Adult Criminal Court Research Articles

Applying a trauma‐informed care framework to courtroom practice: An analysis of judges' perspectives

AbstractAnalysis of in‐depth interviews with eight district court judges in North Carolina revealed over 40 practices that judges can adopt to become more trauma‐informed in their work. These practices map onto SAMHSA's framework for a trauma‐informed approach, demonstrating that abstract principles can translate into concrete actions in the courtroom setting. Analysis revealed an additional core principle of trauma‐informed judicial practice—Rehabilitation and Healing—and several areas where judges can deepen their commitment to trauma‐informed care—engagement with peer support programming; greater attention to cultural, historical, and gender issues; and application of trauma‐informed practice in adult criminal court.

A Study on Juvenile Justice Board in Tamil Nadu

Juvenile justice Board is made under the juvenile justice act of section 8 under rule 3 that juvenile justice Board is made in every district to exercise the powers and discharge duties relating to children in conflict with law. So in this research we are going to see the effects and functions of the juvenile boards in Tamilnadu, as a land of immense diversities faces too many parameters of justice from its societal level to its judiciary. The main aim of the study Is to know about the functions of juvenile justice board in Tamilnadu. The researcher has done an empirical method by using convenient sampling method. The sample size is 200.The dependent and independent variables such as age, gender and occupation have been used. The result and the conclusion of the study is proper effect of juvenile justice boards will reduce the juvenile delinquency in India. Findings juvenile justice induces the positive effects in the society where it leads to the increase number of rehabilitation of larger juveniles very shorter term ,no matter what juvenile offenders should be trailed under juvenile justice board and should never to adult criminal court, incarcerating juvenile offenders is beneficial to society, By including the provision for 16 to 18 year-olds to be tried like adults in case of heinous crimes

Reconsidering Penal Stability in Canada Through a New Sentencing Severity Index

Changes to criminal sentencing practices are often multifaceted and complex to interpret. This article proposes the development of a new sentencing severity index which simultaneously considers the type of punishment mobilized as well as the scale of that punishment. It does so in the context of important reforms to Canadian sentencing, examining the possibility of a punitive turn in Canadian criminal justice through this new index. Data were drawn from Canadian adult criminal courts collected through Statistics Canada’s Integrated Criminal Court Survey between 2005/2006 and 2016/2017. The analysis is based on instances where either custody or probation were the primary sentence of a case. We show that the underlying makeup of Canadian sentencing has changed over time. Custodial sentences are more frequent, but shorter, while probation sentences are fewer, but longer overall. However, in combining these dimensions (frequency and length), the index suggests that overall sentencing severity remained generally stable. Nevertheless, considerable changes across offence type and jurisdictions were observed. The article points to the importance of nuancing the assessment of penal practices with multiple parameters to better understand penal reform and transformation. The new index provides a tool which helps to do so.

Childhood, impairment, and criminal responsibility

ABSTRACTThe justice of criminal punishment depends in part on the possibility of holding people accountable for their choices. There is a wide variation between nations on the age at which juveniles can be prosecuted in adult criminal courts. This variation reflects disagreement about the underlying logic of responsibility. This paper examines the philosophical difference between adults and children as agents. The paper argues that the moral status of children is importantly distinct from adults, specifically with respect to how responsibility should be mitigated. The paper explains this in terms of the developmental aspect of childhood. By considering empirical evidence from psychology and neuroscience we can understand the mistakes that juveniles make as a form of developmental impairment. The paper shows why these findings lead to the conclusion that the practice of trying children as adults is immoral and should be eliminated.

Sentencing other people’s children: the intersection of race, gender, and juvenility in the adult criminal court

ABSTRACTIn light of the punitive transformation of the juvenile justice system in recent years, several scholars have explored disparities in criminal punishments between adult offenders and juveniles who have been transferred to the adult criminal court, and these findings have been somewhat mixed. While juvenility in itself might influence sentencing outcomes, it is theoretically possible that Black and Hispanic male transferred youth may be sentenced particularly harshly relative to other juvenile and adult offenders. Indeed, previous research suggests that the issue of youth crime as well as the practice of transfer to adult court are conceptually associated with Black and Hispanic males. However, no prior work on the influence of extralegal offender characteristics in sentencing has assessed potential joint effects among race, gender, and juvenility. Analysis of data on felony offenders in Florida circuit courts (n = 1,107,233) reveals that Black male juveniles are sentenced more harshly than many other juvenile and adult defendant subgroups and, for two of the four sentencing outcomes considered, receive the most severe punishments of all offenders.

Sentencing Transferred Juveniles in the Adult Criminal Court

Much prior research has demonstrated that race and ethnicity are associated with harsher punishment outcomes among adult defendants in the criminal court. However, few studies have explored these disparities in the sentencing of juvenile offenders who have been transferred to the adult court, and this research has reported conflicting findings. Moreover, the ways in which offenders’ race and ethnicity may interact with their sex, age, and offense type have yet to be explored among this population. Analysis of defendants sentenced in Florida ( N = 30,913) reveals that Black transferred juveniles are more likely to be sentenced to jail or prison and are given longer prison sentences than Whites, but Hispanic youth are only penalized in the sentence to jail. Interaction analyses suggest that Black males are sentenced particularly harshly regardless of age, and the effects of race and ethnicity are conditioned by a violent, sex, or drug offense.

One Size Does Not Fit All

All states transfer certain serious or repeat juvenile offenders from the juvenile court for adjudication in the adult criminal court in the hopes that doing so will reduce offender recidivism. Yet, clear empirical data on whether transfer achieves these results has been lacking. This essay discusses the implications for policy, practice, and future research of the findings of Zane et al.'s (2016) meta-analysis of the nine methodologically sound studies of the specific deterrent effects of juvenile transfer. The central take home message of the meta-analytic findings is that transfer likely has different effects depending upon the type of juvenile offender, type of transfer mechanism used, and the punishments and interventions meted out by the juvenile and criminal court systems. Thus, future research must be conducted across jurisdictions having different transfer mechanisms and sentencing options, and be of a level of sophistication that includes a host of offense and offender variables as well as court processing/sanction type, and employ methodologies that minimize or detect potential selection biases between comparison groups. Importantly, because one size of legal processing and sanction does not fit all offenders, judges and prosecutors should base their transfer decisions not primarily upon seriousness of the charge but on an individualized and nuanced evaluation of relevant case, offender, and local justice and social service system capabilities.

Transfer of Juvenile Cases to Criminal Court

The first juvenile court was founded in 1899 with the focus on rehabilitation of a juvenile offender as opposed to punishment in adult court. Determining culpability and disposition for adolescents has become a source of much discussion. With serious crimes, juvenile delinquents may be transferred from juvenile court to adult criminal court; this practice became more prevalent in the past century. However, growing knowledge of adolescent development has mitigated the culpability of youth offenders and resulted in judicial decisions influential to juvenile dispositions.

Effects of jurors’ gender and attitudes toward intellectual disability on judgments in cases involving disabled juvenile defendants

Because many juvenile offenders are intellectually disabled and have their cases tried by jurors in adult criminal court, it is important to understand factors that influence jurors’ judgments in such cases. Using a mock trial methodology, we explored the relations among jurors’ gender, attitudes toward intellectual disability, and judgments in a criminal case involving an intellectually disabled 15-year-old girl accused of murder. Men mock jurors’ judgments were not influenced by their preexisting biases, but women's were: the more women favored special treatment for disabled offenders, the less likely they were to suspect the disabled juvenile was guilty and the less likely they were to convict her. Implications for actual cases involving disabled juvenile defendants are discussed.

Putting in Work: Black Male Youth Joblessness, Violence, Crime, and the Code of the Street

In response to the structural barriers that block many Black male youth from legitimate employment opportunities, some have redefined the concept of work. Engaging in violence and crime is perceived among some marginalized young Black men as a form of labor where violence and other illicit activities are treated as work. Through our contextual analysis of words and behaviors as analytic units, the colloquial street term “putting in work” captures how some young Black men enmeshed in the culture of the street frame violence and crime as work. Using Anderson’s code of the street as a theoretical framework, we explore the multiple ways Black male youth offenders “work to get known” on the street. Drawing on focus groups conducted among 15 Black male serious violent youth offenders adjudicated in adult criminal court and detained in an adult jail, this paper explores the concept “putting in work.”

A First Look at the Plea Deal Experiences of Juveniles Tried in Adult Court

While there is a large body of research on the legal capacities of adolescents, this research largely has neglected the plea-deal context. To learn about adolescents’ understanding of the plea process and their appreciation of the short- and long-term consequences of accepting a plea deal, we conducted interviews with 40 juveniles who were offered plea deals in adult criminal court. Participants displayed limited understanding of the plea process, were not fully aware of their legal options and appeared to be overly influenced by the short-term benefits associated with accepting their plea deals. Limited contact with attorneys may have contributed to poor understanding. Although preliminary, our results suggest that these youth might be at increased risk for due-process rights violations. We use these data to point to several open research questions on the plea-deal process for youth charged as adults.

The Future of Juvenile Appeals in the United States

Appellate review of delinquency adjudications is necessary to protect the rights of juvenile defendants and preserve the integrity of the juvenile process. Review is no less important than in adult criminal courts, where the reversal rate on appeals is high enough to suggest that “depriving defendants of their right to appeal would expose them to an unacceptable risk of erroneous conviction.” Unfortunately, juveniles often fail to exercise this essential right because they are discouraged to do so by courts, denied access to the tools necessary to appeal, or lack the sophistication or means to file appeals. Moreover, because of strict time limits for filing, appellate rights expire. These time frames, which impose an unnecessary and unfair bar to effective review, are inconsistent with protections afforded juveniles in non-delinquency matters. Tolling the time within which to file an appeal during minority, however, may ensure greater (and necessary) access to the appellate courts.

Judicial Waiver Decisions in Two Southern States: A Study of Judicial Perceptions

In 2007, nearly fourteen thousand juveniles were waived to the adult criminal court. Sending juveniles to the adult criminal justice system continues to be a significant mechanism for the increase in accountability; adult time for adult crime. Numerous studies have examined the factors that increase the juvenile’s likelihood of being waived. This process generally involves examining case files of juvenile offenders already waived to the adult criminal court. These types of studies obtain information on juvenile offenders’ age, race, gender, type of crime committed, prior criminal history, and family structure. Although this information is important these types of studies do not look at how characteristics of juvenile court judges affect their perceptions of the factors they consider in their waiver decisions. This study sought to examine the relationship between individual characteristics of juvenile court judges; race, age, gender, political party affiliation, tenure on the bench, way in which the judge acquired his/her position, previous position, and jurisdiction, and their perceptions regarding judicial waiver. The results indicate that jurisdiction was a significant predictor variable of juvenile court judges’ perceptions regarding judicial waiver. Juvenile court judges in suburban jurisdictions were less likely than juvenile court judges in urban and rural jurisdictions to believe transferring juveniles to the adult criminal justice system deterred crime. In addition, although not statistically significant, gender and race did show some interesting results. Suggestions for future research are offered. The researchers acknowledges that there are differences in the definitions for the words transfer and waiver; however, to reduce confusion and for the purposes of this study, the word waiver will be used for both.

Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and Waiver to Adult Court

This study sought to examine the decision-making process by which juvenile courts determine whether to certify juveniles to adult criminal court or retain them in juvenile court. Specifically, the study sought to determine whether race, ethnicity, and gender influenced decision making when legally relevant case attributes were controlled. Data came from the largest urban jurisdiction in Texas. The results indicated that minority youth and males were more likely to be transferred to adult criminal court than White juveniles and females. A Black or Hispanic youth was approximately 3 times as likely as a White youth to receive a transfer to adult court, net of legally relevant case criteria. Males were nearly 7 times as likely as females to be transferred.

Using Development and Mental Health Issues in Opposition to Juvenile Waivers into Adult Criminal Courts

Since 1992, more than three-quarters of the states have enacted legislation opening the door to prosecute juveniles in adult criminal courts. This presents complications for lawyers not familiar with mental health issues and how they differ between juveniles and adults. Lawyers involved will be presented with several legal objectives: (1) defeating the transfer to adult criminal court; (2) challenging the juvenile’s competency to stand trial; (3) challenging the juvenile’s waiver of rights which results in incriminating statement; and (4) ensuring that the record completely reflects the child’s developmental disabilities and mental health limitations.

Financial Conflicts of Interest and the Funding of New Orleans’s Criminal Courts

State and local government budget shortfalls have increased financial pressure on criminal courts. Many states are relying on fees and costs imposed on criminal defendants to help fund their criminal justice systems. This Comment highlights the constitutional and policy concerns raised by fines, fees, and costs in New Orleans’s adult criminal courts. New Orleans’s criminal courts are financially dependent on fines, fees, and costs (collectively “financial assessments”) imposed on criminal defendants to pay operating costs. This dependence creates a possible financial conflict of interest that violates defendants’ due process rights to impartial judges. This Comment provides several recommendations to reform the adult criminal court system’s funding structures, including abolishing judicial expense funds, separating court funding from financial assessments, consolidating the court system, and providing fee waivers for indigent defendants. These reforms would better protect citizens’ constitutional rights, preserve judicial independence, and improve local democracy and governance.

Overview of: “Young Adult Offenders: The Need for More Effective Legislative Options and Justice Processing”

Research SummaryEmpirical evidence shows that no sharp change in cognitive functioning or in offending careers occurs on the 18th birthday. Many aspects of higher executive functioning, including impulse control, planning ahead, reasoning, thinking before acting, emotion regulation, delay of gratification, abstract thinking, and verbal memory, as well as resistance to peer influence, continue to mature through the mid‐20s. Most young offenders naturally “grow out” of offending in the early 20s, which is the peak period for desistance. Adult court processing makes offenders worse; convictions are followed by an increase in offending, juveniles who are dealt with in adult court are more likely to reoffend than other juveniles, and sending young people to adult prisons leads to an increase in recidivism. The evidence suggests that the rehabilitative approach of the juvenile court is more successful than the punitive approach of the adult criminal court.Policy ImplicationsMany justifications for the more rehabilitative treatment of juvenile offenders (immature, poor executive functioning, poor emotion regulation and self‐regulation, poor planning, more influenced by immediate gratification, low adjudicative competence, more susceptible to peer influence, more redeemable, less set in their offending habits, and less culpable) apply to young adult offenders. As in some other countries, there could be special legal provisions in the United States for young adult offenders 18–24 years of age. One possibility is that these offenders should not be dealt with in the adult criminal court but in special courts for young adult offenders that are more focused on rehabilitation. Alternatively, all young adult offenders could be assessed for their risks, needs, maturity, culpability, and adjudicative competence, and in appropriate cases, they should be given a “maturity discount.” Special efforts should be made to help young adult offenders with low intelligence and/or mental health problems. Young adult offenders should be housed in special correctional facilities and should be assisted with problems of reentry.

Young Adult Offenders

Empirical evidence shows that no sharp change in cognitive functioning or in offending careers occurs on the 18th birthday. Many aspects of higher executive functioning, including impulse control, planning ahead, reasoning, thinking before acting, emotion regulation, delay of gratification, abstract thinking, and verbal memory, as well as resistance to peer influence, continue to mature through the mid-20s. Most young offenders naturally grow out of offending in the early 20s, which is the peak period for desistance. Adult court processing makes offenders worse; convictions are followed by an increase in offending, juveniles who are dealt with in adult court are more likely to reoffend than other juveniles, and sending young people to adult prisons leads to an increase in recidivism. The evidence suggests that the rehabilitative approach of the juvenile court is more successful than the punitive approach of the adult criminal court. KW: Juvenile justice; Juvenile delinquency;

Transferring Pre‐Teens to Adult Criminal Courts: Searching for a Justification

AbstractThis research examined the demographic and offense‐related characteristics of 1,488 children who were 12 years of age or younger when transferred by juvenile court judges to criminal courts in the United States from 1985 to 2009. Juvenile court statistics show a twofold increase in the number of these children transferred between 2005 and 2009, compared to the five‐year era between 1985 and 1989. Examination of the data revealed that the major offense that precipitated most of these transfers was a nonviolent act. Given these facts, a number of key questions emerged from this study: (1) Are these transfers desirable given the potential lifelong consequences of a criminal conviction for these youngsters; (2) Do these practices accomplish a legitimate crime control function; and (3) Are these transfers just and fair given the developmental status of these children?

The Least of These

Each year 200,000 youth under the age of 18 are waived to adult criminal court, and African American males are disproportionately overrepresented among youth detained in adult jails. This population of vulnerable youth may be at greater risk for early violent death and HIV infection than youth detained in juvenile settings. The purpose of this study was to examine the social context of HIV risk behavior, substance misuse, and violence among youth offenders detained in adult jail using Elijah Anderson’s Code of the Street as a conceptual framework. Focus groups were conducted with 15 African American male youth (aged 15-17 years) detained at a city jail. Content analysis revealed several themes related to violence and HIV risk, including (1) HIV literacy and condom use, (2) substance use and sex, and (3) violence and the code of the street. These rich, descriptive narratives suggest that youth offenders exposed to chronic violence also engage in HIV risk–related behaviors. Findings may also aid in the development of age- and culturally appropriate interventions for this population while they are detained.