Juvenile Transfer to Adult Court

• Published date: 01 August 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12232
• Author: David L. Myers
• Date: 01 August 2016

POLICY ESSAY

JUVENILE TRANSFER AND

DETERRENCE

Juvenile Transfer to Adult Court

Ongoing Search for Scientific Support

David L. Myers

Indiana University of Pennsylvania

During the 1990s, nationwide concerns over rising juvenile violent crime arrest

rates and the perceived emergence of a large population of juvenile “super-

predators” fueled numerous juvenile justice reforms (DiIulio, 1995, 1996;

Howell, 1997; Snyder and Sickmund, 1999, 2006). Policy makers and practitioners moved

rapidly to strengthen the sanctions and procedures available for handling serious and violent

adolescent offenders by de-emphasizing traditional juvenile court philosophy and confiden-

tiality, while seeking to increase information sharing, sentencing options, public safety, and

offender accountability to victims and the community.Most notable were new and modified

laws seeking to facilitate the process of transferring (also known as waiving, certifying, or

remanding) adolescents to adult criminal court (Bishop, 2000; Fagan and Zimring, 2000;

Jordan, 2006; Kupchik, 2006; Myers, 2001, 2005; Snyder, Sickmund, and Poe-Yamagata,

2000). By the turn of the century, virtually every state had adopted or modified laws in-

tended to increase the transfer of juveniles to the adult criminal justice system (Adams

and Addie, 2009; Griffin, 2003, 2008; Griffin, Torbet, and Szymanski, 1998; Snyder and

Sickmund, 1999, 2006).

In contrast to the more recent evidence-based movement in juvenile justice (Howell,

Lipsey,and Wilson, 2014; Lipsey,Howell, Kelly, Chapman, and Carver,2010; Myers, 2013),

the juvenile transfer movement of the 1990s was not backed by scientific research findings.

Although public support existed for legislative efforts to increase the waiver of youthful of-

fenders to adult criminal court (Feiler and Sheley,1999; Greenwood, 1995; Meddis, 1993;

Schwartz, Guo, and Kerbs, 1993; Sprott, 1998; Triplett, 1996), prior and subsequent re-

search greatly questioned the efficacy of this practice (Farrington, Ohlin, and Wilson,1986;

Howell, 1996, 1997; Myers, 2001, 2005; Redding, 2003, 2008). Despite an overalllack of

Direct correspondence to David L. Myers, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, G-13 Wilson Hall, Indiana, PA

15705 (e-mail: david.myers@iup.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12232 C2016 American Society of Criminology 927

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 15 rIssue 3