corridor into adult criminal court is perhaps one of the most important decisions that are a trial where makes that decision has lifelong consequences for the minor and it has long term consequences for public safety accordingly it's not surprising that the end will be part of the us the illinois supreme court held that before a discretionary transfer maybe you have held on direct appeal that there must be evidence in the record that the juvenile judge both received evidence on every statutory and critical non statutory factor and evidence in the record that the judge specifically consider each of these factors the supreme reiterate individual case as in more it involves a thirteen year old boy who was accused of committing an armed robbery in both cases the gun was was not loaded and in  cases at the transfer hearing the state introduced no specific evidence about the rehabilitative programs that were would be available as shame or kept in juvenile court specifically i think most striking is the lack of any evidence  all about the type of programming that would be available if shame were sent to the department of juvenile justice facility clearly he had not succeeded on probation up until this point but that's a tremendous leap to go from a thirteen year old boy with mental health issues can't succeed on probation absent more more substantial supervision to say we have to send this kid to adult work because there's nothing that we can do for him in the juvenile lot of things that are striking about this case one is that not a single mention was made at the transfer hearing at all about the fact that if shane were transferred to adult court because the robbery was committed with a firearm and the armed robbery statue it doesn't matter whether the gun was loaded or not the purpose of an armed robbery prosecution that he was facing a mandatory minimum twenty one year term of imprisonment in fact shyne he wasn't monisha that sentencing range to begin with there was no mention of it out of the transfer hearing itself and it wasn't until about six months later and that it that they were that if you view shane's record in conjunction with derrius kelly was the codefendant the older boy who provided the got in this case when you look at those records together i that weapon is is able to be discharged if it is not a deadly weapon for purposes of transfer and again as in more of this court recognized that so this and this in this case is is virtually indistinguishable from or also directly affect of the transfer hearing but it matters because in this case the court was dealing with an extraordinarily young miner a thirteen year old boy who was kept in the juvenile court system could remain under the jurisdiction of the  could be held in a department of juvenile justice delayed for eight years until his twenty first birthday so there was there there's a tremendous opportunities for additional system said to see what they can do for their for this  t in addition by transferring him to a dock where he's going to be held in a juvenile he's going to be held in a juvenile facility until he's seventeen that's required but generally what happens with in the juvenile system is for kids that are transferred kids department of juvenile justice has enough on their plate dealing with kids that they know are going to stay in the in the delinquency system and most kids are transferred to an adult as most kids who are serving adult sentences first transfer to an adult  at age seventeen it is the exception rather than the rule that keeps kids yet again a deejay facility after their seventeenth birthday in this case had the court not transferred chain he would have been subject to eight years nearly eight the department of juvenile justice facility has invested in his mental health treatment his anger management and all of the things that d j facilities do this this kid is going to put in an adult prison for about a year and a half this transfer bought the state under or the best of circumstances about an additional year then additional year and a half imprisonment and it's imprisonment and adult facility for the child who suffers from mental health issues so any good work that was done in the d j transfer of children as young as their change the only way you can get a child into adult court at the age of thirteen is through these discretionary transfer provisions there aren't driving with a firearm is in the excluded jurisdiction statute the child has to be fifteen before that happens the act also in visions that that in theory a trial judge could sentence a minor found guilty of armed robbery with a firearm to probation so this is not an offense that the to find a single case where a thirteen year old child was transferred to adult court where no one was harmed the transfer of children this young in the imposition of sentences and exposing children to sentences of decades of imprisonment united states stands alone  in that respect so both in terms of and in terms of national consensus the majority of states don't allow the transfer of the application of these very draconian sentencing provisions to two very young children  and then finally the u s supreme court's recent cases in broker graham which both recognize that adolescent brain development matters that the science is finally telling us what we as parents and adults have known for a very long time that kids do incredibly stupid things i am sometimes if that if a child suffering from mental illness if a child has is raised in a neighborhood where he exposed to less than than ideal conditions sometimes those really stupid things can be really stupid dangerous crimes but that doesn't necessarily mean again that that child is irredeemable and that that child should be sentenced to an adult to and at the same sort of adult sentence that that a hard a hardened criminal would be the in addition to the nature of the offense all armed robberies are serious as this as the trout were observed but in this case as armed robberies go  the weapon was not loaded not showing didn't try to use that as a bludgeon it was provided by an older boy who suggested who who suggested the offense in the first place there was substantial mitigating evidence in addition to just  in this case and then again finally showing he's never had a chance no one has ever tried to help to rehabilitate this child by using more restrictive means than simply a sentence of probation again i think it's be provided by the department of juvenile justice in this case it doesn't necessitate a transfer to adult court friendly in terms of the transfer issue in this case this is not just a matter of the minor getting a fair hearing that's enough but it's not just about that it is also about the fact that bad dream bad transfer decisions made for bad public policy they increase they decreased public safety was from pulling away from an officer who had to do it gratis a i didn't see it in fairness he's getting into fights at school all which is yeah i mean they're not the sort of fights that have risen to the level of the state feeling like they needed to file charges under the circumstances that he's got case in that case the juvenile was facing mandatory life in prison and so the choice there was use or the juvenile serves a sense in juvenile detention or mandatory life in judge put on the record that the minimum maximum sentence is that it's still not a statutory fact that the legislature carcassonne eighty seven that the legislature still has not made this a factor on the list and the statute in section not five five subsection three it still is not made that a factor that people submit their cards should be read for some to its own facts and not expand it because the court does not say that it should be expanded in that way and in this case there was no evidence of any advantages of any treatment transfer and this quote the people will interpret it as saying that there needs to be that honest marker of each step for refugees to support the transfer order political people leave that's incorrect what effect that has on the outcome of this case i after the hearing basically things that happened subsequent to the hearing below the first time world health and same same thing in the supreme court case of people versus the only eighty seven no that was a retrospective fish here are basically the here you should not lengthy term of a minimum sentence applies to there how do you know if you're how you're how to rehabilitate this kid if you don't even know how long he's going to be energy in a facility and how long he's going to be in an adult facility the state consider among other matters and then it lists these factors again how can it where consider a factor that it's required to consider if there is no evidence on the factor that it struck me that it's required to consider the statute itself provides  even even despite even if the case like me doesn't clearly hold that which we maintain that it does the statute itself requires implicitly requires evidence because it says the traveler how to consider each of these factors and  finally i will take issue with the remedy that the state is requesting a retro if what if what the state means by a retroactive transfer hearing is that the trial where it is may only consider the factors that existed at the time of the original transfer those are clearly relevant factors but in this case the decision whether to transfer a childhood all or it is a matter of just having of incredible importance and if shane's been behaving himself in staying with the program and getting his not health treatment and doing well in the juvenile system the trial court should not be deprived of that information that is incredibly low that is incredibly relevant information to the decision about whether this child needs to be transferred to the adult system or not so again if what the state is asking for is to be able to take a second bite at the apple at this hearing and they can introduce more evidence that that existed at the time of the original transfer him to the minors can't introduce evidence that he's been