Charles E. Frazier

The Transfer of Juveniles to Criminal Court: Does it Make a Difference?

Recidivism of 2,738 juvenile offenders who were transferred to criminal court in Florida in 1987 was compared with that of a matched sample of delinquents who were retained in the juvenile system. Recidivism was examined in terms of rates of reoffending, seriousness of reoffending, and time to failure, with appropriate adjustments made for time at risk. By every measure of recidivism employed, reoffending was greater among transfers than among the matched controls.

The Influence of Race in Juvenile Justice Processing

This article examines the effect of defendants race on juvenile justice processing in a large southern state. The study traces the movement of a cohort of over 50,000 youths through multiple decision-making stages from intake screening to judicial disposition. After controlling for legal and processing variables in multivariate analyses, we find that race has a direct effect on decisions made at several processing junctures. Indirect and cumulative effects of race are also addressed and implications for future research explored.

The Transfer of Juveniles to Criminal Court: Reexamining Recidivism Over the Long Term

A long-term recidivism study was conducted in Florida on matched pairs of juveniles, where one subject in each pair had been transferred to the adult system in 1987 and the other had not. Rearrest information on the pairs from their release from sanctions through November 1994 was used to determine the probabilities of rearrest and the times to rearrest of transfers and nontransfers, adjusting for time at risk. Transfer diminished the rearrest chances for property felons, an advantage that was offset by an enhanced probability of rearrest among transfers for other offense categories. Survival analysis showed that transfers were rearrested more quickly and were rearrested more times on average.

Gender Bias in Juvenile Justice Processing: Implications of the JJDP Act

* Associate, Center for Studies in Criminology and Law, University of Florida; Ph.D., 1982, State University of New York at Albany; M.A., 1974, College of William and Mary; B.A., 1968, Wheaton College. ** Professor of Sociology, University of Florida; Ph.D., 1973, Southern Illinois University; M.A., 1967, Kent State University; B.A., 1966, Muskingum College. Acknowledgment: We would like to thank John C. Henretta for his helpful comments and for statistical advice; nevertheless, we alone are responsible for any errors that remain.

Prosecutorial Waiver: Case Study of a Questionable Reform

Consistent with a trend toward more punitive responses to delinquency, many states have enacted laws that facilitate the transfer of young offenders to criminal court by bypassing the traditional waiver hearing. The most highly controversial of these streamlined transfer methods is prosecutorial waiver, which allows prosecutors to choose whether to initiate proceedings in juvenile or criminal court. This article examines the practice of prosecutorial waiver in Florida, a state that grants prosecutors extremely wide latitude with respect to the transfer of 16- and 17-year-olds. Our analyses focus on interviews conducted with prosecutors in each of the states judicial circuits, as well as individual-level case data on transfers in two urban counties. Few of the juveniles transferred via prosecutorial waiver are the kinds of dangerous, repeat offenders for whom waiver is arguably justified. This is in large part due to the lack of statutory guidelines to govern the selection of cases, the ease with which waiver is accomplished, and the lack of support among prosecutors for traditional principles of juvenile justice.

Adult Versus Juvenile Sanctions: Voices of Incarcerated Youths

This article reports findings from face-to-face interviews with youthful offenders in Florida, about half of whom had been transferred to the adult system and half of whom were retained in the juvenile system. The focus is on the youths’global assessments of the impact of their correctional experiences relevant to subsequent offending. The overall impact of each recalled correctional disposition was rated (ranging from beneficial impact to negative impact). For respondents who had experienced multiple correctional dispositions, comparisons were made about the relative impact of low-end versus deepend juvenile commitments and juvenile versus adult sanctions. Youths believed deep-end juvenile placements were most beneficial. Those programs were viewed as having provided education or life skills. When youths viewed adult sanctions as being beneficial, the benefit was linked to the time and pain of prison confinement. Those youths who attributed positive impact to prison had “skipped” deep-end juvenile placements.

JUVENILE OFFENDERS AND ADULT FELONY RECIDIVISM: THE IMPACT OF TRANSFER

ABSTRACT We examined adult felony recidivism for 475 matched pairs in Florida. Each pair, matched on seven factors, contained one juvenile transferred to adult court and one retained in the juvenile justice system. We found that transfers were more likely to re-offend and were more likely to commit violence after they turned 18 years of age. This was true even after controlling for additional case details (e.g., victim injury, weapon use, gang involvement). Get tough policies that transfer juvenile offenders to criminal court may “backfire” and have a criminogenic rather than deterrent effect.

Get-Tough Juvenile Justice Reforms: The Florida Experience

Get-tough reforms aimed at juvenile offenders have become commonplace in the United States. In the last decade, almost every state has modified laws relating to juvenile crime in some way, and the direction of the reforms has been very clear. States are getting tougher on juvenile offenders either by shifting away from traditional rehabilitation models to punishment-oriented juvenile justice or by legislating new or expanded legal means by which greater numbers of juvenile offenders may be moved to criminal court for adult processing and punishment. The present study focuses on a major set of juvenile justice reforms in Florida and the impact on actual practice. Florida is unique in a historical sense because it has transferred large numbers of juveniles to criminal court for two decades, and, currently, because it has more juveniles in its prisons than any other state. Despite incremental get-tough reforms, the new transfer provisions have had a negligible impact. The effects of Floridas get-tough laws and practices should be instructive for those other states that have begun such reforms more recently.

Official Intervention, Diversion from the Juvenile Justice System, and Dynamics of Human Services Work: Effects of a Reform Goal Based on Labeling Theory

This study examines the relationship between the degree of official intervention in the lives of juveniles charged with delinquent offenses and their diversion status. We draw upon official justice system data, data from a large diversion project that operated in eight counties, and data collected through field observations of the diversion program under study. Our findings show that the official intervention process is as intrusive for youth diverted out of the juvenile justice system for services as it is for those youth who are not diverted. Some part of the failure of one program on this reform goal may be explained by a general resistance to change among juvenile court officials, but it is clear from field observation data that the practices and professional ideologies of human services workers also contribute substantially to the failure.

Orientations to juvenile justice: Exploratory notes from a statewide survey of juvenile justice decisionmakers

Abstract This study examined the extent to which orientations to juvenile justice held by decisionmakers are related to their functional roles and educational backgrounds. Predictions concerning this question were drawn from both the literature on complex organizations and writings by scholars interpreting and forecasting the future of juvenile justice. The findings indicate that assignment to specific roles in the juvenile justice system is a significant predictor of commitment to either a rehabilitative or a just deserts model of juvenile justice. This effect appears to be modified to some extent by educational backgrounds and professional identifications. The implications of these findings for a continuation of the traditional rehabilitative ideal in juvenile justice are discussed.