Transfer Of Juveniles To Adult Court Prosecutions D
Transfer of Juveniles to Adult Court: Overview
What is transfer?
Transfer (or waiver) is the process by which a juvenile court sends a juvenile defendant to be tried as an adult.
Reasons for transfer often include:
Seriousness of the offense (e.g., violent crimes like murder).
Age and maturity of the juvenile.
Prior delinquency record.
Different states have different rules for transfer:
Automatic transfer for certain offenses/ages.
Judicial waiver, where a judge decides.
Prosecutorial discretion, where prosecutors decide.
Key Legal Considerations
Transfers raise constitutional questions, especially regarding:
Due process (fair treatment).
Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment).
Juvenile rights.
Courts balance rehabilitation potential vs. public safety and seriousness of crime.
Important Cases on Juvenile Transfer to Adult Court
1. Kent v. United States (1966)
Background:
Clarence Kent, age 16, was transferred to adult court without a proper hearing.
Facts:
Kent was charged with serious offenses.
Juvenile court waived jurisdiction without following due process.
No explanation was given for the transfer.
Legal Issue:
Whether the juvenile had a right to a hearing and counsel before transfer.
Outcome:
U.S. Supreme Court ruled transfer requires due process protections.
Established that juveniles must have a hearing and access to counsel.
This case set the foundation for procedural safeguards in transfer decisions.
2. In re Gault (1967)
(While not specifically about transfer, this landmark case shaped juvenile rights that affect transfer)
Background:
Gerald Gault, 15, was adjudicated delinquent without proper notice or counsel.
Facts:
The case exposed lack of procedural protections for juveniles.
Outcome:
Supreme Court guaranteed juveniles rights to counsel, notice, and confrontation.
Influenced transfer hearings by requiring fair procedures.
3. McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971)
Background:
Juveniles argued for the right to jury trials in juvenile court.
Outcome:
Supreme Court ruled juveniles do not have a constitutional right to jury trials.
Affects how cases move from juvenile to adult court.
4. Roper v. Simmons (2005)
Background:
Christopher Simmons was sentenced to death in adult court for a crime committed at age 17.
Legal Issue:
Whether the death penalty is constitutional for juveniles.
Outcome:
Supreme Court ruled executing offenders under 18 is unconstitutional.
This case limited the harshest penalties for transferred juveniles.
It impacted transfer decisions by emphasizing developmental differences.
5. Miller v. Alabama (2012)
Background:
Evan Miller, sentenced to life without parole as a juvenile.
Legal Issue:
Whether mandatory life sentences without parole for juveniles are constitutional.
Outcome:
Supreme Court ruled mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment.
Courts must consider youth factors before sentencing.
Influences sentencing after transfer.
6. People v. Sharp (Illinois, 2013)
Background:
Sharp, age 16, was charged with murder and transferred to adult court.
Facts:
The juvenile court waived jurisdiction based on offense severity.
Sharp challenged transfer, citing rehabilitation potential.
Outcome:
Illinois Supreme Court upheld transfer.
Ruled seriousness of offense can justify waiver despite youth.
Showed courts weigh public safety heavily.
7. In re J.W. (California, 2002)
Background:
J.W., age 14, was charged with attempted murder.
Facts:
The juvenile court transferred J.W. to adult court.
Defense argued youth and circumstances merited juvenile court.
Outcome:
California Supreme Court affirmed transfer.
Highlighted judicial discretion in waiver decisions.
Emphasized factors like offense gravity, sophistication, and public protection.
Summary
Transfers are complex, balancing rehabilitation and punishment.
Supreme Court decisions ensure procedural fairness and limit harsh penalties.
States vary widely in transfer rules—some automatic, some discretionary.
Serious offenses like murder frequently trigger transfers.
Recent cases focus on youth development and individualized assessments.
RELATED Blog
0 comments