What Have Researchers Learned About Criminal Court Transfer

1

• What Have Researchers Learned About Criminal
  Court Transfer?
• January 24, 2006
• Jeffrey Butts, Ph.D.Chapin Hall Center for
  Children
• University of Chicago
• jabutts_at_uchicago.edu

2
Summary

• Despite two decades of research, we have not
  found a crime-reduction effect from criminal
  court transfer
• Criminal court transfer is an inexact science
• Only the most violent, chronic juvenile
  offenders get more severe more certain
  punishment in adult court
• The majority of youth moved to adult court get
  less punishment and fewer rehabilitative
  services
• The deterrent value of transfer is not clear (at
  best)

3
Why Are Youth Transferred?
Most Americans would say

• Reduce crime
• Hold youth accountable
• Increase public safety

4
Why Are Youth Transferred?
These are testable hypotheses Does transfer
increase?

• Incapacitation
• Specific deterrence
• General deterrence

5
Implied Hypotheses
More incapacitation
Transferring young offenders to adult court means
they will be incarcerated, and this reduces
crime, by that person, at least for the time of
imprisonment
6
Implied Hypotheses
More specific deterrence
Being transferred once makes an offender less
likely to recidivate because he/she will not want
to be transferred again
7
Implied Hypotheses
More general deterrence
Youth in general are less likely to commit
crimes, because they see others being transferred
and want to avoid it themselves
8
Questions Asked by Research
- Are transferred youth more likely to be
incarcerated and for longer terms?
Does transfer increase incapacitation?
- Are transferred youth less likely than
non-transferred youth to re-offend?
Does transfer increase specific deterrence?
- Are youth in general less likely to offend
when/where transfer is used more?
Does transfer increase general deterrence?
9
Specific Findings
Incapacitation
?
The chance of incarceration varies widely among
transferred youth -- 20 to 80
Mixed findings
Serious and violent offenders are more likely to
be incarcerated if transferred, but other youth
are not (e.g., Fagan, studied cases in NY vs. NJ)
Some positive findings
10
Specific Findings
Fagan Who gets locked up more, longer?
New Jersey Juvenile Courts
New York Criminal Courts
Robbery Cases(ages 16 17)
Burglary Cases(ages 16 17)
11
Specific Findings
Specific Deterrence
Youth convicted in criminal court are not less
likely to recidivate in general If there is a
deterrent effect, studies have not identified it
yet, and the conditions necessary to achieve it
are not known Some studies suggest transfer
increases rather than reduces post-release
recidivism (e.g., Bishop, Frazier et al.,
transfers in Florida)
All negative findings
12
Specific Findings
Lanza-Kaduce et al. Who is re-arrested more,
faster?
Florida youth in juvenile justice system
Recidivism?
Case Matching Process
Florida youth sentenced in adult court
475 Matched Pairs Same age, sex, race, offense,
priors, most serious prior
13
Specific Findings
Lanza-Kaduce et al. Who is re-arrested more,
faster?
Florida youth in juvenile justice system
Recidivism?
49
Case Matching Process
35
37
Florida youth sentenced in adult court
315 Best-Matched Pairs Same as before, but also
matched on weapon use, victim injury, property
loss/damage, gang involvement, prior escape
attempts, drug problems, etc.
14
Specific Findings
General Deterrence
There is no association between the use of
transfer and rates of juvenile crime
Juvenile crime does not vary systematically
between states according to the availability and
use of transfer Before-and-after studies
find that more transfer does not produce lower
juvenile crime levels (e.g., Simon Singer, New
York)
All negative findings
15
Specific Findings
Singer Do new transfer laws reduce crime?
Answer No

• Some crime indicators went down in upstate New
  York, but up in NYC
• Other indicators went down in NYC, but the
  same trends were seen in other large cities
  outside of New York

16
Overall Assessment
Transfer is a failure based upon the three tests
mentioned above - Incapacitation - Specific
deterrence - General deterrence Some increase
in incapacitation, but only for the most serious
and violent offenders No clear deterrent effect
17
Why Does Transfer Fail?

• The justice system is a system, nobody can
  guarantee a particular sentencing outcome (e.g.,
  Snyder et al. study of expanded transfer in PA)
• Other than the use and length of confinement,
  criminal juvenile courts are not that different
  anymore. Why would we expect offenders to react
  so differently?
• Like capital punishment, extreme sentences in the
  juvenile system are relatively rare and affect
  few people

18
So Why Do We Do It?

• Another purpose of punishment
• Retribution
• Symbol of social condemnation
• Widely embraced politically, even if no empirical
  connection to actual crime reduction

19
So What?

• Issues for Policymakers
• Is simple retribution a legitimate goal in
  dealing with young offenders? Does the public
  agree?
• If transfer cannot guarantee incarceration, do
  community-based sentences in the adult system
  compare favorably with those in the juvenile
  system?
• Has the growing use of transfer undermined
  what is left of the juvenile justice system?

20
References

• Abeyratne, Senarath and Benita Sizemore (1999).
  Juveniles Waived to Criminal Courts in Ohio
  1995-1997 Adjudication and Disposition.
  Columbus, OH Ohio Department of Youth Services.
• Bishop, Donna M., Charles E. Frazier, Lonn
  Lanza-Kaduce and Lawrence Winner (1996). The
  transfer of juveniles to criminal court Does it
  make a difference? Crime Delinquency
  42171-191.
• Bortner, M. A. (1986). Traditional rhetoric,
  organization realities Remand of juveniles to
  adult court. Crime Delinquency 3253-73.
• Brown, Jodi M., and Patrick A. Langan (1998).
  State Court Sentencing of Convicted Felons, 1994
  (Section VI). Washington, D.C. U.S. Department
  of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
• Fagan, Jeffrey (1995). Separating the men from
  the boys The comparative advantage of juvenile
  versus criminal court sanctions on recidivism
  among adolescent felony offenders, in Sourcebook
  on Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile
  Offenders, eds. J. Howell et al., Thousand Oaks,
  CA Sage.
• Fagan, Jeffrey (1996). The comparative advantage
  of juvenile versus criminal court sanctions on
  recidivism among adolescent felony offenders. Law
  Policy 1877-113.
• Greenwood, Peter W., Albert J. Lipson, Allan
  Abrahamse Franklin Zimring (1983). Youth Crime
  and Juvenile Justice in California A Report to
  the Legislature (R-3016-CSA). Santa Monica, CA
  Rand Corporation.
• Hamparian, Donna M., L. Estep, S. Muntean, R.
  Prestino, R. Swisher, P. Wallace and J.L. White
  (1982). Youth in Adult Courts Between Two
  Worlds. Washington DC U.S. Department of
  Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and
  Delinquency Prevention.
• Jensen, Eric L. and Linda K. Metsger (1994). A
  test of the deterrent effect of legislative
  waiver on violent juvenile crime. Crime and
  Delinquency 4096-104.
• Lanza-Kaduce, Lonn, Charles E. Frazier, Jodi
  Lane, Donna M. Bishop (2002). Juvenile Transfer
  to Criminal Court Study Final Report.
  Tallahassee, FL Florida Department of Juvenile
  Justice.
• Levitt, Steven D. (1998). Juvenile crime and
  punishment. Journal of Political Economy
  106(6)1156-1185.
• McNulty, Elizabeth W. (1996). The transfer of
  juvenile offenders to adult court Panacea or
  problem? Law Policy 1861-75.

21
References (continued)

• Podkopacz, Marcy R. and Barry C. Feld (1996). End
  of the line An empirical study of judicial
  waiver. The Journal of Criminal Law and
  Criminology 86(2)449-492.
• Podkopacz, Marcy R. and Barry C. Feld (2001). The
  back-door to prison Waiver reform, blended
  sentencing, and the law of unintended
  consequences. The Journal of Criminal Law and
  Criminology 91(4)997-1072.
• Poulos, Tammy Meredith, and Stan Orchowsky
  (1994). Serious juvenile offenders Predicting
  the probability of transfer of criminal court.
  Crime Delinquency 403-17.
• Risler, Edwin A., Tim Sweatman and Larry Nackerud
  (1998). Evaluating the Georgia legislative
  waiver's effectiveness in deterring juvenile
  crime. Research in Social Work Practice
  8657-667.
• Rudman, Cary, Eliot Hartstone, Jeffrey Fagan and
  Melinda Moore (1986). Violent youth in adult
  court Process and punishment. Crime and
  Delinquency 3275-96.
• Singer, Simon (1996). Recriminalizing
  Delinquency Violent Juvenile Crime and Juvenile
  Justice Reform. Cambridge, EnglandCambridge
  University Press.
• Singer, Simon I. and David McDowall (1988).
  Criminalizing delinquency The deterrent effects
  of the New York juvenile offender law. Law
  Society Review 22521-535.
• Snyder, Howard, Melissa Sickmund, and Eileen
  Poe-Yamagata (2000). Juvenile Transfers to
  Criminal Court in the 1990's Lessons Learned
  from Four Studies. Washington, DC U.S.
  Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice
  and Delinquency Prevention.
• Winner, Lawrence, Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, Donna M.
  Bishop and Charles E. Frazier (1997). The
  transfer of juveniles to criminal court
  Reexamining recidivism over the long term. Crime
  and Delinquency 43548-563.