MIM NOTES No. 197,		November 1, 1999

Study denounces waiver of juveniles to adult court

As the U.$. Congress hammers out the final wording of the youth 
crime bill it has considered since April, a new study released by 
the Justice Policy Institute (JPI) denounces one of the gross 
practices heralded by the pending legislation -- the ability of 
prosecutors to decide whether to try juveniles in adult or 
juvenile court.

In most states, this power resides with the judge. In some, the 
law makes the cases get waived to adult court, based on the crime. 
But in 15 states, including Florida, upon which the study is 
based, prosecutors can make this decision on a case-by-case basis. 
In 1998, Florida prosecutors sent 4,660 children to adult court, 
ranking them first in the country in this practice.(1) "In 1995, 
in the 36 states where judges make the decision, a total of 9,700 
juveniles were transferred to adult court. That same year, Florida 
prosecutors transferred 7,000."(2)

The JPI assesses the failure of prosecutorial waiver by various 
empirical measures: Juvenile crime rates are higher, not lower, in 
states with this practice. And at the same time that the waivers 
are increasing, the number of cases going through the juvenile 
justice system continues to soar. Florida has the 6th highest 
juvenile incarceration rate per 100,000.(3) Finally, the JPI cites 
other studies showing that juveniles sent to adult prison are more 
likely to be arrested again than those sent to juvenile 
facilities.

And they conclude the policy's failure based on moral/ethical 
grounds: The practice disproportionately targets oppressed nation 
youth -- with Blacks 2.3 times more likely than whites to be 
transferred to adult court.(4) The majority of cases transferred 
are for non-violent property crimes, not the violent cases for 
which the practice was supposedly created.(5) And the study 
reports that the suicide rate for youths is 7.7% higher when they 
are in adult instead of juvenile prisons.(6)

Childhood and adulthood are socially defined categories, policed 
in the U.$. by a patriarchal and white supremacist state. Some 
acts are criminal only by virtue of the age of the "offender" -- 
running away, breaking a curfew, having sex. It is bad enough that 
this legal system decides who is and who is not a child, as in 
statutory rape laws. When they are considered youth, people are 
not permitted to control their own lives. So the laws exist to 
control all children. When they are no longer considered youth, 
they are oppressed or repressed in this country based primarily on 
national origin. So all children are paternalistically 
"protected," which really means their parents and relatives are 
protected from others having access to abuse them. But oppressed 
nation young people are more likely to be considered adults at an 
earlier age -- they are out of the frying pan and into the fire.

When prosecutors are given the authority to determine who is a 
child and who is an adult, the system is exposed for its 
vengefulness, irrationality, and national oppression. For example, 
in cases where the legal system allows discretion, there is 
usually a bias against people convicted of committing crimes 
against those who are most protected by the system -- as in death 
penalties being most likely when the victims are white.

While we believe the JPI study ends up painting too rosy a picture 
of the juvenile justice system by comparison, it is true that by 
mission and orientation the juvenile justice system claims to 
rehabilitate where the adult system exists -- by its own admission 
-- only to repress. When prosecutors decide to try children as 
adults in court, they are deciding against even the pretense of 
rehabilitation. And they are empowered to make that decision based 
on the supposed character of the individual or his/her crime.

MIM also reports on this study to expose the ever-growing trend 
toward longer, worse sentences and increasing repression of youth 
and oppressed nations in general. In addition to pending federal 
law, "a ballot initiative which will go before California voters 
in March, 2000 (Proposition 6) would also grant prosecutors 
discretion to decide whether a juvenile should be tried in adult 
court."(7) Our criticisms of the criminal/juvenile injustice 
system are thorough and across the board. No one practice, if 
eliminated, would rehabilitate this vicious system. But studying 
the specific practices can expose the system's nature. Join MIM 
and RAIL's efforts to struggle against the injustice system.

Notes:
1. "The Florida Experiment: An Analysis of the Impact of Granting 
Prosecutors Discretion to try Juveniles as Adults," Justice Policy 
Institute. Page 1. http://www.cjcj. org/jpi/florida.html.
2. Miami Herald, 28 Sept. 1999.
3. "The Florida Experiment," page 5.
4. "The Florida Experiment," page 3 5. "The Florida Experiment," 
p. 2
6. "The Florida Experiment," page 9
7. "New Study finds 'prosecutorial discretion waiver,' which is 
currently under consideration by Congress, disparately applied, 
ineffective at curbing crime," JPI Press Release, 
http://www.cjcj.org/jpi/floridapr.html