1. Prosecutorial Waivers and Transfers:
The Disproportional Impact on Non-white Juveniles in
Massachusetts and Michigan
The processing of juveniles through the court systems has been both punitive and
rehabilitative through the years. Public opinions play a major role on how our society
handles juveniles that are committing crimes. The first section will go over major time
periods of our juvenile criminal justice system. The next part will discuss the
developments that lead to the amendment of Michigan Law 769.1 and Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 119, §52 . The final section will discuss these laws and its impact
on non-white juveniles.
This paper will demonstrate how the racialization of crime and a juvenile’s
socioeconomic plays a role at each stage within juvenile justice system. Today’s punitive
system has a detrimental affect on a non-white’s case. The racialization of crime
promotes the belief that punitive measures are more affective than rehabilitation. The
racialization derives from multiple formal and informal sources promoting the belief that
non-whites in lower class neighborhoods are more deviant than any other social group.
Waivers are seen as a method in punishing those that can not be rehabilitated. The only
solution to the problem is longer sentence and harsher punishment. Human Rights Watch
and Amnesty International reported in October of 2005 that at least 2,225 people are
serving life sentences without parole in U.S. prisons for crimes they committed under age
18. Six of them were 13 at the time of the crime. The unintended consequence from this

2. policy is that lower class non-white juveniles are receiving longer and harsher
punishment. The use of discretion at each level of the system gives white youths an
opportunity to be diverted away from these harsh sanctions.
HISTORY
During Colonial times, courts treated children as harshly as adults. In 1648,
Massachusetts prescribed the death penalty for any child over 16 who "shall curse, or
smile their natural father or mother." At age fourteen, adolescents had to appear in court
but if the court thought a child knew the difference between right and wrong he would be
tried as early as age 8. Policies like this reflected the religious tone at the time. Crimes
were considered sins and any offense against God was an automatic crime against the
village and the people therein. The belief was that punishing children severely would
make them into law-abiding citizens and god would not punish the whole community.
The next period of time in our juvenile justice system was less harsh and focused
more on reform. In 1825, the New York Society for the Reformation of Juvenile
Delinquents opened the House of Refuge, the nation's first reformatory. Although its
purpose was to reform delinquents through prayer, work, and study, the facility's staff
punished juveniles with whippings. Children were committed for wandering from place
to place in addition to petty crimes. They were sentenced or “committed indefinitely.” A
badge system was used to segregate inmates according to their behavior.
By 1899, at least ten children in the United States were executed for crimes they
committed before their 14th birthdays. Until 1899, youth lacking proper parental care or
engaging in illegal conduct were sent to reform schools instead of jails. Illinois

3. legislature passed the first law creating a juvenile court to regulate the treatment and
control of neglected and delinquent children under age 16. borrowing from the British
thinking, the doctrine parens patriae (the State as Parent) was the underpinning of the
newly established right for the state to intervene and to provide protection for children
whose parents did not provide adequate care or supervision, such as in the case of
juvenile delinquency. The primary motive of the juvenile court was to provide
rehabilitation and supervision for the child.
All but two states by 1925 established juvenile courts. Many juvenile courts
were conducted informally. Judges would have discussions with offending children on
the type of rehabilitation for them. The lack of established rules often led to unfair
treatment. Children committing crimes were no longer considered "criminals," and were
now referred to as "delinquents”. Youth were no longer tried as adult offenders. Between
1927 to 1950’s, forestry and probation camps for juvenile offenders existed in almost
every state. These camps provided a structured setting for male juvenile offenders, while
emphasizing education and vocational skills.
Eventually, the federal government began to take notice the delinquency. In 1967,
the Supreme Court decided that juveniles were protected under the 14th Amendment and
entitled to due process, including the right to call and cross-examine witnesses, the right
against self-incrimination, and the right to legal counsel because of the Gerry Gault case.
The courts began to formalize the juvenile courts and made them more like criminal
courts. In 1968, Congress passed the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act.
The act was designed to encourage states to develop plans and programs that would work
on a community level to discourage juvenile delinquency. Any state that creates

4. programs would receive federal funding. The U.S. had developed a strong momentum
toward deinstitutionalizing youth already in the system, and keeping juvenile offenders
separate from adult offenders. . “Proof beyond a reasonable doubt” had to be
established, instead of just “a preponderance of evidence” for adjudication.
The 1980s and 1990s ushered in the “War on Drugs.” During this period, the juvenile
justice policies began to emphasize punishment. The public’s fear increased the number
of juvenile arrests for violent crimes. Repeated violent crimes eroded the belief in
rehabilitation. . In the court process and in detention, there is more of an emphasis on
punishment and less of an emphasis on rehabilitation. A series of school shootings, gang
violence in the inner cities and other horrendous offenses caused the public to fear a new
breed of "juvenile super predators," defined by the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, as "juveniles for whom violence was a way of life - new
delinquents unlike youth of past generations."
The past 20 years, despite actual declines in youth crime rates, public perceptions
of youth violence have contributed to widespread support for the dismantling of the
juvenile court system and tougher crime legislation, like trying children as adults and
increasing incarceration as the solution to juvenile delinquency. Many states began to
enact legislation targeted toward holding juvenile offenders, especially those deemed
violent, serious, or chronic offenders, more accountable for their actions. Legislation that
made it easier for juveniles to be tried as adults began to find favor. Politically popular
federal and local measures implemented in the adult criminal justice system, such as the
three strikes and sexual predator laws, abolishment of parole, and imposition of
mandatory prison sentences, have increasingly been considered for the juvenile system.

5. Waiver laws took power away from judges while increasing the role of prosecutors and
legislatures. For instance, many states enacted policies that made judicial waiver
presumptive, shifting the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense. Another
increasingly popular strategy for moving juveniles into the criminal courts is mandatory
waiver. If a juvenile meets the criteria for mandatory waiver, a juvenile court judge is left
with no choice but to transfer jurisdiction.
History has shown there is no standard practice when dealing with delinquent
juveniles. During colonial times, the severity of punishment derived from a religious
community. Punishing the child would protect the community from god’s wrath. In the
1900’s, juveniles were no longer treated as adult criminals but instead youth are
delinquent. Being delinquent meant that change is feasible. The transformation would
derive from proper training, education, and care. This was a more rehabilitative than the
punitive past of Colonial times. As our nation modernized, the juvenile justice system
went through major changes. Special courts were created to handle youth offenders.
U.S. Supreme court laid down formal procedures and same protective rights that are
given to adult defendants. Congress established federal agencies and grants encouraging
states to comply with federal standards. Political pressure, a weak economy, and the
media’s influence generated hysteria that the moral fabric of our nation was deteriorating.
The cause of the deterioration was from increase violence of young gang members and
the drug trafficking. The media gave Americans the impression that young minorities in
inner cities were irresponsible and need to be punished and not rehabilitated.

6. Michigan Law 769.1
In 1988, Michigan’s legislature were one of the first States to create stricter
penalties for juvenile offenders. The prosecutor had the power to try juveniles up to the
age of seventeen as adults. By 1996, the legislature amended the statute requiring any
juvenile convicted of certain offenses to be sentenced as an adult based on the
prosecutorial waiver. The amendment allowed a juvenile of any age to be tried and
sentenced in the juvenile court as an adult. Just as the amendment in 1988, the
prosecutor had the power to try juveniles as adult. Michigan developed a “juvenile
blended sentencing.” “The juvenile court may ‘designate the case as a case in which the
juvenile is to be tried in the same manner as an adult’-but in juvenile court.” The push to
lower the age limit of juveniles was encouraged by public fear, the need to control unruly
youths, and politicians taking advantage of the time. They may use this option based on
any felonies. The use varies in each jurisdiction. “[P]rosecutorial waiver statues expand
the powers of prosecutors who have, in general, traditionally supported retribution rather
than rehabilitation, the main philosophy of the juvenile court (Joseph,pg.104).” This
prosecutorial waiver perpetuates the increase of non-white juvenile incarceration. Even
though judges are required to document their decision of a particular case, prosecutors are

7. not required to document their use of the prosecutorial waiver. This makes it difficult for
us to determine the reasoning. Understanding the reason would help researchers
determine how to change the over incarceration rate of non-white juveniles. Waivers
give support to the expansion of the criminal justice system. Trying juveniles as adults
and subjecting them to the same punishment as adults only increases amount of bodies
regulated by the system. Once these young people enter the incarceration system, they
experience abuse and an environment that, rather than deter future criminality, breeds it.
There have been several illustrative cases using the waiver option, including the
trial of Nathaniel Abraham in 1999. At the age of 13, he was charged as an adult for
first-degree murder of 18-year-old Ronnie Green, becoming the first juvenile tried under
the amended 769.1 Michigan law. Another case involved August and Shytour Williams
in 1997. August Williams, 25, and his cousin Shytour Williams, 15, were accused of
killing a Michigan State University student. They were charged with first-degree murder,
first-degree criminal sexual conduct, carjacking, armed robbery, kidnapping, and
possession of a firearm, all of which were felonies subjecting them to “automatic
waiver.” In addition, there was the case of Martez Stewart in 1998. Martez stabbed his
14-year-old neighbor sixteen times. He received a life sentence for second-degree
murder. These cases are examples of how if the crime is extreme and the defendant is a
minority, there is no age limit for receiving harsh punishment. This philosophy is
moving away from theory behind the use of the juvenile court system. Rather than find
the causation of the crime and reintegrate the juvenile back into the community, our
society chose expulsion. Research has shown even though more whites are arrested than
blacks, black youths eventually are incarcerated at a higher rate.

8. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 119, §52 - §58
In Massachusetts, youthful offenders are “a person who is subject to an adult or
juvenile sentence for having committed, while between the ages of fourteen and
seventeen, an offense against a law of the commonwealth which, if he were and adult,
would be punishable by imprisonment in the state prison and …..has committed an
offense which involves the infliction or threat of serious bodily harm in violation of law
(Ireland, pg. 49).”
“If a child is adjudicated a youthful offender on an indictment, the
court may sentence him to such punishment as is provided by law
for the offense. The court shall make a written finding, stating its
reasons, therefore, that the present and long-term public safety
would be best protected by a sentence provided by law; or a
combination sentence…..or a commitment to the department of
youth services until he reaches the age of twenty-one.(Ireland, pg.
57-58).”
Unlike Michigan, Massachusetts had a different way in handling youthful
offenders. In 1996, the Legislature made changes to the law governing juvenile
offenders. One of the major changes in the amendment is that the state may proceed
against a child by indictment in a Juvenile Court rather than transferring the case to the
Superior Court. The prosecutor has the discretionary power to seek a youthful offender
indictment, as long as the statutory prerequisites are met. The juvenile can be charged as

9. a complaint or as an indictment. In a complaint, the childe may be sent to Department of
Youth Services. The judge has the power to review the indictment. G.L. c. 119 §58
authorizes a Juvenile Court judge to impose an adult sentence. In an indictment, the child
maybe sent directly to an adult facility. Unlike the prosecutor, the judge must put his
decision into writing. There are two parts to the waiver procedure. The first part is to
hold a probable cause hearing. The second part determines whether or not to transfer the
child. The court assesses the child’s level of threat to the community and whether or not
they can be treated.
In Massachusetts v. Taylor, the appeals court of Massachusetts affirmed the
District Court, West Roxbury Division decision to transfer Taylor(charged with
manslaughter and assault by means of a dangerous weapon) to adult court, even though
experts testified in the District Court trial that Traylor was in fact amenable to
rehabilitation. The Appeals Court cited many prior crimes committed by Taylor. At age
12, he was adjudicated for assault, criminal trespass, burglary and larceny; at age 14,
burglary and larceny; and at age 16, two incidences of assault and battery, and motor
vehicle theft, armed robbery and carrying a dangerous weapon.
On Halloween of 1990, five youths under the age of 17 raped, stabbed and beat a
girl to death in Boston. This event prompted the State legislature to enact amendments to
the juvenile code that made it easier to transfer juveniles accused of murder to adult
court. "With this presumption in place, transfer to the adult system was easier, but the
presumption was regularly overcome (Martin, pg.62)." The following year, two under 17
juveniles were gunned down outside their building in Roxbury. The juvenile accused of
the crime evaded transfer to adult court, even after amending the 1990 amendments. This

10. prompted State legislature to develop mandatory sentences for index offenses. Juveniles
adjudicated for murder who managed to avoid transfer could stay within the juvenile
court system.
THE POLICYS AND RACE
The racialization of crime blinds society from recognizing the disproportion
amount of incarcerated African American juveniles. When we compare the statistics of
how many whites are taken into custody verse the amount of non-whites, there is a major
difference. Chart 1 and 2 statistics derive from the Michigan’s Uniform Crime Reports
and Michigan’s Corrections Management Information System. Chart 3 and 4 present
timelines with the range of offense subject to waivers and juvenile commitments from
1982-1998. Chart 5-8 derive from Executive Office of Public Safety and Advisory
Committee study of Massachusetts juvenile courts from 1993-2002. The discrepancy
between whites and non-whites is noticeable in both states when assessing arrest rates
and incarceration rates..
Chart 1 *2001 TOTAL TOTAL INDEX ARRESTS FOR MICHIGAN
Age Group: Juvenile Total
Requested on 12/7/2004
Sheriffs Police Dept.
State
Police State
Population Served 3,213,289 6,725,155 3,213,289 9,938,444
MALE TOTAL 1,139 5,011 1,119 7,269
White 1,008 3,061 1,034 5,102
Black 103 1,824 46 1,973
American Indian/Alsk 6 25 15 46
Asian/Pacific Isle 10 28 2 40
Hispanic 0 10 0 10

11. FEMALE TOTAL 436 2,498 308 3,242
White 380 1,630 286 2,296
Black 39 799 12 850
American Indian/Alsk 5 5 4 14
Asian/Pacific Isle 7 17 0 24
Hispanic 0 2 0 2
*Michigan State Police Uniform Crime Reports-Crime Statistics.
Chart 2 *COMMITMENTS BY AGE RACE AND SEX AS OF 2001
Total Commitments
MALE COMMITMENTS
Total Male White Non-White
Age Group Count PCNT Count PCNT Count PCNT Count PCNT
19 and
Under 1,110 10.6 1081 11.1 465 4.8 616 6.3
20-24 2,415 23.0 2319 23.9 986 10.2 1333 13.7
25-29 1,660 15.8 1537 15.8 635 6.5 902 9.3
30-39 2,987 28.5 2682 27.6 1334 13.7 1348 13.9
40 and Over 2,311 22.0 2090 21.5 1094 11.3 996 10.3
Totals 10,498 100.0 9709 100.0 4514 46.5 5195 53.5
Subtotals as
Percent of
Total
100.0 92.6 43.1 49.6
*Michigan Department of Corrections: Corrections Management Information System (CMIS).
Even though arrest rates for whites are greater than non-whites, the incarceration
rate for non-whites is higher. One factor that has an affect on this number is the
discretionary decisions at each stage. This is further explained later on in this paper. The
other factor is the expanded range of offense that are subject to commitment and the
removal of age limits. As we can see in the first chart, the combination of both these
elements has made a significant impact youth incarceration rate. By expanding the range
of offenses, prosecutors have a larger population to use sanctions with waivers. This

12. increases the likelihood of committing more juveniles. The removal of age limit only
further raises the population of incarceration. In 1988, there were 12 offenses subject to
possible incarceration. By 1996, the level of offense was increased to 47. The
incarceration rate from 1988 to 1996 has had a dramatic increase. The incarceration rate
has almost doubled. There were approximately 50 juveniles committed in 1988. By
1996, that number has increased to almost 190. The population that has felt these
changes more is the African American male. The combination of expanding the range of
offense and the drop in age limit has caused more non-whites than whites to be
incarcerated. The next section will further explain the reason behind the discrepancy
between arrest rates and incarceration rates.
Chart 3
Range of Offenses (N)
Year of Commitment
Other Michigan Courts
Detroit Recorder’s Court
With the exception of Detroit, youth are increasingly committed to
prison for a greater range of offenses by the Michigan courts

13. Chart 4
Juveniles Committed to Michigan Prisons (N)
Year of Commitment
The number of youth committed to Michigan prisons has
increased dramatically since 1982
1988: Change in Juvenile
Code giving prosecutor
greater discretion in waiver
and expanding the range of
waiver eligible offenses.
1996: Change in Juvenile
Code eliminating lower age
limits for waiver.
The next set of statistics were gathered by the Social Science Research and Evaluation
Inc. They were commissioned by the Executive Office of Public Safety and Advisory
Committee in 2003. The statistics were part of a report which addressed the over-
representation of non-white youths in Massachusetts at every decision-making point in
the juvenile justice system. They reviewed 1,222 juvenile records from ten courts and
interviewed 110 youths. Approximately 60% of those interviewed were minorities. In
1993, 50% of the police departments failed to submit all relevant data to FBI’s Uniform
Crime Report. Instead, the FBI categorized Latinos as whites or African American.
During the 1999-2002, there were major difficulties with collecting the necessary data.
Statistics regarding juvenile crime and juvenile demographics were not properly collected
preventing Massachusetts from accurately monitoring racial disparities.

14. Chart 5
First Disproportionate Processing of Minority Youth Index Matrix Statewide (Aggragate Results
from Four Counties; 1993 Data
% of
juvenile
pop.
% of youth
arrested
(delinquent)
% of youth
arraigned
% of youth
adjudicated
delinquent
% of youth
committed to state
secure facility
African-American 6.0% 28.2% 28.9% 33.0% 30.1%
Latino 7.6% n/a 25.9% 29.4% 19.5%
Asian/Pacific
Islander 2.8% 1.4% 2.6% 1.4% 2.4%
All Minorities 17.2% 28.6% 59.0% 65.1% 57.3%
White 82.8% 71.4% 41.0% 34.9% 42.7%
Chart 6
First Disproportionate Minority Confinement Index Matrix Statewide (Aggregate Results
from Four Counties); 1993 Data
% of
juvenile
population
% of
youth
arrested
% of youth
in adult
lockups
% of youth
in adult
jails
% of youth in
secure juvenile
detention fac.
African-American 6.0% 27.2% 17.4% 20.0% 35.5%
Latino 7.6% n/a 21.3% 40.0% 16.1%
Asian/Pacific
Islander 2.8% 1.4% 1.3% 20.0% 2.1%
All Minorities 17.2% 28.6% 40.5% 80.0% 65.8%
White 82.8% 71.4% 59.5% 20.0% 34.2%
Chart 7
Fourth Disproportionate Processing of Minority Youth Index Matrix Statewide (Aggragate
Results from Five Counties; 1999-2002 Data
% of
juvenile
pop.
(2002)
% of youth
arrested
(delinquent)
(1999)
% of
youth
arraigned
% of youth
adjudicated
delinquent
% of youth
committed
to state
secure
facility(2002
)
African-American 6.0% 20.0% n/a n/a 29.0%
Latino 10.0% 15.0% n/a n/a 26.0%
Asian/Pacific
Islander 4.0% 2.0% n/a n/a 2.0%
All Minorities 23.0% 22.0% n/a n/a 63.0%
White 77.0% 78.0% n/a n/a 37.0%

15. Chart 8
Fourth Disproportionate Minority Confinement Index Matrix Statewide (Aggregate Results from
Five Counties); 2000-2002 Data
% of
juvenile
pop.
(2000)
% of youth
arrested(delinquent)
(2000)
% of
youth
arraigned
(2002)
% of youth
adjudicated
delinquent
(2002)
% of youth
committed
to state
secure
facility(2002
)
African-American 6.0% 24.0% 100.0% 16.0% 24.0%
Latino 10.0% n/a 0.0% 22.0% 22.0%
Asian/Pacific
Islander 4.0% 1.0% 0.0% 3.0% 4.0%
All Minorities 23.0% 25.0% 100.0% 43.0% 60.0%
White 77.0% 75.0% 0.0% 57.0% 40.0%
Stages of Discretionary Decision
Discretionary decisions are made at each stage of the juvenile justice system.
There are many characters in the juvenile justice system; Legislators, law enforcement,
prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, and probation officers. For this research paper,
we will focus on law enforcement, prosecutors and probation officers. It is difficult to
assess the reasoning behind these discretionary decisions because our juvenile justice
system relies on strict confidentiality. This confidentiality thereby hinders us from fully
understanding why more minorities suffer discrimination because of these waivers.
Famous cases, such as the ones mentioned above, gives the illusion that criminalization
of the juvenile justice system is only incarcerating the “worst of the worst.” In reality,
juveniles are being incarcerated for all sorts of felonies such as drug possession or
property crime. The use of the prosecutorial waiver varies in each jurisdiction. The next
paragraphs will demonstrate how each level of our juvenile justice there are discretionary
decisions that hinder non-whites than whites in receiving equal treatment.

16. This discrimination pushes African American youths further into the system
leading them to harsher punishment. The implementation of the prosecutorial waiver and
automatic waiver “opens the door” for harsher punishment and longer sentences. Even
though automatic waivers are governed by a set of crimes that need to be committed in
order to be subject to its implementation, prosecutorial waivers are at the discretion of the
prosecutor. The standards for prosecutorial waivers are so low that more juveniles are
entrapped in its power. The decision to use this form of waiver varies from one
jurisdiction to another. This allows many youths, especially non-whites, to be
adjudicated much harsher than whites do.
Many times, the first character from the justice system juveniles interact with are
the police. Juveniles are much easier to apprehend. They are inexperience, highly
visible, and lack judgment. All these elements give the police greater latitude of power.
Police are ambivalent and inconsistent with their apprehension of juveniles.
“Unfortunately, many officers do not have the specialized training necessary to work
with this age group, and they deal with juveniles in much the same way as with adult
offenders (Joseph, pg.71).” Many police forces design their divisions similar to the
military. This type of approach gives communities, that are over policed, a feeling of
being under “military” control. This sort of approach would make juveniles defiant and
less open to intervention or assistance. One of the ways police respond to this attitude is
through their power to charge. Police have the discretionary power to choose charges
that come with harsher sentence. This influences each decision made within the justice
system. These charges have not only an impact on the intake personnel but also the
prosecutor. “[Report] said that the charge most often leveled against a white male in a

17. stolen car case is ‘unauthorized us of a vehicle.’ But, ‘virtually all black males [are]
charged with grand larceny, auto.’ Unauthorized use is merely a misdemeanor. Grand
larceny is a felony (Wright, pg. 209).” Due to the juvenile’s inexperience in life, it is
difficult for juveniles to defend properly their position. Police may respond more harshly
on one particular crime verse another crime because of public outcry. This over policing
can lead to more arrest and charges that can receive tougher punishment. “Observational
studies, most notably Pilivin and Briar (1964), have found that demeanor and appearance
were associated with police decisions. Furthermore, black youths were perceived by
officers to have a more negative demeanor and to be dressed less
appropriately(Feyerherm, pg. 48).”Another element that influences police decision to
take into custody a juvenile is family issues. Due to over incarceration of non-white
males, many families in low class areas are lacking that family structure. As we can see,
youths who derive from a community that is non-white, lack of family structure, and
constantly under police surveillance, are subject to tougher charges. These charges
follow the juvenile through the justice system and eventually lead some to being
incarcerated. The next decision maker in this system is the intake person. Many
jurisdictions use probation officers as their intake personnel. What police charge
juveniles with has a major influence with the development of a case.
Probation officers conduct classification of juveniles. “Perceptions shape
diagnostic and treatment processes by forming the base of information professionals use
to classify clients into meaningful categories (Bridges, Pg. 141).” Probation officers
evaluate a juvenile based on many criteria. One of the major criteria’s is the risk of the
youth to re-offending rather than focus on the juveniles needs. Training manuals that

18. probation officers use reinforce this value. The societal perception of races permeates
into our court systems and affects those within the system. Research demonstrates that
blacks are more likely to receive a negative assessment than whites. This assessment
persuades the judge’s sentence. The sentences have been disproportionately harsh for
blacks. This disparity is because black youths were more likely to be assessed or
classified as having “negative internal attributions,” while whites were more likely to be
assessed or classified as having “negative external attributions.” If black youths are seen
with “negative internal attributions,” then the only resort is to send them away.
Rehabilitation or a “second chance” is reserved for those who deserve it. Many times,
white youths benefit from these “second chances.” This reduces the amount of whites
facing incarceration due to waivers than non-whites.
The final stage some juveniles will face is the courtroom. After going through the
police and the probation officer, a case has been developed on the child. This is the
information the court officials will use in order to determine the outcome. By the time
the child reaches this level, their cases are seen as being the “worst of worst.” The police
already had the opportunity to either detain or release the child. The probation officer
already had their chance in either deferring the child to the parents, probation, or helpful
programs. If neither characters can help, then the only thing left is for the child to accept
the toughest penalty that will match their crime. One type of strategy for moving
juveniles into the criminal courts is automatic waiver. If a juvenile meets the criteria for
automatic waiver, a juvenile court judge has no choice but to transfer jurisdiction to the
adult system. The adult system is less rehabilitative and more geared towards punitive
measures.

19. CONCLUSION
History has demonstrated juveniles commit crime due to lack of social support.
Since the social support is missing, juveniles need to be rehabilitated. Rehabilitation will
bring the youth in order with the rest of the community. Eventually, local institutions
began to create juvenile justice system. Their goal was to create a formal establishment
to bring together parents, judges, social agents in a private environment to come help the
youth. The place of laws that dealt with juveniles was local. As the United States
modernizes, federal intervention began to mold the juvenile justice system within each
state. Michigan responded to the federal government’s demands to punish youths by
creating Michigan Law 769.1. The “War on Drugs” forced many states to become more
punitive. Michigan amended this law multiple times until eventually there is no age limit
if juvenile offenders commit certain felonies. By including drug offenses as a felony, the
juvenile justice system has expanded their control over a large population. Rather than
reduce crime, prosecutorial and automatic waivers has diverted more people under the
justice system. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 119, §52-§58 has limited the
separation between adult courts and the idea of parens patriae. Massachusetts Legislature
attempted to address the issue of violent crimes committed by juveniles by amending
M.G.L Chapter 119 several times over the years. In 1996, the law saw the largest
change. Prosecutors were given power to choose whether or not seeking and indictment
of a juvenile. Rather than bring parties together and assist the child, judges are given
power to sentence juveniles like adult offenders.
Citizens across the United States are so fearful of youth offenders committing
felonies that rehabilitation is seen as ineffective. Incarceration, probation, or monitoring

20. systems are seen as being more affective to control this immoral group. All society can
do is regulate this population. An outcome of modernizing our juvenile justice system
is the automatic waiver, prosecutorial waiver and less bureaucratic transfers. Our
juvenile justice system is attempting to keep its goal to rehabilitate juveniles but at the
same time respond to the publics need to punish those who commit heinous crimes. “One
possible nondiscriminatory explanation for the disproportionate overrepresentation of
minority youths in the juvenile justice process is that dispositional decisions are base on
the principle of offense (i.e., legal variables, rather than on an assessment of individual
needs), and that minority and lower class youths commit more and serious
crimes(Feyerherm, pg. 72).”The juvenile justice system is slowly being infiltrated by the
formal procedures and punitive elements of the adult court system. This element is
affecting more non-whites than whites. This not only subjects more minorities under the
criminal justice control but also “feeds” into the racialization of crime.
The implications of policies such as waivers have a major impact on particular
communities. “In our frenzy of locking people up, our ‘crime control’ policies may in
fact exacerbate the very conditions that lead to crime in the first place (Pager, pg. 961).”
Minority adults are already incarcerated at a high rate. In Michigan, the elimination of the
age limit and the increase range of charges that come with a prison sentence have almost
tripled the number of non-whites juveniles to be incarcerated. By trying juveniles as
adults only increase the amount of people being taken out of these neighborhoods. The
impact on the juvenile and the community can have a lasting affect. Information based
from the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, African American youth account
for 15% of the U.S. population and yet account for 26% of juvenile arrests. Just like

21. adults, these youths will find it difficult to obtain a proper education or occupation.
Incarceration does not help juveniles become normal adults. “According to a recent
study, there may be twice as many people suffering from mental illness who are in jails
and prisons than there are in all psychiatric hospitals in the United States combined
(Davis, pg. 10).” This completely defeats the purpose of the original concept of juvenile
justice system: rehabilitation. Waivers, automatic or prosecutorial, are only deteriorating
the ability for the juvenile justice system to focus on reintegrating the juvenile back into
society. Instead, many non-white youth are punished because their entrance into the
system is already tainted by uncontrollable circumstances such as poor education, lack of
economic opportunities, and a broke family structure. Waivers do not consider these
socioeconomic matters when delivering the punishment.

22. Bibliography
Feld, Barry. Readings in Juvenile Justice Administration. New York : Oxford University
Press, 1999.
Champion, Dean J. The Juvenile Justice System: Delinquency, processing, and the law.
Second Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall, c1998
Watkins Jr., John C. The Juvenile Justice Century: A sociolegal Commentary on
American Juvenile Courts. Durham, N.C. : Carolina Academic Press, c1998.
Rubin, H. Tod. Juvenile Justice :Policy, Practice, and Law. Second Edition. New York :
Random House, c1985.
Elrod, Preston. Juvenile justice: A Social, Historical, and Legal Perspective.
Gaithersburg, Md.: Aspen Publishers, 1999.
Emerson, Robert. Judging Delinquent: Context and Process in Juvenile Court. Chicago,
IL. : Aldine Publishing Company, 1969.
Singer, S. and Blumstein, A. Recriminializing Delinquency: Violent Juvenile Crime
and Juvenile Justice Reform. New York, NY. : Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Sutton. John R. Law and Society: Origins, Interacitons, and Change. Boston, Ma.:
Pine Forge Press, 2001.
Feyerherm, W. Pope, Carl E., and Leonard, Kimberly Kempf. Minorities in Juvenile
Justice . Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications, 1995.
Joseph, Janice. Black youths, delinquency, and juvenile justice . Westport, CO.:
JGreenwood Publishing Group, Incorporated, c1995. ph, Janice.
Pager, Devah. Criminal Careers: The Consequences of Incarceration for Occupational
Attainment. Madison, WI.: Northwestern Univeristy, 2003.
Wright, Bruce. A View From the Bench. , 1974.
Davis, Angela. Are Prisons Obsolete? : New York, NY.: Seven Stories Press, 2003.

23. Martin, Gus. The Delinquent and the Juvenile Court: Is There Still a Place for
Rehabilitation?. Thousands Oak, CA.: Sage Publications, LTD, 1992.
Ireland, Roderick. Massachusetts Practice, Volume 44, Juvenile Law. St. Paul, MN.:
West Publishing Co., 1996.