Juvenile Transfer and the Specific Deterrence Hypothesis

• Author: Daniel P. Mears,Steven N. Zane,Brandon C. Welsh
• Date: 01 August 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12222
• Published date: 01 August 2016

RESEARCH ARTICLE

JUVENILE TRANSFER AND

DETERRENCE

Juvenile Transfer and the Specific Deterrence

Hypothesis

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Steven N. Zane

Northeastern University

Brandon C. Welsh

Northeastern University

Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement

Daniel P. Mears

Florida State University

Research Summary

We conducted a systematic review of recidivism outcomes for juveniles transferred to

adult court, incorporating meta-analytic techniques. Nine studies—based on nine

statistically independent samples—met the inclusion criteria. Pooled analysis suggests

that juvenile transfer had no statistically significant effect on recidivism. However,

the distribution of effect sizes was highly heterogeneous and, given the strength of the

research designs, suggests that in some instances transfer may decrease recidivism and

in others may increase it.

Policy Implications

The practice of transferringjuvenile offenders to the criminal justice system has decreased

from its peak in the mid-1990s, but it is still estimated to affect tens of thousands of

juveniles in the United States each year. As such, a coherent rationale for transfer

policy is needed. The present review casts doubt on one prominent justification for

We thank Megan Kurlychek and the anonymous reviewers for their especially helpful comments. Direct

correspondence to Steven N. Zane, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Northeastern University,

Churchill Hall, 360 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115 (e-mail: s.zane@neu.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12222 C2016 American Society of Criminology 901

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 15 rIssue 3

Research Article Juvenile Transfer and Deterrence

transfer, that it creates a specific deterrent effect for transferred juveniles. Indeed, the

results suggest that transfer may in fact increase offending. More generally, the results

underscore the need for more high-quality research to identify the conditions under

which transfer may decrease or increase recidivism.

Keywords

juvenile transfer, specific deterrence, recidivism, systematic review, meta-analysis

The juvenile court was established in 1899 in Cook County, Illinois, born out

of the Progressive Movement and its emphasis on treating juvenile offenders

outside of the punitive criminal justice system (Tanenhaus, 2004). Central to the

court’s mission was the assumption that juvenile offenders are not fully responsible for their

conduct and can be rehabilitated and reformed into law-abiding adults. This rehabilitative

focus involves a case-by-case informal approach to deciding how to intervene with each

juvenile, and it stands in contrast to the formalism and retributive focus in criminal justice

(Farrington, Loeber, and Howell, 2012; Feld, 2003).

Historically,the juvenile court has been guided by the assumption that it has “the knowl-

edge and insight to make thoughtful, individualized judgments that will keep [society] safe

and promote positive development for adolescents” (Mulvey et al., 2004: 214). Sinceits in-

ception, however,the court has held that some juvenile offenders should be handled in adult

court because of their dangerousness to other juveniles or to the public (Kupchik, 2006;

Zimring, 2000). Accordingly,there have always been mechanisms for transferring the most

serious juvenile offenders to the criminal justice system. The historical rationale for the prac-

tice of transfer is twofold. First, it serves as a “punitive necessity” for offenders who cannot

be sufficiently punished in juvenile court (Zimring, 2000: 208). Second, it provides a mech-

anism for removing offenders who are “beyond rehabilitation”and whose presence in the ju-

venile system would interfere with the rehabilitative mission of the court (Mears, 2003: 160).

Expansion of Transfer Policy

In the 1980s and 1990s, states enacted a wide range of reforms aimed at “toughening” the

juvenile justice system. Rising juvenile crime in the 1980s and 1990s created a moral panic

that engendered a punitive response, with most states enacting legislation to make their

juvenile justice systems more punitive during that time (Zimring and Rushin, 2013). One

prominent reform consisted of new and expanded transfer laws, which provided courts with

the ability to send a broader swath of the juvenile offender population to adult court. The

tenor of the broader tough-on-crime reforms indicated a shift in the rationale for transfer

that was more consistent with a punitive approach to juvenile crime and not centered on

protecting the ability of the juvenile court to serve youth better (Kupchik, 2006; Kurlychek

and Johnson, 2010). In addition to this retributive emphasis, transfer laws were justified on

the grounds that they would have a specific deterrent and general deterrent effect (Howell,

902 Criminology & Public Policy