Are juvenile transfer laws effective and does it deter recidivism - Research Paper Example

?Table of Contents 2 1Introduction 3 1Background history 3 2Problem ment 5 3Aims and objectives 5 2Literature review 6 2.1Types of transfer laws 6 2.2Transfer laws in deterring recidivisms (General Deterrence): 7 2.3Transfer laws in deterring recidivisms (Specific Deterrence): 8 2.4 Significance of the research and gaps in the present state of study in this field 9 3Methodology 9 4Data analysis 12 References 17 Abstract A presumption that treating juvenile offenders, especially those apprehended for violent crimes, if treated under the harsher adult criminal laws, would serve as a deterrent (general or specific) for recidivism, has given rise to an increase in the use of the transfer laws in US. A look at the literature and research studies into the issue shows that very little qualitative study has been conducted in the past on the psychological effects (trauma) that a juvenile offender may face while going through the transfer law system. Empirical data (also few in number) also shows that transfer laws do not help to deter recidivism in society, and instead triggers more of it. The researcher in this paper plans to conduct a thorough literature review (on the nature of the psychological effects that a juvenile may have after his incarceration in an adult correction facilities, a study of the various psychological theories related to an adolescent mind, present US transfer laws, and their deterrent (general or specific) effects on recidivism). The researcher will also conduct empirical studies with available statistical data from various governmental sites, to find out whether juvenile transfer laws are effective and actually deter recidivism. Are juvenile transfer laws effective and does it deter recidivism 1 Introduction 1.1 Background history In 1899, a separate court known as juvenile court was first created for dealing with young offenders in Chicago. This process soon adopted by many other States in US, has remained the same where young and underage criminals are still treated separately. However, in rare cases, it has been observed sometimes the concerned judges decide that the juvenile offenders did not appear as "amenable to treatment" within the reams of a juvenile court. In such rare instances, the juvenile offender was removed from the juvenile court jurisdiction, and "transferred" to be tried under the adult criminal court. Recently many of the states have established many laws to that expands the scope and purview of the transfer laws under which the juvenile offenders may be directly prosecuted within the realms of an adult court. It was during the 1980s that many legal reforms were framed to bring in stringent measures as regards juvenile crime. One such reform of great significance was the amendment of transfer laws that led to an increase in their jurisdiction (Griffin, 2003). These changes allowed the inclusion of more offense types, and resulted in an increase in the number of young offenders becoming eligible for transfer from juvenile courts to the adult courts. These amendments elevated the total number of offenses that were regarded as being transfer-eligible offenses, lowered the necessary minimum age limit for allowing transfer eligibility, broadened discretionary powers of the prosecution, while decreasing the discretionary powers of the judiciary in taking decision related to transfer cases (Fagan and Zimring, 2000). A look at the amendments made in the state transfer laws show us that, in 1979 14 US States had transfer laws that allowed certain juvenile criminals to be prosecuted like adult criminals. However by 1995, we find there were 21 States with transfer laws in place, and in 2003, the number rose even further, where 31 States had transfer laws (Steiner and Hemmens, 2003). Furthermore the minimum age for end of juvenile court jurisdiction in 13 states were decreased to 15-16 years (Snyder and Sickmund, 2006, 64-70). In the face of these amendments, the number of juvenile offenders tried in adult criminal courts and later imprisoned in adult prison facilities had significantly gone up (Redding, 2005). These figures kept increasing and reached a peak during the mid-1990s, after which showed a fall (Snyder and Sickmund, ibid), owing to some extent, to an overall fall in juvenile crime instances. In 1999, it was found that almost 4,100 juvenile offenders were incarcerated in the various State adult prisons, which accounted for almost 1 % of the new prisoners (ibid). 23% of these juvenile offenders were imprisoned for property related crimes, 61% were imprisoned for person crimes, 9% for associated with drug reacted crimes, while 5% for imprisoned for offenses related to violations of public order (like possession of illegal arms and ammunitions) (ibid). Juveniles dealt under the transfer laws, especially the ones convicted of offenses that were violent in nature (murder, rape), are awarded harsher (longer) sentences when compared to the offenders convicted under juvenile laws, for similar crimes types (Myers, 2005; Kupchik, Fagan, and Liberman, 2003; Bishop, 2004; Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services, 1996). Thus, we find that there is an increase in the number of States that have established transfer laws within their judiciary system, leading to greater number of juveniles being treated as adult criminals, and juvenile offenders convicted under the adult criminal laws, tend to receive harsher sentences. In this context, it is necessary to explore whether this increase in the use of transfer laws has actually led to deterrence in recidivism. 1.2 Problem statement Thus, there is a large-scale national shift in US judiciary system, where we find that more and more juvenile offenders are being tried under the adult criminal court. This change in system is based largely on the presumption that the harsher adult criminal laws would serve as deterrence for future juvenile crimes. While examining figures for deterrence in recidivisms as regards juvenile offense under transfer laws, it was found that for general deterrence (deterring the would-be juveniles), even though the picture remains hazy, it is evident that there were no lowering in figures of new juvenile criminals. As regards specific deterrence (likelihood of the juvenile reoffending), there were six experiments conducted on a large-scale basis that derived greater rates of recidivism amongst juveniles tried and convicted under adult criminal court, in comparison with the rates of juvenile offenders tried under juvenile court. Thus, here the main questions that arise are: Are juvenile transfer laws effective? Do the juvenile laws really deter recidivism? 1.3 Aims and objectives This paper will conduct a qualitative review on all current research work related to on transfer laws and its effects (general and specific) on deterring recidivism (Redding, 2005), special focusing on recently conducted experiments on specific deterrence programmes funded by Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Lanza- Kaduce, et al., 2005). It will also conduct quantitative analyses of various statistical data, related to transfer laws and juvenile delinquency, obtained officially from the public departments at local and state levels. The paper will also identify the existing gap in the various researches conducted in this field, while recording the future scope and challenges in this arena, while discussing the chances of successful deterrence through transfer laws. 2 Literature review 2.1 Types of transfer laws The automatic transfer laws, are effective in 29 US States (Snyder and Sickmund, 2006, 64-70), where a juvenile (14 years or older) be transferred to an adult criminal court under certain conditions (especially for committing crimes that are of violent inn nature) juveniles 14 years of age and older). Judicial transfer laws are effective in 45 States within US (ibid), where the judges of the juvenile court judge have discretionary powers to decide whether a transfer case can be initiated. Fourteen States have the laws for prosecutorial direct-files (ibid), give discretionary powers to the prosecution bench allowing them to choose between the file juvenile or adult criminal court. Twenty-five states in US have laws for reverse waiver where a judge from adult criminal court can transfer the case back to the juvenile court (ibid). There are four main types of crimes for which the juveniles may come under transfer laws: any kind of an offense the judge deems suitable for trsnfer violent murder/rape; violent arson and felony, and re-offenses by juveniles (ibid). Transfer laws primarily are of three types: At the discretion of the judiciary (or the judicial transfer type); Legislative type (known as the automatic transfer type); and At the discretion of the prosecutor (or the prosecutorial direct-file type) (Redding and Mrozoski, 2005; Sanborn, 2003). 2.2 Transfer laws in deterring recidivisms (General Deterrence): Evidences from the study of the general deterrent effects of juvenile transfer laws are rather inconclusive and one cannot arrive to any derivations from these studies. The majority of the studies however tend to show that there is very little, or almost zero general deterrent effect, as regards deterring recidivism in the context of juvenile crimes, which are serious in nature. More research work is necessary for exploring the actual deterrent effects of transfer laws, under the appropriate conditions, on the juvenile offenders. Gaps in literature: For future research work, it is important to explore (through extensive interviews) whether: Is there awareness amongst the juvenile offenders about transfer laws? Are they aware that they may be tried and convicted under transfer laws, as adult criminals? If made aware, does this lead to an actual deterrence of future criminal activities from the juvenile offenders? 2.3 Transfer laws in deterring recidivisms (Specific Deterrence): On examining the issue of specific deterrence effects of transfers laws, it was found that were primarily six major published studies (Fagan, 1996; Bishop et al., 1996; Myers 2003, 2005; Winner et al., 1997; OJJDP funded researches; and Lanza-Kaduce, et al., 2005). These six studies suggested that juvenile offenders tried under adult criminal court laws tend to exhibit increased rates of recidivism after completing their prison term, than the young offenders tried under the juvenile laws. The scholars however do not clarify whether the transfer laws influence recidivism for property related crimes (non-violent types) and drug offenses. The six large-scale studies conducted on particular deterrent effects used large size of sample population (ranging from 494 to 5,476), varying research methodologies, examined various recidivism measures, and covered five States (Pennsylvania, New York, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Florida) each exhibiting varying sets of transfer laws (prosecutorial, automatic, or judicial types). All these six studies recorded higher rates of recidivism amongst juvenile offenders under transfer laws, when compared to the juvenile offenders retained under juvenile laws, and was seen even in cases where the juveniles received only a probation sentence from the adult criminal court. Thus, the studies clearly show that dealing with juvenile offenders under the transfer laws does not generate social security by deterring recidivism. These studies have instead shown that on the other hand, transfer laws works towards promoting recidivism. Recent researches on transfer laws by Centers for Disease Central arrived at the same derivations (McGowan, et al., 2007). 2.4 Significance of the research and gaps in the present state of study in this field From the conducted literature review it is clear that even though some researches (mostly empirical in nature) have been conducted on issue of transfer laws and its effects on recidivism, the picture still remains unclear and it is for this the researcher plans to conduct studies into this line. Another major gap in this area is the lack of research work of a qualitative nature that explores extensively into the psychological issues that juvenile offenders face while being tried and convicted under adult criminal laws, and later imprisoned in adult correctional facilities. The few scholarly studies into the subject show us that to induce reduction in recidivism, the transfer laws should be used minimally. Even though the limited nature of extant research work does not allow one to arrive to at an absolute conclusions, the empirical evidences imply that there is more of a negative effect on recidivism, from the existing transfer law system. In this context, the researcher plans to examine the issue from a different perspective, using both qualitative and quantitative research approaches, to arrive at a logical conclusion. 3 Methodology In any undertaken research work, there are two basic approaches: qualitative and quantitative research (Creswell, 2009). Quantitative research focuses on collecting and analysing, thus emphasising more on measurement and aims to establish knowledge that is objective in nature. The process adopted is deductive in nature, where a hypothesis is drawn from the studied theory, and then research work is carried out. The steps in a quantitative research are as given below: 1. theoretical notions derived from the studies; 2. hypothesis formulation from studied theories; 3. framing of a plan for research; 4. Develop research instruments (Spratt, 2004, 9). The various methods of data collection in quantitative research include, “surveys (questionnaires); structured interviewing; structured observation; secondary analysis and official statistics; content analysis according to a coding system; quasi-experiments (studies that have some of the characteristics of experimental design) classic experiments (studies that have control groups and experimental groups)” (ibid, 10). Qualitative research focuses on understanding of the words instead of studying the numerical distribution or frequency while analysing the collected data. It is inductive in nature, and formulates a theory after studying the evidence, with theoretical studies serving as a background and supporting the entire research process. Both qualitative and quantitative research approaches may be used within one research paper, which would be a mixed method approach (fig 1). This is thus, an amalgamation of the two traditional forms of research approaches, and the notions of mixing the two methods probably initiated when Campbell and Fiske (1959) first used multiple approaches within the same study for validating psychological traits (Creswell, 2003). Mixed method approaches are used when both qualitative and quantitative methods provide scope for a better and an in-depth comprehension of the research question at hand. Here the researcher will use an explanatory mixed method design, where the qualitative data will be collected first (from literature review and structured observation/secondary analysis and official statistics/) and from the resultant findings, quantitative data will be collected to solve the research questions that initiated from the previously collected qualitative data (Creswell, 2009). Fig 1: Mixed method approach (Source: Cresswell, 2009, 44). Comparisons in this paper will be made using the two types data obtained from the two types of research processes—statistical/quantitative data available from public records maintained at local and state levels, and qualitative data obtained from an extensive study of the available research papers on juvenile transfer laws and its effects (literature review). The public data documented in established categories will be analysed using statistics, while the main outcome for the paper will be find out if there are perceptible differences in official recidivism with the use of transfer laws. In the paper, recidivism of juveniles transferred under the transfer law system will be compared with those (juveniles) held in custody under the juvenile law system. 4 Data analysis The juvenile population considered in this research work will be between the age group 10 – 17 years, since crimes committed by juveniles below this age group make up a minor fraction (Howell, 1995). The researchers aims to get a view of the crime percentages, by measuring the number of juveniles taken into custody (divided into: total arrests, arrests for property related crimes, and arrests for violent crimes) for every 50,000 juveniles, during 2001- 2011. The researches in this case will use a panel-data model, which shows consolidated results to find out the effects of transfer laws on juvenile crime rates, and whether it actually deters recidivism. Here the basic formula used will be: Juvenile Arrestsab = Xab*Y2 + Y1*Transfer Lawsab + eab + wb + ua, Where, Juvenile Arrestsab = juvenile arrests in state a and year b, per 100000 juveniles in a state; Y1 = coefficient vector for variables in transfer law; Transfer Lawsab = dummy variable for each individual juvenile transfer law studied for the research work, in reference to the state (a) and year (b); Xab = control variable matrix as given below Y2 = coefficients vector equivalent to the control variable matrix as we see in X; ua = consolidated effects(state) wb = consolidated effects (year) eab = error denomination The researches will use rates of arrests made, while keeping in mind the fact that self-reported figures can lead to varying results and, making use of data from both types would present valid and more reliable results (Hengeler, et al., 1993). However, the researchers in this case will not be able to include self-reported data, as information available from the public systems exclude age of criminals (leaving scope for misrepresentations) and the necessary data related to state identification, which will tend to make the derivations unreliable. Control variables to be used within the research work: Rate of unemployment in the chosen state: Generally, it can be assumed that states showing high rates of unemployment would have a greater number of crimes committed by juveniles (or, the rate of joblessness in a country is directly proportional to juvenile crime rate of that country), and this remain independent of the State’s juvenile transfer laws. Levitt and Lochner (2001) in their research paper claimed that if there is a hundred percentage rise in unemployment rate in a state it may lead to a rise in juvenile crime related to properties by 1-2 %, but it has no permanent effect on juvenile crime of a violent crime (348). Number of students completing the high school levels per 50,000 juveniles: States that records greater number of juveniles completing their high school studies can be assumed to show low juvenile crime, independent of juvenile transfer laws. Levitt and Lochner (2001) in their papers reaffirmed this notion, where they noted States with high percentages of high school graduation tend to have a strong negative effect on juvenile crimes related to property and violence. The number of law enforcement officers per 50,000 juveniles: States having more law enforcement officers can be assumed to record lower juvenile crime record again remaining separate from the State’s transfer laws. Levitt (1997) showed that a link exists between the rise in the number of law enforcement officers per capita to a fall in the number of crimes in the State. Drug arrests (juvenile cases) for every 50,000 juveniles: here one can easily assume that States showing higher drug use amongst juveniles are expected to show higher juvenile crime figures, which remains separate from the transfer laws. French et al. (2004) suggested that there is a significant directly proportional relationship between the drug use rate and criminal activity. The African- American percentage of a state’s juvenile population (within the age group 10-17): This will also be considered as a control variable, as various researches by Piquero, MacDonald, and Parker (2002) have shown that this American race may have some strong connections with juvenile crimes. The researchers will include the consolidated effects of the year and state. Consolidated effects of the year are a control for factors that remain fixed across states, but differ over time. State consolidated effects form to be a control for factors that vary over States but remain fixed across time. The researcher will also take into account the ‘endogeneity bias,’ (formative loop) that may occur between the dependent and independent variables within the used model, initiating from a two-way generator that may occur between the juvenile crime and the present transfer laws of a State (Dezhbakhsh, Rubin, and Shepherd, 2003). Thus, even though if we assume that transfer laws may help to reduce recidivism, on the other hand greater number of juvenile crime activities in a State may also be the reason behind stringent transfer laws. To avoid the bias that may occur from this formative loop, the researchers will take into account instrumentation of modifications in state transfer law. For the instrumental variables the researchers will use the % of each state legislature (for one particular political party, from 2001-2011) and the spending made by the law enforcement agencies and the Correction facilities per 100,000 of the population in the state to be considered for the research work. These aforementioned variables must go through two important empirical tests (for validity). First, the variables will be combined and correlated with transfer law applicable to juvenile cases, where they will go through a ‘relevance test’ (Stock, Wright, and Yogo, 2002). Secondly, the variables will go through Sargan-Hansen over-identification test of instrumentation variables (Hansen, 1982; Baum, Schaffer, and Stillman, 2003). This implies that there are no influences on it cast upon by juvenile crime rates, while they may to a certain extent, affect the rates of juvenile crime rates via their influences on the State’s transfer laws, thus turning out to be valid empirical instruments. Separate regressions will be used according to the per capita crime measures, which would be taken as the dependant variable: total juvenile arrests in the state; property related juvenile arrests in the state; and violence related juvenile arrests. The researchers will also explore the links that exist between juvenile violent crimes (like murder, rape), and robbery rates, and transfer laws of a state. The researchers will work on various regressions (with or without amendments) for finding the ‘endogeneity’ of the state’s existing transfer laws on juvenile crime. For collecting and analysing data the researchers will use available custodial statistics from National Consortium on Violence Research (for the years 2001-2011), a body that gathers data from the FBI Uniform Crime Report. Researchers will also collect data for analysis from reports that reveal the percentage of legislators from the State representing the chosen political party (2001-2011); rate of unemployment in the state made available from US Bureau of Labor Statistics (2001-2011); data from National Center for Education Statistics (2001-2011) on total number of juveniles completing their high school graduation; the state’s juvenile population (10-17years of age), and the African-American juvenile percentage in the state (2001-2011); the yearly law enforcement and corrections spending by the State from the public money as allocated by the U.S. Bureau of the Census Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances (2001-2011); and the number of law enforcement agents in the State from the FBI LEOKA Data (2001-2011). Dependent variable: arrest data for the state; Independent variable: the age group (10-17 years for juvenile criminals) used by the researcher; Explanatory variables: Researchers will collect and analyse data made available from the National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) which will give data on transfer laws for the years 2001- 2011. The researchers will also record the changes found in transfer laws during the period 2001-2011. All relevant information on transfer laws and severity indices, depicting state-level evolutions in transfer laws, will be represented in a tabular format. References Baum, C., Schaffer, M., and Stillman, S. (2003). Instrumental Variables and GMM: Estimation and Testing. The Stata Journal 3(1), 1-31. Bishop, D., Frazier, C., Lanza-Kaduce, L., and Winner, L. (1996). The transfer of juveniles to criminal court: Does it make a difference? Crime and Delinquency 42:171–91. Bishop, D. (2004). Injustice and irrationality in contemporary youth policy. Criminology and Public Policy 3:633–44. Cresswell, J. (2003). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. London: Sage Publications. Cresswell, J. (2009). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th Ed). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson. Dezhbakhsh, H., Rubin, P., Shepherd, J. (2003). Does Capital Punishment have a Deterrent Effect? New Evidence from Post-moratorium Panel Data. American Law and Economics Review 5(2), 344-376. Fagan, J. (1996). The comparative advantage of juvenile versus criminal court sanctions on recidivism among adolescent felony offenders. Law and Policy 18:77– 113. Fagan, J., and Zimring, F., (eds.). (2000). The changing borders of juvenile justice: Transfer of adolescents to the criminal court. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. French, M., Kerry, A., McGeary, D., McCoy, C., Inciardi, J. and McBride, J. (2000). Chronic Drug Use and Crime. Substance Abuse 21(2): 95-109. Griffin, P. (2003). Trying and sentencing juveniles as adults: An analysis of state transfer and blended sentencing laws. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice. Hansen, L., (1982). Large Sample Properties of Generalized Method of Moments Estimators. Econometrica 50(3): 1029–1054. Hengeler, S., Melton, G., Smith, L., Foster, S., Hanley, J., and Hutchinson, C. (1993). Assessing Violent Offending in Serious Juvenile Offenders. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 21(3), 233-243. Howell, J. (1995). Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Kupchik, A., Fagan, J., and Liberman, A. (2003). Punishment, proportionality, and jurisdictional transfer of adolescent offenders: A test of the leniency gap hypothesis. Stanford Law and Policy Review 14:57–83. Lanza-Kaduce, L., Lane, J., Bishop, D., and Frazier, C. (2005). Juvenile offenders and adult felony recidivism: The impact of transfer. Journal of Crime and Justice 28:59–77. Levitt, S., and Lochner, L. (2001). “The Determinants of Juvenile Crime.” In, Jonathan Gruber (ed.), Risky Behavior among Youths: An Economic Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 327-374. Levitt, S. (1997). Using Electoral Cycles in Police Hiring to Estimate the Effect of Police on Crime. American Economic Review 87, 270-90. McGowan, A., Hahn, R., Liberman, A., Crosby, A., Fullilove, M., Johnson, R., Moscicki, E., Price, L., Snyder, S., Tuma, F., Lowry, J., Briss, P., Cory, S., and Stone, G. (2007). Effects on violence of laws and policies facilitating the transfer of juveniles from the juvenile justice system to the Adult System. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 32: S7–S28. Myers, D. (2005). Boys among men: Trying and sentencing juveniles as adults. Westport, CT: Praeger. Myers, D. (2003). The recidivism of violent youths in juvenile and adult court: A consideration of selection bias. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 1:79–101. Piquero, A., MacDonald, J., and Parker, K. (2002). Race, Local Life Circumstances, and Criminal Activity. Social Science Quarterly 83(3), 654–670. Redding, R. (2005). “Adult punishment for juvenile offenders: Does it reduce crime?” In, Handbook on Children, Culture and Violence, Nancy Dowd, Dorothy Singer, and Robin Fretwell Wilson (eds.), 375–95. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Redding, R., and Mrozoski, B. (2005). “Adjudicatory and dispositional decision- making in juvenile justice.” In, Juvenile delinquency: Prevention, assessment, and intervention, K. Heilbrun, N. Goldstein, and R. Redding (eds.), 232–56. New York: Oxford University Press. Sanborn, J. (2003). Hard choices or obvious ones: Developing policy for excluding youth from juvenile court. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 1:198–214. Snyder, H., and 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. Spratt, C. (2004). Mixed research methods. Retrieved on 20th November 2011 from, http://www.col.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/A5.pdf Steiner, B., and Hemmens, C. (2003- spring). Juvenile waiver 2003: Where are we now? Juvenile and Family Court Journal 54(2):1–24. Stock, J., Wright, J., and Yogo, M. (2002). A Survey of Weak Instruments and Weak Identification in Generalized Method of Moments. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 20(4), 518-529. Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services. (1996). Juvenile murder in Virginia: A study of arrests and convictions. Richmond, VA: Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services. Winner, L., Lanza-Kaduce, L., Bishop, D., and Frazier, C. (1997). The transfer of juveniles to criminal court: Re-examining recidivism over the long term. Crime and Delinquency 43:548–63. Read More