CJCJ's Executive Director Daniel Macallair, is a practitioner-in-residence at San Francisco State University (SFSU)'s Department of Criminal Justice Studies. These slides are from his Intervention Policies in Juvenile Justice course materials.

1. Juveniles In Adult Courts and
Prisons
CHANGING POLICIES IN THE LATE 20 ST CENTURY
40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org
San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

2. Throughout history societies have
recognized age as a factor in determining
criminal culpability
MENS REA
40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org
San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

3. Mug shot of 12 year old boy sentenced to prison
40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org
San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

4. 8-Year-Old Arrested for Double Homicide
40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org
San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

5. Social Discrepancies in Defining Youth
• Theaters consider youths adults at age twelve
• The State Bureau of Transportation at age sixteen
• The United States Military at age eighteen
• The State Liquor Control Board at age twenty one
40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org
San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

6. Transfers to Adult Court
• The establishment of the juvenile court led to reductions
in adult court trials for juveniles during the early and mid
20th century.
• Since the 1980s every state passed laws permitting
more juveniles to be transferred to adult court.
• States vary widely in the criteria they use in making the
waiver decision.
40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org
San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

7. Age of Transfer
• More states transfer juveniles at age fourteen than any
other age.
• Seven states transfer juveniles at fifteen or sixteen
• Vermont transfers at age ten
• Montana transfers at age twelve
• Georgia, Illinois, and Mississippi transfer at age thirteen
• Arizona transfer over age of 8
40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org
San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

8. Types of Transfers
• Judicial Waiver
• Prosecutorial Discretion
• Statutory Exclusion
• Reverse waiver
40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org
San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

9. Gang Violence and Juvenile
Crime Prevention Act
CALIFORNIA’S PROPOSITION 21
40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org
San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

10. California’s Proposition 21
• Designed to facilitate the transfer of large numbers of youth
to adult court
• Passed by voters in March 2000 with 62% support
• Supported by most law enforcement groups
• Opposed by civil liberties and child advocacy groups
40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org
San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

11. Major Provisions
• Expanded the pool of youth eligible for judicial transfer
• Created provision for prosecutor discretion for youths with
2 0r more sustained petitions
• Created statutory exclusion for anyone over age 14
accused of 1st degree murder and/or certain sex crimes
40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org
San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

12. Impact of Proposition 21
First Commitments to the Division of Juvenile Facilities by Court
of Commitment and admissions of "housing" (state prison) cases
2004- 2009 est
900
835
810
800
700
641
600
500 462
400 397
330
300
200 171
125
100 90 74 82
53
2 6 6 5 5 2
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Est
Juvenile Court (DJF commitment)
Criminal Court (sentenced to prison, housed in DJF to age 18)
Criminal Court (direct DJF commitment)
40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org
San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

13. Goals of Transfer
• General Deterrence
• Specific Deterrence
40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org
San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

14. Research on Deterrence
• Jensen & Metsger (1994) - Comparison study of Idaho,
Montana & Wyoming
• Singer & McDowall (1988) – New York study on automatic
transfer
• Steiner & Wright (2006) Prosecutorial transfer laws in 14
states
• Center of Disease Control (2007)
40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org
San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

15. Why Juveniles tried as Adults have higher
recidivism
• Stigmatization and Labeling
• Sense of resentment and injustice
• Reinforcement of criminal behavior while incarcerated with
adults
• Decreased access to rehabilitation and family support
• Reduce employment opportunities
40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org
San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

16. Juveniles and Life Without
the Possibility of Parole
BANNED BY THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF
CHILDREN
40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org
San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

17. Only two countries refuse to sign the UN
Convention on the Rights of Children
• United States
• Somalia
40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org
San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

18. Countries with people sentenced to LWOP
for crimes they committed as children
• South Africa - 4
• Tanzania – 1
• Israel – 7
• United States – 2,270 (California 227)
Source: Amnesty International
40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org
San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013