The Recidivism of Violent Youths in Juvenile and Adult Court

• Author: David L. Myers
• Published date: 01 January 2003
• Date: 01 January 2003
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1541204002238365
• Subject Matter: Articles

THE RECIDIVISM OF VIOLENT YOUTHS
IN JUVENILE AND ADULT COURT
A Consideration of Selection Bias
David L. Myers
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Contemporary research suggests that increased efforts to transfer juveniles to the adult
criminal justice system may backfire because waived youths generally exhibit greater
recidivism as compared to similar offenders retained in juvenile court. One concern
with this research is the possibility of selection bias, meaning that the findings could be
explained as merely a simple consequence of the highest risk youth being transferred.
This study examined this issue for 494 violent youths from Pennsylvania, of which 79
were waived to adult court and 415 were retained in juvenile court. The likelihood,
seriousness, and timing of their recidivism were analyzed, with a statistical control for
selection bias included. The findings still suggest heightened recidivism among the
transferred youths.
During the early to mid-1990s, in response to nationwide concern over youth
violence, nearly all states moved to ease the process of transferring or waiving serious and
violent juvenile offenders to the adult criminal justice system (Bishop, 2000; Griffin,
Torbet, & Szymanski, 1998; Myers, 2001; Snyder & Sickmund, 1999). In some
jurisdictions, juvenile court judges were given expanded powers to waive certain youths.
Another approach was to grant prosecutors the authority to file charges in either juvenile or
adult court. However, the most popular strategy was for state legislatures to statutorily
exclude certain offenses, offenders, or both from juvenile court jurisdiction. In general,
these legislative waiver laws automatically placed eligible youths into the adult system at
the time of arrest, thereby removing the initial discretionary power of juvenile officials.
This method of transfer essentially treats broad categories and increased numbers of
offenders (usually those committing some type of violent act) as equal and deserving of
being prosecuted in adult court.
Along with retribution and incapacitation, the principle of deterrence has been used as
a primary justification for the contemporary waiver movement (Bishop, Frazier, Lanza-
Kaduce, & Winner, 1996; Fagan, 1995; Singer, 1996). It is assumed by policy makers and
10.1177/1541204002238365
article
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
Myers / RECIDIVISM OF VIOLENT YOUTHS
Author’s Note: A previous version of this article was presented at the 2002 Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences
Annual Meeting in Anaheim, California. The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their
comments and suggestions. Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. David L. Myers, Department of
Criminology, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, G-1 McElhaney Hall, Indiana, PA 15705; e-mal: david@
iup.edu.
Youth Violence and Junenile Justice: An Interdisciplinary Journal (YVJJ), Vol. 1 No. 1, January 2003 79-101
DOI: 10.1177/1541204002238365
© 2003 Sage Publications
79

---

80
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
the general public that treating juveniles as adults will reduce overall juvenile crime (i.e., a
general deterrent effect) and also reduce or eliminate the future offending of those who are
transferred to criminal court (i.e., a specific deterrent effect). This expectation of greater
deterrence is based on the perception that juvenile courts are too lenient and that criminal
courts can provide increased accountability and stronger punishment, which will reduce
youthful offending.
Although the literature surrounding the transfer process has been steadily building
during the past 30 years (for extensive reviews, see Bishop, 2000; Howell, 1996, 1997; and
Myers, 2001), relatively little empirical attention has been given to the possible deterrent
effects achieved from this policy. With regard to general deterrence, only two studies have
looked at the impact of expanded juvenile transfer laws on aggregate adolescent crime rates.
Singer and McDowall’s (1988; see also Singer 1996) evaluation of the impact of New
York’s 1978 legislative waiver law and Jensen and Metsger’s (1994) assessment of a
similar 1981 law in Idaho both suggested that the laws had little measurable effect on
juvenile crime, and in the case of Idaho, it may have actually backfired by contributing to an
increase in juvenile offending. Thus, these laws did not produce the general deterrent effect
expected by policy makers.
More important for the current research, only a few studies have assessed the specific
deterrent effect of transferring juveniles to adult court. Fagan’s (1995) research on New
York and New Jersey youths revealed that robbery defendants processed in New York
criminal courts were rearrested and reincarcerated at a higher rate than comparable youths
in New Jersey juvenile courts, and the New York offenders were also rearrested in a shorter
amount of time. In contrast, there were no significant differences for burglary offenders in
juvenile versus adult court in terms of rearrest, reincarceration, and time until rearrest.
In a study of matched youths in Florida, Bishop and her colleagues (1996) found that
30% of the juveniles transferred to adult court were rearrested during a 1-year follow-up
period, whereas only 19% of the youths retained in juvenile court were rearrested.
Furthermore, the mean time to failure was shorter for waived juveniles than for retained
youths, and there was evidence that recidivism was more serious among youths treated as
adults. A 6-year follow-up by the same authors (Winner, Lanza-Kaduce, Bishop, & Frazier,
1997) concluded that youths retained in juvenile court eventually caught up with those
transferred to adult court in terms of the prevalence of rearrest, but this was due to an
increased probability of rearrest over the long term for retained youths processed on felony
property offenses.1 Once the effect of offense type was controlled, the findings indicated
that transfer led to greater recidivism. Finally, even though transferred property felons were
less likely to reoffend, when they did so they reoffended more frequently and more quickly
than did the comparable retained youths.
Finally, in their study of youths considered for waiver in Hennepin County,
Minnesota, Podkopacz and Feld (1996) also failed to find evidence of greater specific
deterrence in adult criminal court. During a 2-year follow-up period, 58% of the transferred
juveniles were convicted of a new crime, in contrast to only 42% of the retained youths. The
authors offered three possible explanations for the lower juvenile court recidivism rate: (a)
Through an emphasis on prior offending, the juvenile court succeeded in transferring the
most serious and frequent offenders who had a greater probability of recidivism; (b)
treatment services were more effective in the juvenile correctional system; and/or (c) the
adult criminal system better trained (rather than deterred) further criminality than did the
juvenile system.

---

Myers / RECIDIVISM OF VIOLENT YOUTHS
81
The second and third explanations presented above by Podkopacz and Feld (1996)
both suggest greater effectiveness in the juvenile court system with regard to handling
serious and violent youthful offenders. The first explanation points to the problem of
selection bias in this type of research or that greater recidivism could be found among
transferred juveniles simply because they are more serious and persistent offenders.
However, it is important to consider that none of these explanations would favor a dramatic
increase in the number of juveniles who are sent to adult criminal court.
Obviously, if the juvenile court provides better treatment or if the adult system trains
(rather than deters) further criminality, it would be prudent to keep all but the most serious
and violent youthful offenders in the juvenile system. Furthermore, if transferred juveniles
exhibit greater recidivism simply because they are substantially different from youths
retained in the juvenile system, then it would not seem wise or just to treat broad categories
of youthful offenders in a similar manner and send them in mass to adult court. Yet this is
what the currently most popular method of transfer, legislative waiver, seeks to do.
The purpose of this study was to provide a further examination of the future criminal
behavior of similar youths in juvenile court versus adult criminal court. Using data from
Pennsylvania, the likelihood, seriousness, and timing of the postdispositional recidivism of
transferred and nontransferred violent youths were analyzed using a statistical control for
selection bias. Findings from this research should be compared to those of the studies
discussed above and also be given consideration by policy makers who are weighing the
merits of expanded juvenile waiver laws.
Juvenile Transfer in Pennsylvania2
Similar to the rest of the nation, increasing youth violence in Pennsylvania during the
early to mid-1990s received a great deal of public attention (Bell, 1995, 1996a, 1996b).
Newspaper editorials proclaimed that violent crime among juveniles had reached alarming
proportions and that armed youths were preying on the young and old alike (Evanko, 1995,
p. A7). In response to this situation and amid much political fanfare, legislators in
Pennsylvania modified their juvenile code (Krebs, 1995; Loyd, 1996; Sampson, 1995a,
1995b; Stack, 1995; Stanley, 1996; Wing, 1996). In doing so, a move was made away from
judicially waiving a relatively small annual number of offenders from juvenile to adult...