One Size Does Not Fit All

• Published date: 01 August 2016
• Date: 01 August 2016
• Author: Richard E. Redding
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12239

POLICY ESSAY

JUVENILE TRANSFER AND

DETERRENCE

One Size Does Not Fit All

The Deterrent Effect of Transferring Juveniles to Criminal

Court

Richard E. Redding

Chapman University

The pendulum on juvenile justice policy has begun to swing back toward less

punitive responses as many states have recently revised their juvenile codes to

decrease the number of juveniles tried and sentenced as adults (Redding, 2015).

Nonetheless, all states continue to transfer certain repeat or serious juvenile offenders from

the juvenile court for adjudication in the adult criminal court in the hopes that doing so will

deter juvenile crime (i.e., general deterrence) and reduce offender recidivism (i.e., specific

deterrence). We do not know the number of juvenile offenders transferred, but estimates

are that upward of 100,000 juveniles are adjudicated in American criminal courts every year

(Zane, Welsh, and Mears, 2016: 901–925).

Yet, clear empirical data on the deterrent effects of transfer are lacking and, thus,

so is “a coherent rationale for transfer policy” (Zane et al., 2016). States have differing

transfer laws and practices, and there is no consensus among policy makers, judges, or the

public about the underlying goals of transfer (i.e., provide retribution or serve as a general

and/or specific deterrent?) and whether transfer satisfies these goals (Redding, 2008). Only

a handful of studies have been conducted on the general deterrence effects of transfer,which

have suggested that it does not deter juvenile crime (Redding, 2008). Likewise, despite the

relatively few empirical studies on the specific deterrence effects of transfer, the consensus

among researchers has been that transfer does not reduce recidivism and likely has the

opposite effect, as reflected in the conclusions of a systematic review by the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention (McGowan et al., 2007) and a review published by the

U.S. Department of Justice (Redding, 2008).

Direct correspondence to Richard E. Redding, Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Crean College of Health &

Behavioral Sciences, and College of Educational Studies, Office of the Chancellor, Chapman University, One

University Drive, Orange, CA 92866 (e-mail: redding@chapman.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12239 C2016 American Society of Criminology 939

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 15 rIssue 3