U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

J. Robert Flores, Administrator August 2008 

Office of Justice Programs Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods www.ojp.usdoj.gov 

Juvenile Transfer Laws: 

An Effective Deterrent to A Message From OJJDP 

In an effort to strengthen the sanctions 

for serious juvenile crimes, a number 

of States have enacted laws increasing the types of offenders and offenses eligible for transfer from the juvenile 

court to the adult criminal court for trial 

and potential sentencing. 

These laws have lowered the minimum transfer age, increased the 

number of offenses eligible for transfer, and limited judicial discretion, 

while expanding prosecutorial discretion for transfers. 

Among the principal goals of such 

transfer laws are the deterrence of 

juvenile crime and a reduction in the 

rate of recidivism, but what does the 

research indicate about their effectiveness in addressing these ends? 

Several studies have found higher 

recidivism rates for juveniles convicted in criminal court than for similar 

offenders adjudicated in juvenile 

courts. The research is less clear, 

however, in regard to whether transfer 

laws deter potential juvenile offenders. 

This Bulletin provides an overview of 

research on the deterrent effects of 

transferring youth from juvenile to 

criminal courts, focusing on largescale comprehensive OJJDP-funded 

studies on the effect of transfer laws 

on recidivism. 

It is our hope that the information provided in this Bulletin will help inform 

public discussion and policy decisions 

on the transfer of juvenile offenders to 

adult criminal courts. 

Delinquency?

Richard E. Redding 

Beginning in the 1980s, many States 

passed legal reforms designed to get 

tough on juvenile crime. One important 

reform was the revision of transfer (also 

called waiver or certification) laws (Griffin, 2003) to expand the types of offenses 

and offenders eligible for transfer from the 

juvenile court for trial and sentencing in 

the adult criminal court.1 These reforms 

lowered the minimum age for transfer, 

increased the number of transfer-eligible 

offenses, or expanded prosecutorial discretion and reduced judicial discretion 

in transfer decisionmaking (Fagan and 

Zimring, 2000; Redding, 2003, 2005). In 

1979, for example, 14 States had automatic 

transfer statutes requiring that certain 

juvenile offenders be tried as adults; by 

1995, 21 States had such laws, and by 

2003, 31 States (Steiner and Hemmens, 

2003). In addition, the age at which juvenile court jurisdiction ends was lowered 

to 15 or 16 years in 13 States (see Snyder 

and Sickmund, 2006), although very 

recently, some States have reduced the 

scope of transfer laws (Bishop, 2004), and 

one State has raised the age at which juvenile court jurisdiction ends from 16 to 18. 

In the wake of these legislative changes, 

the number of youth convicted of felonies 

in criminal courts and incarcerated in 

adult correctional facilities has increased 

(Redding, 2003), reaching a peak in the 

mid-1990s and then declining somewhat 

(Snyder and Sickmund, 2006) due, in part, 

to the decrease in juvenile crime. An estimated 4,100 youth were committed to 

State adult prisons in 1999, representing 

1 percent of new prison commitments 

(Snyder and Sickmund, 2006). Sixty-one 

percent of these youth were incarcerated 

for person offenses, 23 percent for property 

offenses, 9 percent for drug offenses, and 

5 percent for public order offenses (e.g., 

weapons possession) (Snyder and Sickmund, 2006). Transferred juveniles, particularly those convicted of violent offenses, 

typically receive longer sentences than 

those sentenced in the juvenile court for 

similar crimes (Bishop, 2000; Kupchik, 

Fagan, and Liberman, 2003; Myers, 2005; 

Virginia Department of Criminal Justice 

Services, 1996). But, they may be released 

on bail for a considerable period of time 

while they await trial in the criminal court 

(Myers, 2005), and many youth incarcerated in adult facilities serve no longer than 

the maximum time they would have 

served in a juvenile facility (Bishop, 2000; 

Fritsch, Caeti, and Hemmens, 1996; Myers, 

2001). Seventy-eight percent were released 

from prison before their 21st birthday, 

and 95 percent were released before their 

Access OJJDP publications online at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp 
 

Types of Transfer Laws 

While the age at which juveniles can be transferred to the adult system varies 

across States, most States will transfer youth ages 14 and older who have committed a serious violent offense. Typically, there are four categories of offenses for 

which juveniles of a certain age may be transferred: (a) any crime, (b) capital 

crimes and murder, (c) certain violent felonies, and (d) certain crimes committed 

by juveniles with prior records (Snyder and Sickmund, 2006). (See Griffin, 2003, 

and Snyder and Sickmund, 2006, for recent comprehensive lists of States, recent 

transfer statutes, and statutory requirements.) 

There are three types of transfer laws, all of which are referred to in this Bulletin: 

legislative (automatic transfer), judicial-discretionary (judicial transfer), and 

prosecutorial-discretionary (prosecutorial direct-file). Each type defines the kind 

of juvenile offender eligible for transfer under the statute, typically specifying certain offenses and minimum age criteria. Most States have two or three coexisting 

types of transfer laws (Redding and Mrozoski, 2005). For example, 40 States and 

the District of Columbia have judicial and prosecutorial transfer statutes, with the 

prosecutorial statutes often applicable only to older and more serious offenders 

(Sanborn, 2003). 

Automatic transfer laws, currently in effect in 29 States (Snyder and Sickmund, 

2006), require transfer of a juvenile if statutory criteria are met (for example, 

alleged commission of a violent felony by juveniles 14 years of age and older). 

Under these laws, the case either originates in criminal court, or originates in juvenile court and is then transferred to criminal court. Judicial transfer laws, currently 

in 45 States and the District of Columbia (Snyder and Sickmund, 2006), vest discretion with the juvenile court judge to decide whether a juvenile should be transferred after the prosecution files a transfer motion. Prosecutorial direct-file laws, 

currently in 14 States and the District of Columbia (Snyder and Sickmund, 2006), 

vest the discretion with prosecutors, allowing them to decide whether to file 

charges in the juvenile or criminal court. Twenty-five States also have reverse 

waiver laws (Snyder and Sickmund, 2006). In a reverse waiver jurisdiction, the 

criminal court judge has the discretion to transfer the defendant back to the 

juvenile court (or to treat the defendant as a juvenile for sentencing purposes). 

25th birthday, with an average of 2 years, 8 

months of time served on their sentences 

(Snyder and Sickmund, 2006). 

General and Specific 

Deterrence 

The nationwide policy shift toward transferring juvenile offenders to the criminal 

court is based largely on the assumption 

that more punitive, adult criminal sanctions will act as a deterrent to juvenile 

crime. In terms of specific deterrence—in 

other words, whether trying and sentencing juvenile offenders as adults decreases 

the likelihood that they will reoffend—six 

large-scale studies have found higher 

recidivism rates among juveniles convicted 

for violent offenses in criminal court when 

compared with similar offenders tried in 

juvenile court. With respect to general 

deterrence—whether transfer laws deter 

any would-be juvenile offenders—the 

picture is less clear. The studies on this 

issue have produced somewhat conflicting 

findings; however, the bulk of the empirical 

evidence suggests that transfer laws have 

little or no general deterrent effect. 

This Bulletin reviews all of the extant 

research on the general and specific 

deterrent effects of transferring juveniles 

to adult criminal court (Redding, 2005), 

focusing in particular on recent large-scale 

studies on specific deterrence funded by 

the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Fagan, Kupchik, and 

Liberman, 2003; Lane et al., 2002; LanzaKaduce et al., 2005). It also identifies gaps 

in the field’s knowledge base, notes challenges for further research, and discusses 

whether effective deterrence may be 

achieved through transfer. 

General Deterrence: Do 

Transfer Laws Prevent 

Juvenile Crime? 

Two studies conducted in the 1980s found 

that transfer laws did not lower juvenile 

crime rates. Jensen and Metsger’s (1994) 

time-series analysis for the years 1976 to 

1986 found a 13-percent increase in arrest 

rates for violent crime committed by 14­

to 18-year-olds in Idaho after the State 

implemented its transfer law in 1981. In 

comparison, between 1982 and 1986, the 

arrest rates for similarly aged juveniles 

decreased in the neighboring States of 

Montana and Wyoming (which retained 

transfer procedures similar to those Idaho 

had before 1981). In a similar time-series 

analysis comparing juvenile arrest rates 

between 1974 and 1984 in New York and 

Philadelphia, Singer and McDowall (1988) 

found that a 1978 New York State law that 

automatically sent violent juvenile offenders to criminal court (by lowering the 

ages for criminal court jurisdiction to 13 

for murder and 14 for assault, arson, burglary, kidnapping, and rape) had no deterrent effect on violent juvenile crime. The 

law was applied widely and publicized 

extensively in the media.2 Although limited, 

evidence available at the time suggested 

that juvenile offenders in New York were 

aware of the law (Singer and McDowall, 

1988). 

On the other hand, the results of a multistate analysis for the years 1978 to 1993 

suggest that adult sanctions, under certain conditions, may have moderate deterrent effects on juvenile crime (Levitt, 

1998). Controlling for demographic and 

economic variables, the researchers compared the juvenile arrest rates for violent 

crime across States as a function of each 

State’s minimum age for criminal court 

jurisdiction to the relative punitiveness of 

its juvenile and criminal justice systems. 

Punitiveness is defined as the ratio of the 

number of incarcerated offenders to the 

number of total offenders in each State 

system for different age groups. Researchers found relative decreases in 

youth crime as youth reached the age of 

criminal responsibility, but only in those 

States in which juvenile and criminal 

justice systems differed significantly in 

severity of punishment. This suggests that 

significantly more punitive punishments 

meted out by criminal courts may deter 

youth from offending once they reach the 

age of criminal responsibility. 

Two multistate studies reached a different 

conclusion. Examining data on all felony 

arrests in the State of Florida between 

1989 and 2002, including each offender’s 

age and arrest history, Lee and McCrary 

(2005) evaluated the effect of turning age 

18 on criminal offending. This study found 

that young people did not lower their 

offending rates upon turning age 18, 

suggesting that the prospect of adult sanctions was not a deterrent. 

2 
Steiner and Wright (2006) examined the 

effects of prosecutorial transfer laws in 

the 14 States that had such laws as of 

2003.3 These States enacted their laws at 

different times (between 1975 and 2000), 

thereby providing data over different 

historical time periods. Using time-series 

analyses, researchers compared monthly 

juvenile arrest rates for violent index 

crime (homicide, rape, robbery, and 

aggravated assault) for each month in the 

5 years before and the 5 years after each 

State enacted its prosecutorial transfer 

law. In addition, 2 States were selected as 

controls for each of the 14 target States. 

The control States resembled the target 

States in size, location, and juvenile arrest 

rates, but implemented no transfer law 

during or near the relevant time period. 

The study found that transfer laws had no 

general deterrent effect. Only in Michigan 

did juvenile crime decrease after the State 

enacted its prosecutorial transfer law; in 

the other 13 States, juvenile crime either 

remained constant or increased after the 

enactment of the law (see also Risler, 

Sweatman, and Nackerud, 1998). 

A few researchers have interviewed juvenile offenders about the effects of transfer. 

Before the widespread expansion of transfer laws, Glassner and colleagues (1983) 

reported the results of interviews with a 

small number of juvenile offenders in New 

York, who said they had decided to stop 

offending once they reached the age at 

which they knew they could be tried as 

adults. 

Researchers in another small-scale study 

(Redding and Fuller, 2004) interviewed 37 

juvenile offenders who had been charged 

with murder or armed robbery and automatically tried as adults in Georgia. The 

study examined their knowledge and perceptions of transfer laws and criminal 

sanctions. Georgia had undertaken a public awareness campaign to inform juveniles about the State’s new automatic 

transfer law. Nevertheless, juvenile offenders reported being unaware of the law; 

only 8 of the 37 youth knew that juveniles 

who committed serious crimes could be 

tried as adults. Even among those who 

knew about the law, none expected that it 

would be enforced against them for the 

serious crime they had committed. Many 

thought they would only get light sentences 

(e.g., a sanction of probation, boot camp, 

or a several-month stay in a juvenile 

detention facility) from the juvenile court. 

These results are consistent with those 

from a Canadian study (Peterson-Badali, 

Ruck, and Koegl, 2001) finding that only 22 

of the 53 juvenile offenders interviewed 

thought that they would receive a serious 

punishment if caught. 

Seventy-five percent of the transferred 

juveniles interviewed by Redding and 

Fuller (2004) felt that their experiences 

in the adult criminal justice system had 

taught them the serious consequences 

of committing crimes. As one juvenile 

explained, “[Being tried as an adult] 

showed me it’s not a game anymore. 

Before, I thought that since I’m a juvenile I 

could do just about anything and just get 

6 months if I got caught” (Redding and 

Fuller, 2004:39). Seventy-five percent of 

the juvenile offenders said that if they had 

known they could be tried and sentenced 

as adults, they may not have committed 

the crime (Redding and Fuller, 2004). 

In sum, the limited empirical research 

on the general deterrent effect of juvenile 

transfer is somewhat inconsistent and 

does not permit strong conclusions. The 

bulk of the evidence suggests that transfer 

laws, at least as currently implemented 

and publicized, have little or no general 

deterrent effect in preventing serious 

juvenile crime. Substantial further 

research is needed to examine whether 

transfer laws have—or, under the appropriate conditions, could have—a general 

deterrent effect. In particular, it is important to examine the following questions: 

◆	 Are juveniles aware of transfer laws? 

◆	 Do they believe the laws will be 

enforced against them? 

◆	 Does this awareness and belief deter 

criminal behavior? 

In conjunction with such research, there 

is a need to implement and evaluate welltargeted public awareness campaigns on 

the State and local levels designed to 

apprise juveniles of the legal consequences of committing serious crimes 

(Redding and Fuller, 2004). Public awareness campaigns have proved effective in 

reducing adult crime in some contexts 

(e.g., Elder et al., 2004; Johnson and 

Bowers, 2003). 

Potential Deterrence 

It is possible that transfer laws resulting 

in significant adult sentences might have 

general deterrent effects if would-be 

juvenile offenders were made aware of 

such laws and if the laws were widely 

implemented. With respect to adult 

offenders, studies “plainly suggest that 

when potential offenders are made aware 

of substantial risks of being punished, 

many of them are induced to desist” (Von 

Hirsch et al., 1999:47). However, research 

with adults suggests that the severity of 

punishment appears to have little or no 

effect on crime rates (Pratt and Cullen, 

2005; Robinson and Darley, 2004), perhaps 

because potential offenders typically have 

much more information about the likelihood of being arrested than they do about 

likely sentences (Von Hirsch et al., 1999). 

Studies show that the general public 

knows little about potential sentences and 

tends to underestimate their severity 

(Robinson and Darley, 2004; Von Hirsch et 

al., 1999). In addition, offenders tend to 

discount punishment as an uncertain 

future event, whereas the short-term 

rewards of crime are more powerful pull 

factors (Wilson and Herrnstein, 1985). 

“[F]uture contingent costs may be discounted less, if their magnitude is sufficiently great and their likelihood of being 

incurred increases. Severe sentencing policies thus might possibly have an impact if 

coupled with much higher probabilities of 

conviction” (Von Hirsch et al., 1999:48). 

Although studies of juvenile offenders are 

few in number, they suggest that arrests 

and sanctions have deterrent effects. For 

example, Mocan and Rees (2005) examined self-reported delinquency data (for 

drug selling, assault, robbery, burglary, 

and theft) for 14,942 adolescents from 

the 1995 National Longitudinal Study 

of Adolescent Health. They compared 

county-level arrests (of adults and juveniles) for violent crime reported in 1993 

with county-level juvenile crime rates in 

1995, thus providing a measure of the 

deterrent effects of arrest rates on subsequent juvenile crime rates. They found 

that the arrest rate had a general deterrent effect on the crimes of drug dealing 

and assault; for each additional arrest, 

there was a 3.6-percent decrease in the 

likelihood that juveniles would sell drugs 

and a 6.6-percent decrease in the likelihood that they would commit an assault. 

According to Mocan and Rees (2005:344), 

“this pattern of results runs counter to 

claims that at-risk young Americans are so 

present-oriented that they do not respond 

to incentives and sanctions.” 

Similarly, Smith and Gartin (1989) found 

that being arrested reduced recidivism 

among youthful male offenders, particularly 

first-time offenders. A 2003 study of serious juvenile offenders incarcerated in a 

maximum security facility found a negative 

3 
relationship between their sentence 

severity and self-reported intent to reoffend and a positive correlation between 

their self-reported intent and the number 

of offenses they actually committed after 

their release. Researchers found evidence 

that these offenders made “some explicit 

calculations about the advantages and 

disadvantages of committing future 

crimes” (Corrado et al., 2003:197). 

Criminal sanctions will only have deterrent effects if potential offenders: (1) 

believe there is a significant likelihood of 

getting caught, (2) believe there is a significant likelihood of receiving a substantial sentence, and (3) consider the risk of 

the penalty when deciding whether to 

offend (see Von Hirsch et al., 1999). It is 

useful to consider, however, each of the 

necessary preconditions for successful 

deterrence in the context of juvenile 

offending. A law can act as a deterrent 

only if the targeted population is aware 

that the law exists and believes that it will 

be enforced. 

Redding and Fuller (2004) found that few 

violent juvenile offenders knew that they 

could be tried as adults, none thought it 

would happen to them, and few thought 

they would face serious punishment. 

Moreover, few reported thinking about 

the possibility of getting caught when 

they committed the offense. Indeed, it 

seems that offenders generally underestimate the risk of arrest (Robinson and Darley, 2004). Juveniles’ psychosocial immaturity, including their tendency to focus 

on the short-term benefits of their choices 

(Beckman, 2004; Scott, Reppucci, and 

Woolard, 1995; Steinberg and Cauffman, 

1996), may reduce the likelihood that they 

will perceive the substantial risk of being 

arrested or punished as an adult (Schneider and Ervin, 1990). 

Specific Deterrence 

To date, six published studies have been 

conducted to examine the specific deterrence effects of transfer. These large-scale 

studies indicate that youth tried in adult 

criminal court generally have greater 

recidivism rates after release than those 

tried in juvenile court. It is unclear, however, whether transfer affects recidivism 

for nonviolent property or drug offenders. 

Fagan (1996) examined the recidivism 

rates of 800 randomly selected 15- and 

16-year-old juvenile offenders charged 

with robbery or burglary during 1981–82. 

Controlling for eight variables (race, gender, age at first offense, prior offenses, 

offense severity, case length, sentence 

length, and court), as well as for time 

residing in the community, researchers 

compared offenders charged in New 

Jersey’s juvenile courts with offenders 

charged in New York’s criminal courts 

under that State’s automatic transfer law 

(under which 16 is the age of full criminal 

responsibility). Both areas shared similar 

demographic, socioeconomic, and crimeindicator characteristics. Thus, the study 

provides a comparison of recidivism rates 

as a function of whether cases were 

processed in the juvenile or criminal 

court, without the sample selection problems inherent in studies comparing cases 

within a single jurisdiction where prosecutors or judges decide which cases to 

transfer. 

A higher percentage of youth who were 

tried for robbery in criminal court were 

rearrested (91 percent) than those tried 

for robbery in juvenile court (73 percent). 

Of youth who were rearrested, those tried 

in the criminal court also were rearrested 

sooner and more often. However, there 

were no differences in recidivism rates (in 

terms of the percent rearrested, rearrest 

rate, and time to rearrest) for burglary 

offenders tried in the criminal court versus 

those tried in juvenile court. The findings 

on robbery offenders suggest that criminal court processing alone, irrespective of 

whether youth are incarcerated in juvenile 

or adult facilities, produces a higher 

recidivism rate. This finding is emphasized by the parallel finding that even 

those youth sentenced to probation in 

criminal court had a substantially higher 

recidivism rate than those incarcerated 

in the juvenile justice system (see also 

Mason and Chang, 2001). 

Juveniles with the highest recidivism rates 

were those who were incarcerated after 

being tried in the criminal court. The 

study indicated that, overall, youth adjudicated in juvenile court had a 29-percent 

lower risk of rearrest than those tried in 

criminal court. Drug offenses were the one 

exception. Criminal court adjudication 

substantially reduced the risk of rearrest 

in those cases. 

Bishop and colleagues (1996) compared 

the 1-year recidivism rate of 2,738 juvenile 

offenders transferred to criminal court in 

Florida in 1987 with a matched sample of 

2,738 juvenile offenders who had not been 

transferred. Florida relies almost exclusively on prosecutorial transfer. These 

transfer decisions are largely offense-driven and made soon after arrest, before the 

prosecutor has much information about 

the youth’s background. Therefore, it is 

less likely that the youth retained in the 

juvenile justice system had lower recidivism rates due to variables other than 

those controlled for in the analysis, such 

as the youth’s mental health status or 

amenability to treatment (Bishop and Frazier, 2000). The study controlled for seven 

variables (race, gender, age, number of 

referrals to juvenile court, most serious 

prior offense, number of charges, and 

most serious charge). Researchers found 

that the rearrest rates were higher (0.54 

versus 0.32 offenses per person, per year 

of time living in the community) among 

transferred youth. Also, the average time 

to reoffending was shorter (135 versus 227 

days) for the transferred youth across 

seven offense types (including violent 

felonies, property offenses, and minor 

misdemeanors). 

Following the same Florida offenders 7 

years after the initial study by Bishop et 

al. (1996), Winner et al. (1997) compared 

transferred versus nontransferred offenders 

matched for gender, age, race, and offending history. They found that the rearrest 

rates were higher and the time to reoffending shorter (adjusting for time residing in the community following release 

from incarceration) among those who had 

been transferred to criminal court. The 

exception was transferred property felons 

who had lower recidivism rates than similar offenders who remained under juvenile 

court jurisdiction. 

Myers (2001, 2003) examined the 18­

month recidivism rates of 494 juvenile 

offenders charged with robbery or aggravated assault in Pennsylvania in 1994, 

using a statistical model to control for the 

possibility that the transferred juveniles 

were the more serious offenders in the 

first place (and therefore more likely to 

recidivate) or those less amenable to 

treatment in the juvenile system. The 

study controlled for age at referral, race, 

geographical location, school and family 

status, various indices of prior offending 

history, use of a weapon, and various 

case-processing variables. Youth who 

were judicially transferred to criminal 

court were twice as likely to be rearrested, and were rearrested more quickly (and 

often for more serious offenses) upon 

their return to the community, than youth 

who were retained in the juvenile justice 

system during the same period. 

Finally, two recent large-scale studies funded by OJJDP are particularly informative: 

4 
Recent OJJDP-Funded 

Studies 

Lanza-Kaduce and colleagues (2005) conducted a second Florida study that included 950 young adult offenders.4 Half of the 

offenders had been prosecutorially transferred to the criminal court in 1995 or 

1996 for offenses they had committed as 

juveniles; the other half had remained in 

the juvenile system. This resulted in a 

sample of 475 matched pairs of transferred and retained cases. 

The cases were drawn from six urban and 

rural judicial circuits in Florida that differed considerably in their rates of transfer. The cases were matched within each 

judicial circuit (thus controlling for geographical effects in case processing and 

decisionmaking) along seven relevant 

demographic, criminal history, and 

offense variables: age, gender, race, number of previous juvenile referrals, most 

serious prior offense, offense, and number 

of charges. In addition, a subset of this 

group, consisting of 315 best matched 

pairs, were further matched according to 

an offense seriousness index created by 

examining local records to obtain data 

about 12 other case characteristics: prior 

juvenile referrals, multiple charges at 

arrest, multiple incidents involved in the 

case, charge consolidation, legal problems 

during case processing, gang involvement, 

codefendants or accomplices, property 

loss or damage, victim injury, use of 

weapons, felony charges, and the presence 

of mitigating and aggravating factors. The 

measure of recidivism was the number of 

offenses committed after youth turned age 

18, and data analyses were conducted on 

the 475 matched pairs, as well as on the 

subset of 315 best matched pairs. 

Transferred Juveniles More 

Likely To Offend 

The Lanza-Kaduce study expands on the 

earlier Florida studies (i.e., Bishop et al., 

1996; Winner et al., 1997). It includes reoffense types and a detailed matching on 

relevant case and offense characteristics 

(see Frazier et al., 1999). Its recidivism data 

draws on information from two different 

State databases. To reduce a potential lack 

of comparability in recidivism measures 

between transfers and juvenile court 

retainees due to differences in decisionmaking and recordkeeping between the 

two systems, it examines offending after 

age 18. “The focus on adult recidivism . . . 

captures the persistence of a criminal 

career into adulthood—a pivotal policy 

concern” (Lanza-Kaduce et al., 2005:64). 

Moreover, the data “include cases transferred in 1995 and 1996, after the ‘get 

tough’ idea was fully entrenched in the 

American culture and after prosecutorial 

transfer had been used in Florida for a 

long time” (Lanza-Kaduce et al., 2005:65). 

Like the earlier Florida studies, this study 

found that transferred offenders, particularly violent offenders, were significantly 

more likely to reoffend. 

◆	 Overall, 49 percent of the transferred 

offenders reoffended, compared with 

35 percent of the retained offenders. 

◆	 For violent offenses, 24 percent of the 

transferred offenders reoffended, compared with 16 percent of the retained 

offenders. 

◆	 For drug offenses, 11 percent of the 

transferred offenders reoffended, compared with 9 percent of the retained 

offenders. 

◆	 For property offenses, 14 percent of the 

transferred offenders reoffended, compared with 10 percent of the retained 

offenders. 

The results were virtually identical for the 

subset of 315 best matched pairs. In addition, researchers conducted paired-comparison analyses in which each matched 

pair was the unit of analysis. This analysis 

classified each pair according to whether 

both offenders reoffended (21 percent of 

cases), only the transferred offender reoffended (29 percent of cases), only the 

retained offender reoffended (15 percent 

of cases), or neither reoffended (36 percent of cases).5 Again, the results were 

virtually identical for the subgroup of 

best-matched pairs. However, the study 

failed to replicate the 1997 Florida study 

finding of lower recidivism rates among 

transferred property offenders (Winner 

et al., 1997). 

In addition to the recidivism study, the 

Florida research group conducted detailed 

interviews with 144 serious male offenders between the ages of 17 and 20, half of 

whom had been transferred and the other 

half of whom were retained in the juvenile 

system (Bishop and Frazier, 2000; Lane et 

al., 2002). Eighty-three percent had more 

than one prior arrest, 60 percent began 

offending before the age of 14, and 47 percent had committed a violent offense as 

their most serious current offense. Interviews were conducted in four “deep-end” 

juvenile correctional institutions (i.e., 9–36 

month placements in highly secure juvenile correctional facilities designed for 

high- and medium-risk offenders) and 

eight adult prisons in Florida (mostly 

youthful offender facilities designed to 

house young adults up to age 24), with 

youth at different stages in serving their 

sentence. Of the 71 youth who had been 

transferred to the adult system, 63 also 

had prior experience in the juvenile system. Fifty-eight percent of the youth rated 

the deep-end juvenile placements as 

beneficial, 33 percent rated the adult 

prison as beneficial, 20 percent rated the 

less restrictive juvenile dispositions (for 

example, probation, placement in lowrestrictive residential programs) as beneficial, and 12 percent rated adult probation 

as beneficial. 

The youth rated the deep-end juvenile 

programs the most beneficial largely 

because these programs provided intensive, long-term job skills training and 

treatment. In addition, the lengthier period of incarceration gave them more time 

to consider their futures and the consequences of reoffending, suggesting that 

the longer sanctions had an impact (Lane 

et al., 2002). But “[o]ften when adult sanctions were perceived as being beneficial, 

the benefit was not attributed to anything 

gained from the disposition. Rather, many 

youth indicated that they expected to 

remain crime-free because their experiences in the adult system had been so 

horrible. Youth who believed the adult 

sanctions would keep them from committing crimes primarily pointed to three reasons: pain and denigration, time spent in 

prison, and fear of future consequences, 

especially tougher sentences. Paradoxically, 

most of those who said the adult experience was negative also mentioned pain, 

denigration, and/or anger, but they gave 

these as reasons why the adult dispositions had made matters worse. Others 

attributed a negative impact to adult 

sanctions because they ‘learned more 

crime while there’” (Lane et al., 2002:444). 

While a substantial minority of the youth 

said that prison had taught them a 

lesson—declaring that they would not 

reoffend because they did not want to 

endure the pain of imprisonment again— 

61 percent said that prison had either no 

impact or a negative impact on their 

behaviors (Lane et al., 2002:448). Overall, 

the “findings call into question the practice of [incarcerating juveniles in adult 

prison and] ‘skipping’ the deep-end juvenile programs when sentencing youth for 

serious crimes” (p. 452). 

5 
In another OJJDP-sponsored study, Fagan 

and colleagues (2003) extended and largely 

replicated previous research (Fagan, 

1996). This time, they examined the timeat-risk (i.e., residing in the community) 

recidivism rates for 2,382 15- and 16-yearold juveniles charged in 1992 or 1993 with 

robbery, burglary, or assault. The 2003 

study used a larger sample drawn from 

more counties in each State as well as 

more detailed measures of important variables, such as offenders’ prior juvenile 

record. The study compared those 

charged in selected counties in northern 

New Jersey, where such cases originate in 

the juvenile court, with those charged in 

matched counties in New York, where 

such cases originate in the criminal court. 

The New York and New Jersey counties are 

contiguous, and part of a large metropolitan 

area that shares common demographic, 

economic, and social characteristics as 

well as similar criminogenic influences 

and crime rate characteristics. Thus, the 

study design allows for comparison of 

recidivism rates as a function of whether 

cases are processed in juvenile court or 

criminal court, without the sample selection problems inherent in designs that 

compare cases retained in the juvenile 

court with those transferred in a single 

jurisdiction wherein decisionmakers 

decide which cases to transfer. All cases 

were followed for a 7-year period until 

2000, by which time almost all of the 

offenders had served their sentences and 

had spent at least 2 years living in the 

community. The study statistically controlled for a variety of relevant demographics (age, gender, ethnicity), case and 

offense characteristics (for example, most 

serious charge, weapon use, whether 

detained, case length), criminal history 

variables (age at first arrest, number of 

prior arrests, previous incarcerations), 

and sentence length. It used statistical 

techniques that analyzed recidivism in 

different ways (first rearrest, severity of 

rearrest charges, time until rearrest, likelihood of subsequent incarceration). 

Greater Likelihood of 

Rearrest 

The study found a 100-percent greater 

likelihood of rearrest for a violent offense 

and a 47-percent greater likelihood of rearrest for a property offense, among the 

New York juveniles whose cases were 

processed in the criminal court than for 

the New Jersey juveniles. They also had 

a greater number of rearrests for such 

offenses and a 26-percent greater chance 

of being reincarcerated. The pattern of 

findings was even stronger for first-time 

offenders. For drug offense rearrests, however, the results were reversed, with the 

juveniles tried in juvenile court having a 

31-percent greater likelihood of rearrest 

for drug offenses. Finally, the study found 

that the differences in recidivism were 

unrelated to periods of incarceration in 

adult versus juvenile facilities. Thus, 

incarceration in adult prisons “does not 

seem to be responsible for the criminogenic effect of adult court processing” 

(Fagan et al., 2003:66). 

These findings fully replicate those of the 

earlier Fagan (1996) study, except with 

respect to property offenses. The 1996 

study found no difference in recidivism 

rates for burglary, whereas the 2003 study 

found that criminal court processing 

increased the recidivism rates for property 

offenses. 

Transfer Found To Increase 

Recidivism 

In sum, to date, six large-scale studies 

have been conducted on the specific 

deterrent effects of transfer. These studies 

used large sample sizes (between 494 and 

5,476 participants), different methodologies (natural experiment across two jurisdictions, matched groups within the same 

jurisdictions, or statistical controls), multiple measures of recidivism, and were 

conducted in five jurisdictions (Florida, 

New Jersey, New York, Minnesota, Pennsylvania) having different types of transfer 

laws (automatic, prosecutorial, or judicial). 

The strong consistency in results across 

the studies is all the more compelling 

given that they used different samples 

and methodologies, thereby providing 

a degree of convergent validity for the 

findings. All of the studies found higher 

recidivism rates among offenders who had 

been transferred to criminal court, compared with those who were retained in the 

juvenile system. This held true even for 

offenders who only received a sentence 

of probation from the criminal court. 

Thus, the extant research provides sound 

evidence that transferring juvenile offenders to the criminal court does not engender community protection by reducing 

recidivism. On the contrary, transfer 

substantially increases recidivism. A 

recent review of the extant research on 

transfer conducted by the Centers for 

Disease Central arrived at the same 

conclusion (McGowan et al., 2007). Only 

two apparent exceptions challenge this 

pattern of findings. For nonviolent property offenders, the effects of transfer remain 

unclear, with one study finding that transfer had no effect on recidivism (Fagan, 

1996) and another finding that transfer 

decreased recidivism (Winner et al., 1997), 

but with two studies (conducted in the 

same jurisdiction as the first two studies) 

finding that it increased recidivism (Fagan 

et al., 2003; Lanza-Kaduce et al., 2005). In 

addition, with respect to drug offenders, 

two studies (Fagan, 1996; Fagan et al., 

2003) found decreased recidivism rates 

among those tried in the criminal court. 

Challenges for Future 

Research 

Important challenges for future 

research are to determine: (1) 

whether transfer differentially impacts 

recidivism as a function of offense 

type (violent offenses, property 

offenses, drug offenses), and (2) 

what features of the criminal justice 

system increase recidivism, an 

important question for policymaking. 

These challenges raise such questions as the following: 

◆ Can changes be made in the 

criminal court processing and adult 

system sanctions of juveniles to 

make them less detrimental? What 

are they? 

◆ In what ways should the juvenile 

justice system guard against those 

features of the criminal justice 

system that serve to increase 

recidivism? 

◆ How can States’ blended sentencing 

systems, which allow the juvenile 

courts to impose adult sentences in 

certain cases (see Redding and 

Howell, 2000), incorporate the best 

features of the juvenile and criminal 

justice systems, while avoiding the 

negative effects of criminal justice 

system processing?

6 
Why Do Juveniles Tried 

as Adults Have Higher 

Recidivism Rates? 

Experts (see Bazemore and Umbreit, 1995; 

Myers, 2003; Thomas and Bishop, 1984; 

Winner et al., 1997) have identified several 

possible explanations for the higher 

recidivism rates of violent juvenile offenders tried in criminal court as compared to 

those adjudicated in juvenile court: 

◆	 The stigmatization and other negative 

effects of labeling juveniles as convicted 

felons. 

◆	 The sense of resentment and injustice 

juveniles feel about being tried and 

punished as adults. 

◆	 The learning of criminal mores and 

behavior while incarcerated with adult 

offenders. 

◆	 The decreased focus on rehabilitation 

and family support in the adult system. 

A felony conviction also results in the loss 

of a number of civil rights and privileges 

(see Redding, 2003), further reducing the 

opportunities for employment and community reintegration. 

Findings from several studies (Fagan, 

1996; Fagan, Kupchik and Liberman, 2003) 

show that criminal court processing 

alone, even without the imposition of any 

criminal sentence, increases recidivism. 

Juveniles’ sense of injustice at criminal 

court processing may cause them to react 

defiantly by reoffending, and it may further 

harden an emergent criminal self-concept 

(see Sherman, 1993; Thomas and Bishop, 

1984; Winner et al., 1997). “The concept 

of fairness appears to be an important 

variable in an individual’s perception of 

sentence severity and its subsequent relationship to future recidivism” (Corrado et 

al., 2003:183). Furthermore, it appears that 

many adolescents with conduct disorders 

already have a sense of having been dealt 

an unfair hand by authority figures (Chamberlain, 1998). Bishop and Frazier (2000) 

interviewed 95 serious and chronic juvenile offenders in Florida, roughly half of 

whom were transferred to the criminal 

court and were incarcerated in adult correctional facilities, and half of whom had 

been adjudicated in the juvenile court and 

were incarcerated in maximum-security 

juvenile facilities. According to the 

authors, many of the juveniles felt a 

strong sense of injustice about being tried 

as adults: 

Many experience the court process 

not so much as a condemnation of 

their behavior as a condemnation 

of them. Unlike the juvenile court, 

the criminal court failed to communicate that young offenders retain 

some fundamental worth. What the 

youths generally heard was that they 

were being punished not only 

because their behavior was bad but 

also because they were personifications of their behavior. Far from 

viewing the criminal court and its 

officers as legitimate, the juvenile 

offenders we interviewed saw them 

more often as duplicitous and manipulative, malevolent in intent, and 

indifferent to their needs. It was common for them to experience a sense 

of injustice and, then, to condemn 

the condemners (Bishop and Frazier, 

2000:263). 

These findings are consistent with those 

of Redding and Fuller (2004), who found 

that juveniles tried as adults clearly felt 

that transfer laws were unfair. Many felt 

that their juvenile status and immaturity 

dictated that they should be tried as juveniles, despite the serious crimes they had 

committed. They also did not understand 

why the legal system was trying them as 

adults, and they saw themselves as being 

treated differently from other similarly 

situated juveniles. Both perceptions 

contributed to their sense of unfairness, 

perhaps leading to greater cynicism about 

the legal system as a result of being incarcerated (see Piquero et al., 2005). 

Some studies indicate that prison incarceration “does not seem to be responsible 

for the criminogenic effect of adult court 

processing” (Fagan, Kupchik, and Liberman, 2003:66). One reason for the 

increased recidivism of these offenders, 

however, might be the reduced opportunities for meaningful rehabilitation in adult 

prison. Forst, Fagan, and Vivona’s 1989 

study, for example, found that youth in 

juvenile facilities gave higher marks than 

youth in adult facilities to the available 

treatment and case management services. 

Youth in juvenile detention described 

these services as helpful in providing 

counseling, enabling them to obtain needed 

services, encouraging participation in programs, teaching the consequences of rule 

breaking, and deepening their understanding of their problems. Similarly, in a recent 

study comparing the experiences of youths 

in adult versus juvenile correctional 

facilities in a large Northeastern State, all 

of whom had been tried in adult criminal 

court, Kupchik (2007) found that youths 

in juvenile facilities reported far more positive, mentoring-style staff-inmate interactions than did the youths in adult facilities. However, youths in adult facilities 

reported having greater access to counseling and educational services, perhaps 

because of the larger size of the adult 

facilities. 

Bishop and Frazier’s recent Florida study 

(2000) vividly portrays the differences 

between juvenile and adult correctional 

facilities. They found that the juvenile 

correctional institutions were treatmentoriented and adhered to therapeutic models of rehabilitation (Bishop and Frazier, 

2000:255). “Compared to the criminal justice system, the juvenile system seems to 

be more reintegrative in practice and 

effect” (Bishop and Frazier, 2000:265). 

Youths in juvenile facilities had positive 

feelings about the staff, who they felt 

cared about them and taught them appropriate behaviors. Most of the juveniles 

incarcerated in juvenile facilities felt confident that they would not reoffend, often 

crediting the staff with helping them make 

this positive change. Conversely, only a 

third of the juveniles in adult prisons said 

that they would not reoffend. 

Juveniles in adult prison reported that 

much of their time was spent learning 

criminal behavior from the inmates and 

proving how tough they were. They also 

were much more fearful of being victimized than they had been when incarcerated in juvenile facilities, and more than 30 

percent had been assaulted or had witnessed assaults by prison staff. Indeed, 

Beyer (1997) paints a bleak picture of life 

in adult prison for juveniles, who are at 

greater risk for suicide, as well as for 

physical and sexual abuse from older 

inmates. As compared with those in juvenile facilities, juveniles incarcerated in 

adult prison are eight times more likely to 

commit suicide, five times more likely to 

be sexually assaulted, and almost twice as 

likely to be attacked with a weapon by 

inmates or beaten by staff (Beyer, 1997). 

Because juveniles in adult prisons are 

exposed to a criminal culture in which 

inmates commit crimes against each 

other, these institutions may socialize 

delinquent juveniles into true career criminals. In an older study about life in prison 

(Eisikovits and Baizerman, 1983), violent 

juvenile offenders reported that their daily 

survival required finding ways to fit into 

the inmate culture, dealing with difficult 

7 
and authoritarian relationships with adult 

inmates, and adjusting to the institution by 

accepting violence as a part of daily life 

and, thus, becoming even more violent. 

Finally, Redding and Fuller (2004) found 

that juveniles whose jail or prison experiences were worse than they had expected, 

and those who reported witnessing or 

experiencing violence while incarcerated, 

were less likely to say that their incarceration would deter them from committing 

crimes in the future. This finding raises 

the possibility that incarceration in adult 

facilities may have brutalizing effects on 

juveniles, which may partly account for 

their increased recidivism. (The term 

“brutalization effect” describes the finding 

that homicide rates in a State often 

increase after an execution (Bowers, 

1998), perhaps because executions model 

and communicate that violence is an 

acceptable and psychologically cathartic 

alternative.) Likewise, juveniles’ brutal 

experiences in adult prison may teach the 

wrong lessons about the acceptability and 

psychological benefits of criminal conduct, particularly violent crime, while also 

contributing to their sense of being treated unfairly, both of which may increase 

recidivism. Further research is needed on 

this issue. 

Implications for 

Policymakers and 

Practitioners 

The research findings on juvenile transfer 

have the potential to impact both policy 

and practice. In a recent study, Hensl and 

Redding (2005) found that juvenile court 

judges who were knowledgeable about the 

ineffectiveness of transfer in reducing 

recidivism were somewhat less likely to 

transfer juvenile offenders to the criminal 

court. This finding suggests that educating judges, prosecutors, court personnel, 

and legislators about the research on 

transfer may reduce the number of cases 

transferred to criminal court or the number of transferred cases that result in 

criminal sanctions. The Miami-Dade County Public Defender’s Office developed the 

Juvenile Sentencing Advocacy Project, 

which produced a 350-percent increase in 

the number of transferred cases receiving 

a juvenile rather than an adult sanction 

from criminal court judges (Mason, 2000). 

In Florida, which has had some of the 

most aggressive transfer policies in the 

Nation, the number of juveniles prosecuted in the criminal court decreased by twothirds between 1996 and 2003 (whereas 

the total number of juvenile court cases 

decreased by only 9 percent), apparently 

due, in part, to research disseminated 

showing the counter-deterrent effects of 

transfer (Bishop, 2004). Moreover, in the 

last several years, some States have 

reduced the scope of transfer laws to 

make fewer juvenile offenders eligible for 

prosecutorial or judicial transfer (Bishop, 

2004; Griffin, 2003). 

Yet in Florida, for example, the data show 

that the transferred cases were generally 

no more serious, and sometimes were less 

serious, than the cases retained in the 

juvenile justice system (Lanza-Kaduce, 

Frazier, and Bishop, 1999). Forty-three percent of the 1,100 juveniles incarcerated in 

adult prisons for offenses committed 

when they were 15 years old or younger 

had not previously been committed to a 

juvenile justice program (Annino, 2000). 

Thus, the juvenile justice system never 

had an opportunity to rehabilitate these 

youth before they were transferred to the 

adult system, despite the fact that serious 

juvenile offenders in Florida report that 

intensive juvenile placements are relatively more beneficial than either adult prison 

or mild juvenile sanctions (Lane et al., 

2002). 

But Florida is not unique in transferring 

first-time offenders to the criminal court. 

Transfer laws, particularly automatic 

transfer laws, often target first-time 

offenders, even though they do not pose 

the greatest recidivism risk or threat to 

community safety. The frequency of 

offending, instead of the seriousness of 

the first offense, best predicts overall 

recidivism and the risk for committing a 

subsequent violent offense (see Bishop, 

2004; Piquero, 2000; Redding, 1997). To 

best achieve reductions in recidivism, the 

overall number of juvenile offenders transferred to the criminal justice system 

should be minimized. Moreover, those 

who are transferred should be the chronic 

repeat offenders—rather than first-time 

offenders—particularly in cases where the 

first-time offense is a violent offense. 

Conclusion 

Most practitioners would agree, consistent with the extant research, that it is 

important that the juvenile courts’ 

response to juvenile offenders be calibrated 

to have sufficient effectiveness as a deterrent while not being overly punitive. The 

practice of transferring juveniles for trial 

and sentencing in adult criminal court 

has, however, produced the unintended 

effect of increasing recidivism, particularly in violent offenders, and thereby of promoting life-course criminality (Scott, 

2000). But, if it was indeed true that transfer laws had a deterrent effect on juvenile 

crime, then some of these offenders would 

not have offended in the first place. 

Although the limited extant research falls 

far short of providing definitive conclusions, the bulk of the empirical evidence 

suggests that transfer laws, as currently 

implemented, probably have little general 

deterrent effect on would-be juvenile 

offenders. 

Notes 

1. Seventeen States currently have “blended sentencing” laws (see Redding and 

Howell, 2000) that permit the criminal 

court, after its adjudication of the youthful offender, to impose juvenile sentences 

in certain cases. Fifteen States permit the 

juvenile court to impose limited criminal 

sanctions (Snyder and Sickmund, 2006). 

2. In addition, brochures were sent to public schools announcing the law and the 

legal risks juvenile offenders faced, and 

juvenile court judges warned youth about 

the risks of committing violent offenses (S. 

Singer, 2004, personal communication). 

3. These States included Arizona, 

Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, 

Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, 

Nebraska, Oklahoma, Vermont, Virginia, 

and Wyoming. 

4. This is the most recent in a series of 

studies conducted by the Florida research 

group. These studies, which have been 

funded by the Florida Department of Justice and OJJDP, are part of an ongoing 

research program, beginning in the mid1980s, studying the effects of transfer in 

Florida. For an overview of the Florida 

research program, see Frazier et al., 1999. 

5. The total does not equal 100 because of 

rounding. 

References 

Annino, P.G. 2000. Children in adult 

prisons: A call for a moratorium. Florida 

State University Law Review 28:471–90. 

Bazemore, G., and Umbriet, M. 1995. 

Rethinking the sanctioning function in 

juvenile court: Retributive or restorative 

responses to youth crime. Crime and 

Delinquency 41:296–316. 

8 
Beckman, M. 2004. Crime, culpability, and 

the adolescent brain. Science 305:596–99. 

Beyer, M. 1997. Experts for juveniles at 

risk of adult sentences. In More than meets 

the eye: Rethinking assessment, competency 

and sentencing for a harsher era of juvenile 

justice, edited by P. Puritz, A. Capozello, 

and W. Shang, 1–22. Washington, DC: 

American Bar Association, Juvenile Justice 

Center. 

Bishop, D.M. 2000. Juvenile offenders in 

the adult criminal justice system. In Crime 

and justice: A review of research, vol. 27, 

edited by M. Tonry, 81–165. Chicago, IL: 

University of Chicago Press. 

Bishop, D.M. 2004. Injustice and irrationality in contemporary youth policy. Criminology and Public Policy 3:633–44. 

Bishop, D.M., and Frazier, C.E. 2000. 

Consequences of transfer. In The changing 

borders of juvenile justice: Transfer of adolescents to the criminal court, edited by J. 

Fagan and F.E. Zimring, 227–76. Chicago, 

IL: University of Chicago Press. 

Bishop, D.M., Frazier, C.E., 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. 

Bowers, W.C. 1998. Deterrence, brutalization, and the death penalty: Another 

examination of Oklahoma’s return to capital punishment. Criminology 36:711–33. 

Chamberlain, P. 1998. Family connections: 

A treatment foster care model for adolescents with delinquency. Eugene, OR: 

Northwest Media. 

Corrado, R.R., Cohen, I.M., Glackman, W., 

and Odgers, C. 2003. Serious and violent 

young offenders’ decisions to recidivate: 

An assessment of five sentencing models. 

Crime and Delinquency 49:179–200. 

Eisikovits, Z., and Baizerman, M. 1983. 

“Doin’ time”: Violent youth in a juvenile 

facility and in an adult prison. Journal of 

Offender Counseling, Services, and Rehabilitation 6(3):5–20. 

Elder, R.W., Shults, R.A., Sleet, D.A., 

Nicholas, J.L., Thompson, R.S., and Rajab, 

W. 2004. Effectiveness of mass media campaigns for reducing drinking and driving 

and alcohol-involved crashes: A systemic 

review. American Journal of Preventive 

Medicine 27(1):57–65. 

Fagan, J.A. 1996. The comparative advantage of juvenile versus criminal court 

sanctions on recidivism among adolescent 

felony offenders. Law and Policy 

18:77–113. 

Fagan, J., Kupchik, A., and Liberman, A. 

2003. Be careful what you wish for: The 

comparative impacts of juvenile versus 

criminal court sanctions on recidivism 

among adolescent felony offenders. Public 

Law Research Paper No. 03–61. New York: 

Columbia University Law School. 

Fagan, J., and Zimring, F.E., eds. 2000. The 

changing borders of juvenile justice: Transfer of adolescents to the criminal court. 

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 

Forst, M., Fagan, J., and Vivona, S.T. 1989. 

Youth in prisons and training schools: 

Perceptions and consequences of the 

treatment-custody dichotomy. Juvenile 

and Family Court Journal 40:1–14. 

Frazier, C.E., Bishop, D.M., Lanza-Kaduce, 

L., and Marvasti, A. 1999. Juveniles in 

criminal court: Past and current research 

from Florida. Quinnipiac Law Review 

18:573–96. 

Fritsch, E.J., Caeti, T.J., and Hemmens, C. 

1996. Spare the needle but not the punishment: The incarceration of waived youth 

in adult prisons. Crime and Delinquency 

42:593–609. 

Glassner, B., Ksander, M., Berg, B., and 

Johnson, B.D. 1983. A note on the deterrent 

effect of juvenile versus adult jurisdiction. 

Social Problems. 31:219–21. 

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. 

Hensl, K.B., and Redding, R.E. 2005 

(March). The relationship among juvenile 

court judges’ personal characteristics and 

attitudes, juvenile offender characteristics, 

and judicial transfer decisions. Paper presented at the American Psychology-Law 

Society annual conference. La Jolla, CA. 

Jensen, E.L., and Metsger, L.K. 1994. A test 

of the deterrent effect of legislative waiver 

on violent juvenile crime. Crime and Delinquency 40:96–104. 

Johnson, S.D., and Bowers, K.J. 2003. 

Opportunity is in the eye of the beholder: 

The role of publicity in crime prevention. 

Criminology and Public Policy 2:497–524. 

Kupchik, A. 2007. The correctional experiences of youth in adult and juvenile prisons. Justice Quarterly 24:247–70. 

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. 

Lane, J., Lanza-Kaduce, L., Frazier, C.E., 

and Bishop, D.M. 2002. Adult versus juvenile sanctions: Voices of incarcerated 

youths. Crime and Delinquency 48:431–55. 

Lanza-Kaduce, L., Frazier, C.E., and Bishop, 

D.M. 1999. Juvenile transfers in Florida: 

The worst of the worst? University of 

Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy 

10:277–312. 

Lanza-Kaduce, L., Lane, J., Bishop, D.M., 

and Frazier, C.E. 2005. Juvenile offenders 

and adult felony recidivism: The impact 

of transfer. Journal of Crime and Justice 

28:59–77. 

Lee, D.S., and McCrary, J. 2005. Crime, 

punishment, and myopia. Working Paper 

11491. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of 

Economic Research. 

Levitt, S.D. 1998. Juvenile crime and punishment. Journal of Political Economy 106: 

1156–85. 

Mason, C.A. 2000. Juvenile sentencing 

advocacy project: Evaluation report. Miami, 

FL: Miami-Dade County Public Defender’s 

Office. 

Mason, C.A., and Chang, S. 2001. Rearrest 

rates among youth incarcerated in adult 

court. Miami, FL: Miami-Dade County 

Public Defender’s Office. 

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. 

Mocan, H.N., and Rees, D.I. 2005. Economic 

conditions, deterrence, and juvenile 

crime: Evidence from micro data. American Law and Economics Review 7:319–49. 

Myers, D.L. 2001. Excluding violent youths 

from juvenile court: The effectiveness of 

legislative waiver. New York: LFB Scholarly. 

9 
Myers, D.L. 2003. The recidivism of violent 

youths in juvenile and adult court: A consideration of selection bias. Youth Violence 

and Juvenile Justice 1:79–101. 

Myers, D.L. 2005. Boys among men: Trying 

and sentencing juveniles as adults. 

Westport, CT: Praeger. 

Peterson-Badali, M., Ruck, M.D., and 

Koegl, C.J. 2001. Youth court dispositions: 

Perceptions of Canadian juvenile offenders. International Journal of Offender 

Therapy and Comparative Criminology 

45:593–605. 

Piquero, A.R. 2000. Assessing the relationships between gender, chronicity, seriousness, and offense skewness in criminal 

offending. Journal of Criminal Justice 

28:103–16. 

Piquero, A.R., Fagan, J., Mulvey, E.P., Steinberg, L., and Odgers, C. 2005. Developmental trajectories of legal socialization 

among serious adolescent offenders. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 

96:267–98. 

Pratt, T.C., and Cullen, F.T. 2002. Assessing 

macro-level predictors and theories of 

crime: A meta-analysis. In crime and justice: A review of research, vol. 32, edited 

by M. Tonry, 373–450. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 

Redding, R.E. 1997. Juveniles transferred 

to criminal court: Legal reform proposals 

based on social science research. Utah 

Law Review 3:709–97. 

Redding, R.E. 2003. The effects of adjudicating and sentencing juveniles as adults: 

research and policy implications. Youth 

Violence and Juvenile Justice 1:128–55. 

Redding, R.E. 2005. Adult punishment for 

juvenile offenders: Does it reduce crime? 

In Handbook on Children, Culture and 

Violence, edited by Nancy Dowd, Dorothy 

Singer, and Robin Fretwell Wilson, 375–95. 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 

Redding, R.E., and Fuller, E.J. 2004 (summer). What do juvenile offenders know 

about being tried as adults?: Implications 

for deterrence. Juvenile and Family Court 

Journal 35–45. 

Redding, R.E., and Howell, J.C. 2000. 

Blended sentencing in American juvenile 

courts. In The changing borders of juvenile 

justice: Transfer of adolescents to the criminal court, edited by J. Fagan and F.E. Zimring, 145–80. Chicago, IL: University of 

Chicago Press. 

Redding, R.E., and Mrozoski, B.S. 2005. 

Adjudicatory and dispositional decisionmaking in juvenile justice. In Juvenile 

delinquency: Prevention, assessment, and 

intervention, edited by K. Heilbrun, N. 

Goldstein, and R. Redding, 232–56. New 

York: Oxford University Press. 

Risler, E.A., Sweatman, T., and Nackerud, L. 

1998. Evaluating the Georgia legislative 

waiver’s effectiveness in deterring juvenile 

crime. Research on Social Work Practice 

8:657–67. 

Robinson, P.H., and Darley, J.M. 2004. Does 

criminal law deter? A behavioral science 

investigation. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 24(2):173–205. 

Sanborn, J.B. 2003. Hard choices or obvious ones: Developing policy for excluding 

youth from juvenile court. Youth Violence 

and Juvenile Justice 1:198–214. 

Schneider, A.L., and Ervin, L. 1990. Specific 

deterrence, rational choice, and decision 

heuristics: Applications in juvenile justice. 

Social Science Quarterly 71:585–601. 

Scott, E.S. 2000. The legal construction of 

adolescence. Hofstra Law Review 

29:547–98. 

Scott, E.S., Reppucci, N.D., and Woolard, 

J.L. 1995. Evaluating adolescent decision 

making in legal contexts. Law and Human 

Behavior 19:221–44. 

Sherman, L.W. 1993. Defiance, deterrence, 

and irrelevance: A theory of the criminal 

sanction. Journal of Research in Crime and 

Delinquency 30:445–73. 

Singer, S.I., and McDowall, D. 1988. Criminalizing delinquency: The deterrent effects 

of the New York juvenile offender law. Law 

and Society Review 22:521–35. 

Smith, D.A., and Gartin, P.R. 1989. Specifying specific deterrence: The influence of 

arrest on future criminal activity. American Sociological Review 54:94–105. 

Snyder, H.N., 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. 

Steinberg, L., and Cauffman, E. 1996. 

Maturity of judgment in adolescence: 

Psychosocial factors in adolescent decisionmaking. Law and Human Behavior 

20:249–72. 

Steiner, B., and Hemmens, C. 2003 

(spring). Juvenile waiver 2003: Where are 

we now? Juvenile and Family Court Journal 

54(2):1–24. 

Steiner, B., and Wright, E. 2006. Assessing 

the relative effects of state direct file 

waiver laws on violent juvenile crime: 

Deterrence on irrelevance? Journal of 

Criminal Law and Criminology 96:1451–77. 

Thomas, C.W., and Bishop, D.M. 1984. The 

impact of legal sanctions on delinquency: 

A longitudinal comparison of labeling and 

deterrence theories. Journal of Criminal 

Law and Criminology 75:1222–45. 

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. 

Von Hirsch, A., Bottoms, A.E., Burney, E., 

and Wikstrom, P.O. 1999. Criminal deterrence and sentence severity: An analysis of 

recent research. Oxford, England: Hart. 

Wilson, J.Q., and Herrnstein, R.J. 1985. 

Crime and human nature. New York: Simon 

and Schuster. 

Winner, L., Lanza-Kaduce, L., Bishop, D.M., 

and Frazier, C.E. 1997. The transfer of juveniles to criminal court: Reexamining 

recidivism over the long term. Crime and 

Delinquency 43:548–63. 

10 
Acknowledgments 

Richard E. Redding, J.D., Ph.D., is professor of law at Chapman University School 

of Law. Portions of this bulletin were adapted with the permission of the publisher 

from Redding (2005:375–94). The author would like to thank Charles Frazier and 

Aaron Kupchik for their helpful comments and editorial suggestions. 

Share With Your Colleagues 

Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected. We 

encourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues, and 

reprint it in your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite OJJDP 

and the authors of this Bulletin. We are also interested in your feedback, such as 

how you received a copy, how you intend to use the information, and how OJJDP 

materials meet your individual or agency needs. Please direct your comments and 

questions to: 

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse 

Publication Reprint/Feedback 

P.O. Box 6000 

Rockville, MD 20849–6000 

800–851–3420 

301–519–5600 (fax) 

Web: tellncjrs.ncjrs.gov 

This Bulletin was prepared under contract 

number 2005F–065 from the Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), 

U.S. Department of Justice. 

Points of view or opinions expressed in this 

document are those of the author(s) and do 

not necessarily represent the official position 

or policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department 

of Justice. 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention is a component of the Office of 

Justice Programs, which also includes the 

Bureau of Justice Assistance; the Bureau of 

Justice Statistics; the Community Capacity 

Development Office; the National Institute of 

Justice; the Office for Victims of Crime; and 

the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, 

Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and 

Tracking (SMART). 

11 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention *NCJ~220595*

Washington, DC 20531 

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use $300 

PRESORTED STANDARD
 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID
 

DOJ/OJJDP
 

PERMIT NO. G–91
 

Bulletin NCJ 220595