in results across the studies is all the more compelling given that they used different samples and methodologies, thereby providing a degree of convergent validity for the findings. All of the studies found higher recidivism rates among offenders who had been transferred to criminal court, compared with those who were retained in the juvenile system. This held true even for offenders who only received a sentence of probation from the criminal court.
Thus, the extant research provides sound evidence that transferring juvenile offenders to the criminal court does not engender community protection by reducing recidivism. On the contrary, transfer substantially increases recidivism.
In other words, it does not work.
ReplyDeleteGet tough harms public safety. If we are a kinder society, then we need to treat one another in kinder ways.
"But a growing number of government-financed studies have shown that minors prosecuted as adults commit more crimes" ----
ReplyDeletethey were already likely to commit more crimes anyway based upon the serious offense and that would have likely been why they were tried as adults .
what a waiste of money to study something of that nature?? Juvenile's aren't tried as adults for anything except very serious offenses.
Maybe another study should be ---- "DOJ : Research shows juveniles who commit violent offenses likely to re-offend" duh---- but let's wait for a study.
Monk, perhaps you should look at the DOJ research brief more carefully. The studies were so large because they had control groups for comparison with similar offenses. (They can be easily segmented because some jurisdictions transfer kids to the adult system for types of offenses that other jurisdictions handle exclusively through juvenile courts.) They're not just comparing more serious offenders to less serious ones, which I agree would be a self defeating exercise.
ReplyDeleteDid it occur to these dingleberries that the reason juveniles get tried as adults is because they are significally more evil than your average ADULT criminal.
ReplyDeleteOh jeeze...kids that single themselves out as so BAD that we want to give them adult punishment turn out to be bad adults. Who knew? Wow someone should fund a freaking study!
WTF? If someone is that bad before they are even an adult we should just go ahead and inject them and save ourselves the heartache.
See my response to Monk, 3:07, you seem to want to pretend that the studies used no control groups and failed to differentiate by seriousness of offense, which is false. One hopes such obfuscations are not intentional, but they certainly misrepresent DOJ's findings.
ReplyDelete/The anonymous name calling is real classy, though. Very persuasive argumentation tactic, that.
"If someone is that bad before they are even an adult we should just go ahead and inject them and save ourselves the heartache."
ReplyDeleteOh, yes. Fabulous.
Dumbass.
"Did it occur to these dingleberries that the reason juveniles get tried as adults is because they are significally more evil than your average ADULT criminal."
ReplyDelete"WTF? If someone is that bad before they are even an adult we should just go ahead and inject them and save ourselves the heartache."
WTF? Executing a child doesn't bring you heartache? And you're calling the kids evil? What about your own attitude?
Hey, rocket scientist, juveniles are also less mentally and emotionally capable than adults, thus reducing their levels of culpability. They shouldn't be more harshly punished for that inescapable, biological fact of life.
"Did it occur to these dingleberries that the reason juveniles get tried as adults is because they are significally more evil than your average ADULT criminal."
ReplyDeleteWow. That sounds so Texan. I don't think ignorance could be demonstrated anymore clearly.
First, the name calling. I haven't heard the word dingleberry since someone signed my high school yearbook.
Second, the assuming that juvenile tranfer cases are being prosecuted because they are "evil" is void of any understanding of the legal system (particularly in Harris County).
Third, assuming that juveniles who commit serious crimes are "evil" is remarkably arrogant. When working with these kids always recall the phrase "but by the grace of God go I."
Fourth, stating that juveniles who commit serious crimes are more evil than adults who commit serious crimes lacks any sort of common sense. Violent juveniles are typically just acting like the violent adults around them. Stages of brain development also make this argument simply nonsensical.
"Oh jeeze...kids that single themselves out as so BAD that we want to give them adult punishment turn out to be bad adults. Who knew? Wow someone should fund a freaking study!"
First, these kids really don't single themselves out. They usually have had several exposures to the juvenile probation system with limited success. Maybe we need to improve the intervention/ prevention side of things...maybe we could limit the needle distribution program, its pretty expensive.
Yes, lets fund more studies because more and more research shows that intensive treatment of juveniles with violent histories actually reduces the amount of time they spend incarcerated and also reduces violent recidivism. But maybe you don't want to fund this type of study because not only will you find out they no longer need killin, but they will not even be locked up as long for their evilness and BAD behavior.
Costs much less to intervene with a kid than to kill them. Never mind the ethical and moral dilemmas. The fiscal argument can stand alone.
WTF do you have to say about that?
In my opinion your attitude is more dangerous than the juvenile. Especially the one who has the opportunity for rehabilitation in the juvenile justice system rather than the adult prison system.
Just would like to also point out that with SB103, which lowered the age of TYC jurisdiction to 19 has resulted in an increase of juveniles referred to the adult system.
Yeah! Lets get rid of em just when they are approaching the ability to think more maturely.
That my friends is brilliant reform. Especially when the trend of the rest of the country is actually the opposite.
Stunning work Whitmire. Your insight into juvenile justice issues just continues to bewilder, confuse, and enrage me.
Anon 10:29 It's going to be okey.Calm down.It's just a blog.No one is hearing us anyway.
ReplyDeleteOK Grits.... I must do a better job with my reading and interpretation.... Skimmed through the report and realized they took kids with same offenses handled in Juvenile Court vs those transferred to adult system. Makes sense I guess. Seems there are different ways to interpret the research.
ReplyDeleteKeep in mind there are so many factors that go into a decision to transfer. I had a kid back in the 90s that was almost 17, robbed a convenience store, got caught and then asked the Court to transfer him to the adult system so he could go to jail so he could smoke.
SB 103 didn't help the transferring decision. The juvenile justice system used to have jurisdiction until 21 and now it is 19. If you have a serious offense that a kid commits at age 16 but law enforcement doesn't get the evidence on them until they're 17 1/2 then they are likely to be tried as an adult. Judges don't like sending a kid to TYC for something very serious knowing TYC will open the door at 19 and say good luck.
I have never believed that a transfer to the adult system would be a deterrent but how do you measure a deterrent really. I guess statisticians think it is possible.
Thanks for the clarification though I should have caught it myself.
not only is it not a deterrent it makes them worse!
ReplyDelete