Transfer to adult court: A national study of how juvenile court judges weigh pertinent Kent criteria

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 332-355

  Brannen, Dia N ^a   Salekin, Randall T ^a   Zapf, Patricia A ^b   Salekin, Karen L ^a   Kubak, Franz A ^a   DeCoster, Jamie ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA   (United States)

^b John Jay College of Criminal Justice   (United States)

Author keywords

Danger risk; Judges' decisions; Juvenile offenders; Kent criteria; Maturity; Transfer to adult court; Treatment amenability

Indexed keywords

EID: 33749329470     PISSN: 10768971     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/1076-8971.12.3.332     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Allen, F. A. (2000). Forward: The changing borders of juvenile justice: Transfer of adolescents to the criminal court. In J. Fagan & F. E. Zimring (Eds.), The changing borders of juvenile justice: Transfer of adolescents to criminal court (pp. ix-xvi). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2. Barnum, R. (1987). Clinical evaluation of juvenile delinquents facing transfer to adult court. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 26, 922-925.
3. Baruch, Y. (1999). Response rate in academic studies - A comparative analysis. Human Relations, 52, 421-438.
4. Bazemore, G. (1992). On mission statements and reform in juvenile justice: The case of the "Balanced Approach." Federal Probation, 56, 64-70.
5. Bishop, D. M., & Frazier, C. E. (1991). Transfer of juveniles to criminal court: A case study and analysis of prosecutorial waiver. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, and Public Policy, 5, 282-283.
6. Bishop, D. M., Frazier, C. E., & Henretta, J. C. (1989). Prosecutorial waiver: Case study of a questionable reform. Crime and Delinquency, 35, 179-201.
7. Bortner, M. A., Zatz, M. S., & Hawkins, D. F. (2000). Race and transfer: Empirical research and social context. In J. Fagan and F. E. Zimring (Eds.), The changing borders of juvenile justice: Transfer of adolescents to the criminal court (pp. 277-320). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8. Cauffman, E., & Steinberg, L. (2000). (Im)maturity of judgment in adolescence: Why adolescents may be less culpable than adults. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18, 741-760.
9. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309-319.
10. Crippen, G. L. (2000). Can the courts fairly account for the diminished competence and culpability of juveniles? A judge's perspective. In T. Grisso and R. G. Schwartz (Eds.), Youth on trial: Developmental perspective on juvenile justice (pp. 403-434). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1990). Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 185-191.
12. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Stuve, T. E. (1988). Juror decision making in eyewitness identification cases. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 41-55.
13. Eigen, J. (1981a). The determinants and impact of jurisdictional transfer in Philadelphia. In J. Hall & D. Hamparian (Eds.), Readings in public policy (pp. 333-350). Columbus, OH: Academy for Contemporary Problems.
14. Eigen, J. (1981b). Punishing youth homicide offenders in Philadelphia. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 72, 1072-1093.
15. Ewing, C. P. (1990). Juveniles or adults? Forensic assessment of juveniles considered for trial in criminal court. Forensic Reports, 3, 3-13.
16. Fagan, J., & Zimring, F. E. (Eds.). (2000). The changing borders of juvenile justice: Transfer of adolescents to the criminal court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17. Feld, B. C. (1978). Reference of juvenile offenders for adult prosecution: The legislative alternative for asking unanswered questions. Minnesota Law Review, 62, 515-618.
18. Feld, B. C. (1984). The decision to seek criminal charges: Just deserts and the waiver decision. Criminal Justice Ethics, 3, 27-41.
19. Feld, B. C. (1987). The juvenile court meets the principle of the offense. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 78, 471-533.
20. Feld, B. C. (1999). Bad kids: Race and the transformation of the juvenile court. New York: Oxford University Press.
21. Feld, B. C. (2000). Legislative exclusion of offenses from juvenile court jurisdiction: A history and critique. In J. Fagan & F. E. Zimring (Eds.), The changing borders of juvenile justice: Transfer of adolescents to the criminal court (pp. 83-144). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
22. Graham, S., & Lowery, B. S. (2004). Priming unconscious racial stereotypes about adolescent offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 483-504.
23. Griffin, P., Torbet, P., & Szymanski, L. (1998). Trying juveniles as adults in criminal court: An analysis of state transfer provisions. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
24. Grisso, T. (1996). Society's retributive response to juvenile violence: A developmental perspective. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 229-247.
25. Grisso, T. (1998). Forensic evaluation of juveniles. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
26. Grisso, T. (2000). Forensic clinical evaluations related to waiver of jurisdiction. In J. Fagan & F. E. Zimring (Eds.), The changing borders of juvenile justice: Transfer of adolescents to criminal court (pp. 321-352). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27. Grisso, T., & Schwartz, R. G. (2000). Youth on trial: A developmental perspective on juvenile justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28. Grisso, T., Tomkins, A., & Casey, P. (1988). Psychosocial concepts in juvenile law. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 403-437.
29. Haynes, S. N., Richard, D. C., & Kubany, E. S. (1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7, 238-247.
30. Heilbrun, K., Leheny, C., Thomas, L., & Huneycutt, D. (1997). A national survey of U.S. statutes on juvenile transfer: Implications for policy and practice. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 15, 125-149.
31. Izzo, R. L., & Ross, R. R. (1990). Meta-analysis of rehabilitation programs for juvenile delinquents: A brief report. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 134-142.
32. Kazdin, A. E., & Weisz, J. R. (2003). Evidence-based psychotherapies for children and adolescents. New York: Guilford Press.
33. Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966).
34. Konecni, V. J., & Ebbesen, E. B. (1984). The mythology of legal decision making. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 7, 5-18.
35. Kruh, I. P., & Brodsky, S. L. (1997). Clinical evaluations for transfer of juveniles to criminal court: Current practices and future research. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 15, 151-165.
36. Leistico, A. R., & Salekin, R. T. (2003). Testing the reliability and validity of the Risk, Sophistication-Maturity, and Treatment Amenability Instrument. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health Services, 2, 101-117.
37. Lipton, D., Martinson, R., & Wilks, J. (1975). The effectiveness of correctional treatment. New York: Praeger.
38. Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports, 3, 635-694.
39. Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. Public Interest, 35, 22-84.
40. Mason, C. A., Chapman, D. A., Chang, S., & Simons, J. (2003). Impacting re-arrest rates among youth sentenced in adult court: An epidemiological examination of the Juvenile Sentencing Advocacy Project. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32, 205-214.
41. Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., & Slobogin, C. (1997). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
42. Mulvey, E. (1984). Judging amenability to treatment in juvenile offenders: Theory and practice. In N. D. Reppucci, L. A. Weithorn, E. P. Mulvey, & J. Monahan (Eds.), Children, mental health, and the law (pp. 195-210). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
43. Mulvey, E. P., & Reppucci, N. D. (1988). The context of clinical judgment: The effect of resource availability on judgments of amenability to treatment in juvenile offenders. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 525-545.
44. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259.
45. Page, G. L., & Scalora, M. J. (2004). The utility of locus of control for assessing juvenile amenability to treatment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 523-534.
46. Penney, S. R., & Moretti, M. (2005). The transfer of juveniles to adult court in Canada and the United States: Confused agendas and compromised assessment procedures. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 4, 19-37.
47. Podkopacz, M. R., & Feld, B. C. (1996). The end of the line: An empirical study of judicial waiver. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86, 449-492.
48. Puzzanchera, C. M. (2003). Delinquency cases waived to criminal court, 1990-1999. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Fact Sheet.
49. Redding, R. E. (1997). Juveniles transferred to criminal court: Legal reform proposals based on social science research. Utah Law Review, 709, 709-733.
50. Redding, R. E. (2003). The effects of adjudicating and sentencing juveniles as adults: Research and policy implications. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 1, 128-155.
51. Redding, R. E., Sevin Goldstein, N. E., & Heilbrun, K. (2005). Juvenile delinquency: Past and present. In K. Heilbrun, N. E. Sevin Goldstein, & R. E. Redding (Eds.), Juvenile delinquency: Prevention, assessment, and intervention (pp. 3-18). New York: Oxford University Press.
52. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, No. 03-633 (2005).
53. Salekin, R. T. (2002a). Clinical evaluation of youth considered for transfer to adult criminal court: Refining practice and directions for science. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 2, 55-72.
54. Salekin, R. T. (2002b). Juvenile transfer to adult court: How can developmental and child psychology inform policy decision making? In B. L. Bottoms, M. B. Kovera, & B. D. McAuliff (Eds.), Children, social science, and the law (pp. 203-232). New York: Cambridge University Press.
55. Salekin, R. T. (2004). Risk-Sophistication-Treatment-Inventory. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
56. Salekin, R. T. (2006). Risk-Sophistication-Treatment-Fast (RST-Fast). Manual in preparation.
57. Salekin, R. T., Rogers, R., & Ustad, K. L. (2001). Juvenile waiver to adult criminal courts: Prototypes for dangerousness, sophistication-maturity, and amenability to treatment. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 381-408.
58. Salekin, R. T., Yff, R. A., Neumann, C. S., Leistico, A. R., & Zalot, A. A. (2002). Juvenile transfer to adult courts: A look at the prototypes for dangerousness, sophistication-maturity, and amenability to treatment through a legal lens. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8, 373-410.
59. Sanborn, J. B., Jr. (1994). Certification to criminal court: The important policy questions of how, when, and why. Crime and Delinquency, 40, 262-281.
60. Scott, E. S., Reppucci, N. D., & Woolard, J. L. (1995). Evaluating adolescent decision making in legal contexts. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 221-244.
61. Sickmund, M. (1994). How juveniles get to criminal court. U.S. Department of Justice update on statistics bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
62. Simmons, J. (1978). Waiver in Indiana - A conflict with the goals of the juvenile justice system. Indiana Law Journal, 53, 601-614.
63. Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 national report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
64. Stalans, L. J., & Henry, G. T. (1994). Societal views of justice for adolescents accused of murder: Inconsistency between community sentiment and automatic legislative transfers. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 675-696.
65. Steinberg, L., & Cauffman, E. (1999). A developmental perspective on serious juvenile crime: When should juveniles be treated as adults? Federal Probation, 63, 52-57.
66. Steinberg, L., & Cauffman, E. (2000). A developmental perspective on judicial boundary. In J. Fagan and F. E. Zimring (Eds.), The changing borders of juvenile justice: Transfer of adolescents to criminal court (pp. 379-406). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
67. Tanenhaus, D. S. (2002). The evolution of the juvenile courts in the early 20th century: Beyond the myth of immaculate construction. In M. K. Rosenheim, F. E. Zimring, D. S. Tanenhaus, & B. Dohrn (Eds.), A century of juvenile justice (pp. 42-73). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
68. Trepanier, J. (1999). Juvenile delinquency and youth protection: The historical foundations of the Canadian Juvenile Delinquents Act of 1908. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 7, 41-62.
69. Ullman, R. P. (2000). Federal juvenile waiver practices: A contextual approach to the consideration of prior delinquency records. Fordham Law Review, 68, 1329-1369.
70. Witt, P. H. (2003). Transfer of juveniles to adult court: The case of H. H. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 9, 361-380.
71. Witt, P. H., & Dyer, F. J. (1997). Juvenile transfer cases: Risk assessment and risk management. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 25, 581-614.
72. Woolard, J. L., Fondacaro, M. R., & Slobogin, C. (2001). Informing juvenile justice policy: Directions for behavioral science research. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 13-24.
73. Woolard, J. L., Odgers, C., Lanza-Kaduce, L., & Daglis, H. (2005). Juveniles within adult correctional settings: Legal pathways and developmental considerations. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 4, 1-18.
74. Wright, W., & Dixon, M. (1977). Community prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 14, 35-67.
75. Zimring, F. E. (1998). American youth violence. New York: Oxford University Press.
76. Zimring, F. E. (2000). The punitive necessity of waiver. In J. Fagan & F. E. Zimring (Eds.), The changing borders of juvenile justice: Transfer of adolescents to the criminal court (pp. 207-226). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
77. Zimring, F. E., & Fagan, J. (2000). Transfer policy and law reform. In J. Fagan & F. E. Zimring (Eds.), The changing borders of juvenile justice: Transfer of adolescents to the criminal court (pp. 407-424). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.