Citation

Kupchik A. Criminol. Public Policy 2004; 3(4): 645-650.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2004, American Society of Criminology, Publisher John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/j.1745-9133.2004.tb00069.x

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

When teaching my undergraduate course on juvenile delinquency, I spend a class session discussing the US Supreme Court decisions since the 1960s that reshaped juvenile justice. I begin this discussion by covering the courts 1966 decision, Kent V US, In which the court required juvenile courts to hold a hearing before transferring any use from juvenile to criminal court. During the following class sessions, we discuss the prosecution of June incremental courts, and in the three methods by which you can be transferred. These are, judicial transfer, legislative exclusion, and direct file or prosecutorial's certification as it is called in the state of Virginia. Inevitably, the third of these transfer mechanisms confuses some of the more observant students. Why, they ask, can prosecutors directly file cases in criminal court, with the Supreme Court mandates to hearing for any youth who is judicially transferred?

The answer is that access to the juvenile court is not right for any youth, so legislators and prosecutors can selectively deny its protections, so long as it is done fairly. But the presence in recent growth of direct file statutes begs the question of whether it is good policy or a fair policy that helps achieve desired ends. Given the Supreme Court ruling that each youth must have here's our her day in court prior to transfer, how do we understand the fairness and desirability of prosecutors directly filing selected youth in criminal court prior to any hearing in juvenile court?

Keywords: Juvenile justice;

Language: en