But in recent years, the threshold for such transfers, which doesn't necessarily mean imprisoning juveniles with adults, has been systematically lowered in most states. The usual means is reduction of the minimum age at which teenagers can be transferred and expansion of the list of crimes for which such transfers are allowed or even mandated. In addition, prosecutors have been given expanded powers in the decision process, rather than juvenile judges. The California proposal follows that pattern, granting prosecutors the power to send juveniles to criminal courts for certain violent offenses. Advocates see a tougher and more-efficient court system when prosecutors are given these powers.
Opponents say judges are less political and thus fairer.
Young offenders in many states, however, face tough new laws. While the American justice system's more-punitive approach toward juveniles has been unfolding for 30 years, pinning down its precise impact is difficult. A number of criminologists see no hard evidence yet that it has directly increased public safety. Some surmise the tougher approach is playing a role as a deterrent, but that is not something provable with statistics. Pointing to two studies, one she co-wrote, Donna Bishop, a Northeastern University professor of criminal justice, says the rate at which convicted juveniles commit new crimes after release from jail is, if anything, higher among juveniles tried as adults than among those that remain in the juvenile system.