|
Abstract
|
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The purpose of this study by Osbun and Rode was to evaluate the effect of Minnesota's revised waiver statute. The intent of the statute was to limit judicial discretion by defining a class of juvenile offenders presumed on the basis of age, alleged offense, and record of prior felony to be unfit for treatment in the juvenile court.
METHODOLOGY:
A quasi-experimental design was employed to assess the statute. Demographic and case history data were obtained from juvenile court files in Hennepin, an urban county located near Minneapolis, Minnesota. According to the authors, Hennepin is the most populous county in the state, has the largest juvenile court caseload, and transfers more juveniles to adult court than any other county in Minnesota. Data were collected according to two categories: (1) cases in which the juvenile's age, alleged offense, and prior record were sufficient to satisfy the presumptive criteria of the statute and (2) cases where the waiver procedure was actually initiated by the prosecutor. Each case was followed from initial court petition through final disposition because, according to the authors, it was the judge who ultimately had the decision of whether or not to transfer the juvenile to adult court. Data on the date of birth, sex, race, date, type and outcome of all prior and present offenses as well as all previous dispositions received by the juvenile court were obtained by court records. Data were obtained from three six-month time periods: 1/1/79 to 6/30/79; 1/1/80 to 6/30/80; and 1/1/81 to 6/30/81. The last six-month period of data collection occurred after the implementation of the statute. Tables were constructed to examine the data, however, no statistical analyses were performed.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
The authors reported that the number of waiver motions filed remained fairly constant over the 18-month period. However, the percentage of waivers granted increased during the first six months of 1991, the period immediately following the implementation of the statute. The authors stated that the increase in transfers granted could not be attributed primarily to the implementation of the statute because the percentage of waiver motions granted was the same for cases that did not satisfy the presumptive criteria as it was for cases that did. The authors also found that most juveniles transferred to adult court as well as those for whom waivers were requested did not belong to the class offenders who were presumed by law to be unfit for juvenile court. It was also found that about two-thirds of the juveniles transferred to adult court did not have records sufficient enough to warrant transfer. Additionally, the authors reported many juveniles who met the statutory requirements for transfer were not considered for transfer. Similarly, it was found that after the implementation of the statue, prosecutors had chosen to file waiver motions for only about half of the juveniles who met the statutory criteria. It was also reported that about 33% of the cases that had waiver requests filed failed to satisfy the objective, statutory criteria. The authors claimed that the above findings indicate that prosecutors and judges were not provided with clear-cut, objective, criteria for considering motions of waiver.
The authors also reported that juveniles who satisfied the presumptive criteria for waiver, had less serious records than those who became involved in the waiver process. Less than half of those identified by the objective criteria had been charged with violent or multiple felonies. The authors also reported that cases that had been accepted for waiver were more serious than cases that were rejected. The authors concluded that objective criteria laid out by the statute failed to provide an adequate means for selecting juveniles for transfer to adult court. Similarly, the authors stated that the traditional discretionary process used by criminal justice agents for making waiver decisions may be more successful than the objective criteria. The authors noted that discretionary tactics may take into account a more complete profile of the juvenile than the statute allows. The authors concluded by stating that the objective selection formulas offer no simple solution to the complex problem of discretion in waiver decisions.
(CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
1970s
1980s
Juvenile Violence
Juvenile Offender
Legislation
Juvenile Court
Juvenile Justice System
Criminal Justice System
Judicial Transfer-Waiver
Correctional Decision Making
Juvenile In Adult Court
Minnesota
Offender Prosecution
Justice System Evaluation
12-04 |