|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 DID TRANSFER OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS TO ADULT JURISDICTIONS PRODUCE DIFFERENT OUTCOMES FOR DIFFERENT OFFENSES? COMPARISONS OF TRANSFER EFFECTS ON BURGLARY AND ROBBERY IN FLORIDA, NEW YORK, AND NEW JERSEY By YANG LIU A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007
2 2007 Yang Liu
3 To my parents, LiFa Liu and LiuXiang Zhou, who provided treme ndous support and love. Without your encouragement and guidance, I w ould not be here today. Thank you for nurturing me, and for teaching me the significance of life. I will always appreciate you.
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank some important peopl e who provided with gr eat support and help. First, I would like to thank Dr. Ronald Akers, for being my mentor, advisor, committee chair and friend. He provided great support, encour agement, patience, and motivation. I also thank my two committee members, Dr. Charles Frazier and Dr. Eve Brank, for their insight, efforts, and commitment. I express my d eepest gratitude to Dr. Charles Frazier, Dr. Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, and Dr. Jeffrey Fagan for pr oviding the data I used in this study. I also thank my friends in Gainesville, elsewh ere in the U.S., and in China, for their care, love, encouragement, and support. They treated me like family. Finally and most importantly, I would like to thank my family: my parents, my brother, and my husband. Wherever I am, I obtain great st rength and courage from them to overcome all the difficulties. They always stand by my side to share all of my achievements and pains as well. I am forever thankful to all of th em for their care and support for me.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ..............8 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... .9 Background and Philosophy of the Juvenile Court................................................................10 Criticisms of Juvenile Court...................................................................................................12 Types of Transfer.............................................................................................................. ......17 Judicial Waiver................................................................................................................17 Prosecutorial Waiver or Direct File.................................................................................19 Statutory Waiver..............................................................................................................20 Other Transfer Provisions................................................................................................22 2 LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH QUESTION...................................................23 Previous Research Regarding De terrent Effects of Transfer..................................................23 Review of Research on Punishment.......................................................................................27 Research Question.............................................................................................................. ....30 3 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................31 Data Source.................................................................................................................... .........31 Sample Selection............................................................................................................... .....31 Recidivism Analysis............................................................................................................ ...32 Sanction/Sentence Analysis....................................................................................................33 Research Strengths............................................................................................................. .....33 4 RESULTS........................................................................................................................ .......35 Findings on Recidivism from An alysis of the Florida Data...................................................35 Findings on Sanction/Punishment fr om Analysis of Florida Data.........................................36 Findings on Recidivism from Analysis of New York/New Jersey Data................................38 Findings on Sanction/Punishment from Anal ysis of New York/New Jersey Data................40 5 CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION....................................................................................47 6 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH......................................................................52
6 APPENDIX A NEW YORK STATUTORY DEFINITION OF BURGLARY AND ROBBERY................55 B FLORIDA STATUTORY DEFINITIONS OF BURGLARY AND ROBBERY..................59 LIST OF REFERENCES............................................................................................................. ..62 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.........................................................................................................67
7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Recidivism by type of offenses in Florida.........................................................................42 4-2 Recidivism by type of offense with in court jurisdictions in Florida.................................42 4-3 Conviction in the aggr egate group in Florida....................................................................42 4-4 Conviction by type of offenses in Florida..........................................................................42 4-5 Conviction by type of offense with in court jurisdictions in Florida..................................42 4-6 Coefficients for logistic regr ession of conviction in Florida.............................................43 4-7 Recidivism by type of case in NY and NJ.........................................................................43 4-8 Coefficients for logistic regr ession of re-arrest in NJ and NY..........................................43 4-9 Recidivism by type of offense in NJ and NY....................................................................44 4-10 Coefficients for logistic regression of re-a rrest in robbery case in NY and NJ.................44 4-11 Recidivism by type of offense with in court jurisdictions in NY and NJ...........................44 4-12 Sanctions by type of case in NJ and NY............................................................................45 4-13 Sanction by type of offense in NY and NJ........................................................................45 4-14 Coefficients for logistic regression of incarceration in robbery case in NY and NJ.........45 4-15 Sanction by type of offense within court jurisdicti ons in NY and NJ...............................46
8 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts DID TRANSFER OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS TO ADULT JURISDICTIONS PRODUCE DIFFERENT OUTCOMES FOR DIFFERENT OFFENSES? COMPARISONS OF TRANSFER EFFECTS ON BURGLARY AND ROBBERY IN FLORIDA, NEW YORK, AND NEW JERSEY By Yang Liu August 2007 Chair: Ronald L. Akers Major: Criminology, Law, and Society With legislation amended or enacted to expedi te transfer of more juvenile offenders to adult court jurisdiction, more and more juve nile offenders, including many property crime offenders, have been transferred to adult crimin al courts. However, it has been unclear whether severity of sanctions differs greatly for prope rty crime in the two court jurisdictions. Also unclear is the effect of transf er on recidivism of juveniles convicted of burglary, compared to juveniles convicted of serious pe rsonal crime such as robbery. Our study answers these questions of sanctions and recidivism for j uveniles referred to adult court co mpared with juveniles referred to or retained under juvenile co urt jurisdiction. We compared reci divism and sanctions by type of offense between the two court jurisdictions, ba sed on Florida and New York/New Jersey data sets. Results showed that juvenile offenders who were transferred to criminal court jurisdiction were more likely to recidivate and they also re ceived harsher punishment than their counterparts retained in juvenile court jurisdiction. The findi ngs on differences by offense type were different in the two data sets. Possible explana tions are given for this discrepancy.
9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In response to the rising frequency and seriousne ss of juvenile crimes in the United States in the latter part of the twentieth century, ther e were a number of local and state efforts (with federal backing and encouragement) to institut e law enforcement and court policies that would get tough with juvenile offenders. One expres sion of this movement was the introduction of legislation since 1970s by a number of states providing for expedited transfer of youthful offenders from juvenile court to adult court juri sdiction. While, the juvenile court statutes have always allowed for the juvenile court to waive jurisdiction in cer tain cases, after a hearing, the newer laws provided for ways to expedite transfers and increase the number of juvenile offenders tried in adult court. There are three main ways (with all three often being available in the same states): judicial waiver, prosecutorial waiver or direct file, and legislativ e exclusion or statutory waiver. The assumption behind this was that criminal courts we re able to mete out harsher punishment and maker it harder on serious juvenile offenders than the juvenile court would and would provide a greater deterren t effect on juvenile crime. Research has not found much support for this eff ect from juvenile transfers. But research has shown that the punishment for property crim es by the juvenile court is much less than punishment for the same offense in adult court (Podkopacz and Feld, 1996). But there has been little research specifically explor ing whether the sanctions differ greatly for property crime in the two court jurisdictions and what the effects of transfer are on recidivism of juveniles who committed burglary compared to serious personal cr ime such as robbery, aggravated assault etc. The purpose of our study was to address that issu e through secondary analysis of data collected in one study in Florida and data from New Jersey and New York in another study.
10 Background and Philosophy of the Juvenile Court There has been a great variation and change in juvenile justice policy in the last three decades in the United States. One of the most stri king one is that more and more juveniles were excluded from juvenile justice system and re ferred to the criminal justice system for adjudication. Compared with adults, juveniles are assu med to be immature and unable to think reasonably. Their moral development is not as complete as adults as well. Therefore, juvenile offenders are considered to be less culpable for their offenses committed and are prosecuted and adjudicated in a separate juveni le justice system which emphas izes on child saving and serving the best interests of children. Treating juvenile offenders differently from adult offenders extends back about 600 years ago. English common law in the 14th century recognized that child ren under the age of seven could not be convicted of a crime (Empey, 1979). There was a rebuttable assumption that children from age of 7 to 14 were presumed to lack criminal capacity (McCarthy 1977; Weissman 1983). And youths above f ourteen were treated as fully responsible for their criminal behaviors and received the same treatment as adults (Myers, 2001) However, until the late 19th century, an attempt of constructing a separate and new legal mechanism specially for juvenile offenders came into being under the effects of Progressive reform movement (Platt, 1999). The first juvenile court dedicated to dealing wi th juvenile offenders was opened in Chicago in 1899 based on the doctrine of parens patriae which meant that the state had the responsibility to take car e of children who were unable to care for themselves and whose parents either could not or would not care for them (T anenhans, 2000; Mack, 1999). Under this doctrine, the early juvenile courts emphasized a philosoph y of rehabilitation and individualized justice. Herein, the juvenile offenders were just one class of child in need of help, and the only official
11 reason for any legal response when children comm itted crimes was to help the child (Zimring, 2000). The interventions under this philosophy of he lping rehabilitation of juveniles presented patterns and characteristics no different from th e responses from legal system for noncriminal youths. At the same time there was a great discre pancy of dispositions imposed on the juvenile offenders compared with those on the adult criminals. The children accused of crime were exposed to informal procedures and protective court environments and thereby offered some assistance, treatment or guidan ce different from adult offenders (Ainsworth, 1999). For example, the hearing was conducted in privacy and hearing records were saved under seal to avoid the children being stigmatized. When a child was brought into the separa te juvenile court, the judge was empowered to investigate the background of th e child and develop a treatment to meet the individualized needs of the child. At the same tim e, the punishment was not regarded as a central goal of juvenile court. Instead, th e primary task of juvenile court was to take positive strategies to change the behaviors of deli nquent children and prevent more serious criminal behavior from happening in the future (Mack, 1999). This orie ntation underlying the flexible judgment made the decision-making discretionary and processing procedures informal. According to Zimring (2000), the advantages of juvenile court included two points. The first was the expertise that juvenile court had regarding youth characteri stics and developments. The juvenile court was a better in stitution to know the real needs of juveniles and it was capable of providing youthful offenders with special treatment t ogether with its affiliated rehabilitation agents or organizations. The second advantage compared with the adult court lay in the restrictiveness of destru ctive punishment imposition inherent in the juvenile court. The juvenile court basically took action under th e principle of protecting the we lfare of youthful offenders. So the policy direction of juven ile court was to punish young offe nders without writing off or
12 cutting down their opportunities or spaces of pe rsonal development in the long run (Zimring 1998). In spite of the philosophy of rehabilit ation and individuali zed treatment for juveniles, juvenile court judges at that time were also authorized to transf er serious juvenile offenders to adult criminal court (Snyder and Sickmund, 1999). So the notion of transf erring juveniles is not an invention of modern justice system. In United States, the practice of tr ansferring juveniles to criminal court has been allowed in some states for more than 80 years. For example, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Kentuc ky, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, and Tennessee have permitted juvenile transfer since before th e 1920s. Other states have also authorized this way of transferring juveniles to adult courts from at least the 1940s, such as Delaware, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ne w Mexico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Utah (Snyder and Sickmund, 1999). In the early history of juve nile court jurisdiction, the puni shments for the law violation behaviors of youths were included within the juve nile justice system. The juvenile court judges traditionally had the discretion of transferring juveniles to criminal courts based on the juveniles individual circumstances in each case (Dawson, 2000). Criticisms of Juvenile Court. Since 1950s, the juvenile justice system has been criticized for a few reasons. At first the criticisms focused on the lack of formal procedures granted to juvenile de fendants in the juvenile court. Then, from the 1970s into the 1980s, the criticisms were directed at the perceived ineffectiveness of rehabilitation programs that had been implemented in juvenile justice system. The idea that Nothing works was accepted wide ly and quickly (Cullen, 2005). At the same time, juvenile crime increased rapidly especially juvenile violence (Fel d, 1997). Juvenile justice system which was more prone to rehabilitate than punish children was perceived as too lenient to
13 juvenile offenders and unable to control the seri ous and violent juvenile offenders and ensure the public safety. The informality of procedure practiced in juvenile court and the unfettered discretionary power granted to juvenile justice judges were first under great attacks fr om critics. They argued that children were not provided w ith due process protections in the juvenile courts and were often arbitrarily or unfairly puni shed (Tanenhaus, 2000). With the due process revolution in the late 1960s and early 1970s, there were two remarkable decisions made by the United States Supreme Court that had the most influential si gnificance respecting provi ding juveniles with due process protections in juvenile cour ts. One of these landmark cases was Kent v. United States (1966). The other was In re Gault (1967). In the case of Kent v. United States, the Supr eme Court ruled that ch ildren should have the rights to a formal hearing respecting the waiver criteria and reasons. The children should also be entitled to counsel before they were transferred to criminal courts. In addition, the Supreme Court also placed the concern for the substantive cr iteria considered in waiving court jurisdiction and listed eight factors which should be take n into account in making transfer decisions (Tanenhaus, 2000). These criteria were followed by many states and integrat ed into their state juvenile codes to ensure the pr ocedural consistency in the pr ocess of transferring juvenile offenders to the criminal court. Another noticeable case is In re Gault in which a 15-year-old boy was arrested for making a lewd phone call to a female neighbor without any notice to his parents. He was adjudicated and committed to the state industrial school up to his twenty-first birthday. There was not any record kept about the adjudication hear ing and the victim did not appear in the hearing. The Supreme Court held that juveniles should have rights for elementary pro cedural protections including the
14 right to obtain notice of charges in advance, the right to counsel, the right to confront and crossexamine witnesses, and the right against self-incri mination. Furthermore, the court stated that in spite of the rationale of parens patriae, the juvenile system did not produce the expected result. The informal procedures and broad discreti on empowered to judges more often led to arbitrariness and injustice (Feld, 1999). In re Gault was regarded as the one which changed the juvenile court to a different institution from what it was perceived before (Tanenhaus, 2000). Then, in the 1970s, two other cases should be mentioned. First was the Supreme Court decision in In re Winship (1970). The court reduced the standard of proof in the delinquency proceedings to beyond a reasonable doubt from preponderance of the evidence (Feld, 1993). In Breed v. Jones the Supreme Court applie d the protections of the double jeopardy clause from the 5th Amendment to prevent the juveniles from bei ng re-adjudicated in adult courts after they had been previously adjudicated in juvenile courts. The Court agai n indicated that the results of the juvenile justice system were less than satisfactory (Feld, 1993). Reforms aiming to change the informality of the case processing in juvenile courts were based on the intention to make the juvenile court more punitive (Tanenhaus, 2000; Feld, 1997). Following the initial critics on the informal adju dication procedures and discretionary power of judges, the criticisms which appeared in the mid of 1970s to 1980s then focused on the ineffectiveness of rehabilitati on programs advocated by the juve nile justice system and its inability to stem the rapid increase of juvenile crime rate. In the 1970s, the most influential review of re search on the effectiven ess of rehabilitation program was the study of Lipton, Martinson, & W ilks. The overall conclusion from their study was that most rehabilitation program had littl e or no positive effect (Lipsey, 1999). There were other reviews followed showing the similar c onclusions. (Lipsey, 1999). Martinsons nothing
15 works doctrine had a profound and enduring eff ect that was quickly and widely accepted. (Cullen, 2005). With the perception of incapability of juvenile justice system on providing effective rehabilitation program, the rate of crimes co mmitted by juveniles increased dramatically from the mid-1960s. Beginning in 1985 and continuing through 1994, the juve nile violent crime arrest rate increased by 75%. While juvenile ar rest rates for robbery and aggravated assault exhibited rapid growth, the surg e in youth homicide rates was part icularly disturbing. Not only did the juvenile murder arrest rate rise at a much faster pace than that of adults, but also for older youths the increase was over 100% (Myers, 2001). Mo st striking was the ri se in homicides in which youth used guns. This of course spurred great panic in the public They were becoming less and less tolerant to youth offenders, especially to serious chronic and violent juvenile offenders. Accordingly policymakers were influen ced by this public fear and made great efforts to get tough and crack down on violent juvenile crime. Another demographic reason made it more exigen t and imperative for government to take some actions against young pred ators (Levitt, 1998). Resear ch on life-course criminology concluded that most youth offenders peaked in their involvement in most types of crime by mid to late adolescence and from then they exhibited steadily decline in the crime committed (Farrington, 2003). There was a distinct growth in the population of youth during mid 1960s to 1970s, as a result of the baby boom ers after the World War II. No wadays, there will be another large generation of youth coming into being as the children of the baby boom generation approaching adolescence (Schuman and Scott, 19 89). This predicted increasing crime rate of juvenile further stirred up the public fear. Peopl e and policy makers thought the juvenile courts treatment was too lenient for juvenile offenders Under its commitment of protecting the best
16 interests of children and preventing them from continuing further law violation behaviors, the juvenile court imposed the limited punishment towards youthful offenders. However, this sanction strength of the juvenile court on avoiding a good number of juvenile offenders from being stigmatized incurred by adu lt court sanctions became, on the other side, the weakness in its dealing with a few of the most se rious or chronic juvenile offenders In response to the criticisms of the juvenile justice system on its informal procedure, its inability to provide effective rehabilitation program, and its t oo lenient sanctions to control vi olent juvenile crime, and with the potential threat to public safety from the increasing juvenile offenses, the legislatures, juvenile corrections agencies, and the juvenile co urts were prompted to adopt new strategies of more serious, swift, and certain sanctions for violent juvenile offenders (Bishop, 2000). It was commonly known that criminal justice could provide the more serious and certain treatment to crime offenders, especially violent crime offenders. In response to these demands of get tough with juvenile offenders and strength en juveniles greater acc ountability, most states adjusted their juvenile codes to allow or facilitate the transfer of juvenile offenders to criminal courts. Some states adopted measures to restrict the jurisdiction of juve nile courts by lowering the minimum age of criminal court jurisdiction, and some states created broader legislative criteria for juveniles transfer, others instituted simplified me thods of direct file for the transferred (Feld, 1993; Bishop, 2000). Despite variation among states in the ways to transfer, there are three primary methods to move juveniles from juvenile cour ts jurisdiction to criminal courts jurisdiction: judicial waiver, prosecutorial waiver or direct f ile, and legislative exclusion or statutory waiver. Each exhibits different pathway to identify which youth offender s should be transferred and treated as adults. Most states have some combina tion of these three procedures in practice (Griffin et al., 1998).
17 Types of Transfer Judicial Waiver Judicial waiver is the most common way to transfer juveniles to adult criminal courts (Dawson, 2000). Now, 46 states and the District of Columbia have judicial waiver provisions (Griffin et al., 1998). In the judici al waiver, the juvenile court judge makes the key decision of whether a child should be excluded from the juvenile court. There are some criteria contained in the statutes specifying under what circumst ances a transfer is appropriate. A judges determination of whether to impl ement transfer or not is based on whether the youth is no longer amenable to the treatment offered in juvenile ju stice system. The age of offender at the time of the offense, offense seriousness, prior record, an d public safety will be taken into account by a judge to make such a decision (Dawson, 2000) This method of transfer exhibits the individualized orientation that is the basic characteristic of traditional juvenile courts. The Supreme Court estab lished a procedural framework in the case of Kent v. United States to guide judges in making the wa iver decision. It seemed that Kent would eliminate judicial discretion. However, alt hough there are several factors for a judge to consider in making a decision to transfer in Kent the vagueness of such phrases as amenability to treatment, best interests of the public, and d angerousness to the public leaves much discretion for juvenile courts judges (Klein, 1998). As Klein stated, danger to the p ublic requires judges to make qualitative decisions about the predictability of a youths dangerousness. To make these decisions, judges rely on clinical evaluations, which then raises questions about the validity of clinical diagnoses or predictions and the propriety of delegating issues of social policy to the discretionary judgments of social service pe rsonnel and judges (Klein, 1998). Respecting amenability to treatment, the vagueness contained within this phrase granted juvenile courts judges great discretion because they can make whatever decision they think reasonable by
18 relying on one factor or a nother in the long list in Kent Moreover, some research indicated that amenability can be abused or often measured negatively so that any time a child has a previous unsuccessful experience in the juvenile justice sy stem, he or she would be probably regarded by judges as unamenable to treatm ent (Champion and Mays, 1991). In addition, research on the judici al waiver revealed that juven ile offenders at an older age at the time of offense were more likely to be tr ansferred to criminal c ourts by judicial waiver (Champion and Mays, 1991). For example, the sa nction power of a juvenile court is limited when a child is approaching the maximum age of j uvenile court jurisdiction especially when the juvenile court will sanction a longe r sentence. In this case, the child is most likely to be excluded from the juvenile court and tran sferred to adult court for sanction. Another f actor that judges tend to overweigh is the nature of the offense. Wh en judge makes his determination of whether a child should be transferred based too much on th e one factor or another, we would not expect that the judges determination under these situatio ns would proceed much from the consideration of the best interests of the child ren or the public safety rather th an from the consideration of the resource and facilities available in the juvenile justice system. Some other extralegal factors can also affect the decision of juve nile court judges like a juveni les race and adjudication location (Eigen, 1981; Bortner, 1986; Fagan and Deschenes, 1990; Snyder and Sickmund, 1999). Despite some problems, judicial waiver, wh ile not perfect, the case-by-case mechanism maintains the rationale of individualized treatment that theoretically better serves the best interests of children because judges can decide to transfer only those who cannot be truly helped or whose offenses are beyond the ju risdiction of juvenile justice system. Therefore, with some reformative measures, judicial waiver could beco me a desirable solution for problem juveniles. Such improvements aiming to limit the judges discretion include a f easible procedure for
19 reviewing waiver decisions, a se t of explicit and workable criter ia for judges to use in making transfer decisions (Zimring, 1991). Another issue in judicial waiver is presump tive waiver statutes. In response to the get tough and crack down for violence juvenile offenders, twelve states and the District of Columbia enacted presumptive waiver in which th e burden of proof of amenability to treatment shift to the juveniles for some cer tain types of juvenile offenders (Griffin et al., 1998). In this case, individualized analysis by judges is elimin ated and more and more juveniles are transferred to adult courts for sentencing. Prosecutorial Waiver or Direct File Prosecutorial waiver is probabl y the most controversial method of transfer. In prosecutorial waiver, a prosecutor makes the decision to file a charge in either juve nile or adult court. Prosecutorial waiver is utilized in a relatively small number of states and only 14 states and the District of Columbia have adopted this form of transfer (Griffin et al., 1998). Prosecutorial waiver is an efficient way to tran sfer more juvenile offenders to adult courts. With the shift of emphases of policymakers from rehabilitation to retribution and incapacitation for juvenile offenders, the public and many proponents of direct file consider the judicial waiver process as such a long and complicated proce dure. Prosecutorial waiv er undoubtedly greatly simplifies the proceeding process and speeds up the pr ocess of juvenile tran sfer to adult courts. Different from judicial waiver a prosecutors determination on where to motion a file is not subject to appellate review. It seems that prosecutorial waiver induces the shift of discretionary power from juvenile court judg es to prosecutors. More over, the provisions regarding prosecutorial waiver are loaded with am biguity and lack of exp licit standards. Even the speed with which to make a decision itself incurs great dangerous potential in that this power granted to prosecutors could be abused or misa pplied. Some researchers concluded that there was
20 some arbitrariness from evidence of justice by geography resulted from the great disparity between different locations under the same law (Feld, 1990). There are some concerns about prosecutorial waiver. One of them is that prosecutorial waiver will lead to disproportionately transf erring more African-Black Americans to adult courts. While at first glance there seems to be support for this argument, there are other probable explanations for it evidence that more nonwhite than whites are referred to adult court by prosecutorial waiver. Since 1980s, minority youth, especially Af rican Americans are increasingly overrepresented in the correctional facilities. Som e research found that AfricanAmerican offenders were over-represented by nearly 180% based on their proportion in the general population (Rodriguez, 200 3). Furthermore, the race bias is not the concern only for prosecutorial waiver. There exists the same con cern for other forms of transfer as judicial transfer. Another concern is re garding the nature of position of prosecutors. Prosecutors are elected or appointed. Their deci sions can be too easily influe nced by public calls for harsher punishment to juvenile offenders. Statutory Waiver Unlike judicial waiver and prosecutorial waiver, legislative waiver put the eligible juvenile offenders into the criminal justice system from the time of arrest. In response to the trend for more objective criteria for transfer proceeding, mo re and more states added legislative waiver into their statutes. Some states revised the la w to lower the age limit on some serious crime or extend legislative waiver to a broad span of seri ous juvenile offenses to make more juveniles transferred automatically by statutes to adu lt courts in opposition to both judicial and prosecutorial waiver which include more di scretionary decisions (Griffin et al., 1998). Thirty-six states and the District of Columbia have legislative waiver provisions to remove certain offenses or offenders or both from juvenile court jurisdic tion to adult court (Griffin et al.,
21 1998). The most commonly transferred by legislative waiver are murder and other serious crimes against persons and those youths who are charged with a felony and have a prior adjudication of delinquency may also be excl uded (Griffin et al., 1998). Compared with judicial waiver and prosecuto rial waiver, legislative waiver is more effective to realize selective in carceration for the more seriou s offenders. Previous research presented that transferred juveni les were not usually charged w ith violent offenses or crime against persons, instead many of them were property crime or petty delinquency (Lanza-Kaduce et al., 1998; Frazier et al ., 1994). By excluding the lesser property offenses out of the transfer list and at the meanwhile controlling the discretionary judgment in judi cial and prosecutorial waiver, legislative waiver can more effec tively target the most serious j uvenile offenses and ensure the serious offenders will receive appropriate a nd rational sanctions. From this perspective, legislative waiver can better guard the public safety. However, when the legislative waivers were br oadened to include more and more juvenile offenses, this broadening led to the transfer of some less serious offender and drug offenders who might have obtained benefits if reta ined in juvenile justice system. Since age, severity of offense, and past record are three primary elements in le gislative waiver, legislative waiver is obviously inclined to offense-based rather than the indi vidualized offender-based orientation which is the key rationale underlying the juven ile justice system. Therefore to some extent, it is inconsistent with the basic purpose of juvenile system (Singer, 1999). The role of prosecutors in thes e three forms of transfer should receive attention. In judicial waiver, the waiver process is initiated by the prosecutors mo tion. In a legislative waiver, prosecutors take on the charging decision. In prosecutorial waiver prosecutors decide where to file a charge. To some extent, th e decisions of prosecutors have great effects on th e sanctions to
22 juveniles and most decisions of prosecutors are not subject to a ny hearing review or check. There is only one exception in judicial waiver where the juvenile court judge can either affirm or deny the prosecutors decision and in this case the judg es decision can be appealed to higher court. Although it is not clear that one of the three methods of transfer can better serve th e interests of children and society, judicial waiv er seems like a better mechanism for juvenile transfer. A judge can consider the individualized characteristics of each juvenile offender to make his decision and at the same time the discretion power of judges ar e carefully limited by a series of criteria or procedures regulated by statutes. Other Transfer Provisions There are other provisions regarding transfer proceedings. One is reverse waiver in which a juvenile who has been transferred to adult court may petition to have the case transferred back to juvenile court for adjudication (Dawson, 2000). Reverse waiver provides an opportunity to reconsider the appropriateness of adult court prosecution. Another is once an adult, always an adult (Bishop, 2000). It means th at if a juvenile has once been prosecuted as an adult he or she will be subsequently prosecuted as adult for new offenses. There are 31 states adopting this transf er method. In practice, there is variation among states. Most states with this pr ovision require criminal prosecution of all the subsequent offenses. Others delimit the implementation of this provision to a defined subset of offenses or offenders (Griffin et al., 1998).
23 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW A ND RESEARCH QUESTION Previous Research Regarding the Deterrent Effects of Transfer As a result of the expanding mechanisms through which transfer could be implemented, more and more juveniles were transferred to criminal courts for sanctions (Butt & PoeYamagata, 1993; Snyder & Sickmund, 1999). It is commonly known that punishment is harshe r in adult criminal court than in juvenile court. Transferring juveniles to a dult criminal court is consistent with the belief that punishment deters criminal behavior especially when the punishment is harsher, swifter and more certain. The theoretical framework on whic h the policy of transf erring to adult courts is based (although not always made clear) is deterrence theory. Ac cording to the deterrence theory, the purpose of punishment is deterrence and in order to achie ve maximum deterrence, punishment should be based on the principles of certainty, severity, and swiftness. The more prompt, certain and severe the punishment is, the better th e effect of deterrence is. Some previous research was focused on the general and specific deterrence effects of transferring juveniles to criminal courts. General deterrence indi cates the effects of punishment on potential offenders while speci fic deterrence has been thought as the effects of punishment on the individual who has been sanctioned. Studies of early 1980s on gene ral deterrence showed that there was a moderate inverse relationshi p between the perceptions of punishment and criminal behaviors (Paternoster, 1987). When a number of other explan atory variables were controlled, the subsequent studies showed little evidence of a de terrent effect derived from perceived risk of formal sanctions (Paternoste r, 1989). Later research concentrated on the evaluation of perceived threat s of punishment from criminal prosecution and found that perceptions of threat of punish ment, especially the perceived certainty of punishment produced
24 deterrence, at least for some people. In sum, the results of research on the general deterrence from formal sanctions were mixed. A few studies have found the evidence to support a moderate inverse relationship between the perceived deterrence and formal sanctions. Others found little or no significant evidence showing th e relationship of perceived dete rrence from formal sanctions. Studies on the specific deterren ce showed some support for th e specific deterrence effects of certain punishment but there were little effects of harsher sanctions on recidivism. Recent studies on specific deterrence have emphasized the evaluation of the proposition by Sherman who argued that the effects of legal punishment on future crimin al offenses were dependent on various factors related to the degree to which th e offenders perceive the sanctions as legitimate, the extent of fairness that the offenders percei ved the sanctions, and the strength of social bonds between the offenders and the sanctioning agent and community (Sherman 1993). The results of previous studies can not support the conclusion th at punished offenders will consistently reduce their future criminal behavior. As an important research part of the deterren ce effects primarily on wh ether and/or to what extent the transfer policies impacted the juvenile future crime, some previous research examined the recidivism comparisons between the transf erred juvenile offenders and the retained counterparts. Singer and McDowall (1988) examined the deterrent effects of the 1978 New York Juvenile offender law. They indicated that Ne w York Juvenile offender law was the most punitive delinquency law in the nation and provide d a ideal example to examine the effects of transfer. The New York Juvenile offender law au thorized transfer of juveniles charged with homicide for a lower age of thirteen and also those charged with four other felonies at age fourteen. They compared the age-specific crime ra tes between transferred juvenile offenders in
25 New York City and those who were retained in juvenile justice systems in upstate New York. The results showed that the Juvenile Offender la w had little effects on reducing juvenile crime. In the 5-year time-series st udies by Jensen and Metsger (1994), they proceeded their analysis before and after the 1981 Idaho statutor y transfer law was enact ed and found that there was a 13% increase in arrest rates for the violent crime juvenile offenders compared to those for counterparts juveniles in the neighboring states of Montana and Wyoming, which shared the similar demographical characterist ics but there was no automatic transfer law available in these two states by then. Podkopacz and Feld (1996) analyzed judicial waiver practices in Minnesota between youths who were waived to the criminal court and those who were retained in the juvenile justice system. They found that the transferred youths we re more likely to re-offend compared to their counterparts who were retained in the juvenile justice system, after c ontrolling the offense and prior record. Fagan (1995, 1996) conducted a more comp lex and innovative research design. He compared the recidivism of juvenile offenders w ho were charged with robbery and burglary tried separately in comparable counties of New York and New Jersey. According to the state laws, juvenile offenders in New York were more likely to be transferred to criminal courts, while those comparable juveniles in New Jersey were retained in the juvenile justice system for jurisdiction. Based on this transfer policy difference, Fagan avoided the selection bias observed in the previous similar research. He reported that the juveniles who were charged with robbery in New York had higher recidivism rates, more likely to re-offend, and had shorter failure time compared to the comparable youths in New Jersey. Howeve r, there were no differences in recidivism between two jurisdictions for burglars.
26 A series of research on transfer impact conduc ted in Florida found the similar results to the previous research both in th e two-year short-term study (Bis hop et al., 1996a) and long-term research lasting for seven years (Winner et al ., 1997). To overcome the problem of selection bias, they used seven factors as matching criteria to select matched juvenile offenders retained in the juvenile justice system with youths transferred to the criminal justice system. They analyzed the differences of recidivism within the matched pairs and across the groups as well. In the shortterm study, they disclosed that the juveniles transferred to criminal courts were more likely to reoffend than their counterparts who were retained in the juvenile cour ts. And the transferred youths who re-offended were arrested more quickly and frequently than those who were retained. In the long-term study, the results showed that tran sferred youths had a highe r recidivism in five of seven types of offenses than those who we re retained in the juvenile justice system. Furthermore, consistent with the Fagans 1995 finding, they also found that only for serious property offenders including burglary, the recidivi sm of those juveniles retained in juvenile justice system was comparable to, or even higher than those tried as adults in criminal justice system. Later research by Myers (2001) showed the sim ilar results to the previous studies. Myers analyzed recidivism rates based on 557 violen t juvenile offenders in Pennsylvania. After controlling for demographic variables and offense-re lated factors such as prior offenses, age of onset of offending etc., the transfe rred juveniles were rearrested mo re quickly than those retained in the juvenile justice system. In sum, previous research has found that, contrary to the orig inal intention of policymakers, the transfer did not help reduce th e juvenile future crime and had little deterrence effects on both potential young offenders and on re ducing the future criminal behaviors or
27 delinquency of juvenile offenders. However, for th e property crimes, it seem ed that transfer had at least no disadvantageous impacts on the recidivism of juveniles. Review of Research on Punishment Another portion of prior resear ch was examining the punishment or sanctions received by transferred juvenile offenders primarily on punishment certainty, severity, and swiftness compared with the juvenile offenders retained in the juvenile justice system. The conviction rate is the main factor used to evaluate the punishment certainty. Most previous studies on the conviction rate found that there was higher conviction rate for transferred youth offenders than those retained in juvenile justice system. The studies by Eigen compared the juvenile homicide offenders transferred to Philadelphia adult court with the youths offenders retained in juvenile courts in 1970 and 1973 and found that the convi ction rate in adult court was relatively higher than that in j uvenile court (Eigen, 1981). Howeve r, since Eigen did not control for the other explanatory factors within this co mparison, the conclusion of higher conviction rate for transferred juvenile offenders was possibly ca used by the fact that the offenses committed by transferred youths were more serious by themse lves than those committed by youths retained in juvenile court. The following studies by Fagan and Deschenes focused on the 201 violent youths considered for transfer in Boston, Phoenix, Newar k, and Detroit and demonstrated that the extent of punishment certainty was pretty much id entical (Fagan and Deschenes, 1990). Another important study is Fagan's (1995) study. Unlike th e previous studies th at only focused on the violent juvenile offenders, the study area was extended to include both violent and property juvenile offenders. Fagan compared the rate of conviction between New York adult criminal court and New Jersey juvenile court. He found th at the burglary convictio n rate in New Jersey was relatively higher than that in New York wh ile the robbery conviction rate exhibited the opposite trend. From the mixed fi ndings, Fagan concluded that accountability for adolescent
28 offenders in criminal courts was no greater than for those in the juveni le courts (Fagan, 1995). In sum, from previous studies on the comparis on of conviction rate, we can not get to the conclusion that the punishment in adult criminal court was more certain than that in juvenile court. Respecting punishment severity, most studie s focused on sentence type and sentence length. From the previous studies, the results lacked consensus in the comparison on both sentence type and sentence length. Concerning the sentence type, most research primarily focused on incarceration. The findings were also mixed. On one hand, Champion (1989) found that only 11% of the juveniles who were transferred to criminal court were incarcerated, based on the data in four states drawn from 1980 to 1988. However, on the other hand, Dawson (1992) conducted an empirical study of j uvenile transfer proceedings in Texas and found that 58% of the juveniles transferred to adult courts were incarcerated. Strom et al. (1998) and Podkopacz & Feld (1996) also found that more than 50% of th e transferred juveniles we re incarcerated in the criminal courts. The studies by Eigen (1981) and Fagan and Deschenes (1990) that evaluated the comparisons on sanction types between adult criminal court and juvenile cour t also arrived at the conclusion of higher incarcerati on rates in the transf erred youth offenders (Eigen, 1981; Fagan and Deschenes, 1990). Barnes and Franz (1989) utilized data coll ected on all youth considered for transfer over a six year period and found th at the transferred youths were treated more harshly. Fagan (1995) studies got similar results on either robbery offenses or burglary offenses. Even in the longer senten ce treatment to transferred youths, so me studies showed that the actual time served by youths in adult criminal system may be shorter than their c ounterpart in juvenile justice system. Levitt (1998) examined the tre nds of juvenile crime rates from 1978 to 1993 across a number of states and detected that substa ntial reductions in juvenile crime rates after the
29 states lowered the minimum age of jurisdiction in criminal courts The rates of violent juvenile crime were decreased by 25%. Furthermore, he found that the greatest decreases in juvenile crime rates happened in the states where there we re the greatest differenc es on the severity of punishment implemented between in the juvenile cour ts and in the adult cour ts. It appeared that transfer had some benefits for reducing juvenile crime. Research on the sentence length also showed mixed results. Some studies found juvenile offenders committing property offenses received s horter sentences in adult courts than their counterparts who were retained in the juvenile courts while violent juvenile offenders normally could be ensured to get longer periods of incar ceration in criminal ju stice system. Fagan's 1995 study showed that there was no difference be tween the comparison groups across two court jurisdictions on the average minimum and maximum length of sentence (Fagan, 1995). Few studies have evaluated the swiftness of punishment compared with punishment certainty and severity. From the previous studie s, Kinder et al. (1995) and Fagan (1995) pointed out that the disposition process wa s longer in adult court than that in juvenile court. Juvenile court is more likely to impose sw ift sanctions than adult court. In sum, there was no consistent evidence to support the common expect ation of people that the transferred juvenile offenders would be treated more harshly in the criminal courts than those retained in juvenile courts. Some research indicated that due to the possi bility of sentencing constraints to the nonviolent felony in the criminal justice system, property crime offenders who were transferred to the criminal courts received s horter sentences than their counter parts retained in the juvenile justice system, while longer sentences for youths charged with violent or serious personal crimes were observed in criminal courts (Podkopacz and Feld, 1995).
30 Research Question The conclusions drawn from previous research did not support the effec tiveness of transfer on helping control juvenile crimes and there was no consistent eviden ce to support that the juveniles who were transferred to criminal c ourts received harsher punishment than those retained in juvenile justice system. However, diffe rent pattern of effect outcomes of the transfer occurred on juveniles charged with property crime such as burglary compared with the comparable juveniles charged with serious pers onal crime like robbery, assault etc. The prior research suggested that there seemed to be a punishment gap for property crime among the two court jurisdictions (Podkopacz and Feld, 1996). P odkopacz and Feld (1996) found that juveniles convicted of violent personal o ffenses in criminal court rece ived almost two times longer sentences than juveniles convicted of the same serious level of offense who were retained in juvenile court, while juvenile offenders convicted of property offenses received shorter sentences in criminal court than those received by their co unterparts convicted of similar property offenses in juvenile court. But there has been little re search specifically explor ing whether the sanctions for property crime including burglary in the criminal justice system were more lenient than those charged with similar offenses in the juvenile just ice system and what the effects of transfer were on recidivism of juveniles who committed burglary compared to serious personal crime such as aggravated assault, robbery, etc. That is the research question that I address in my thesis.
31 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Data Source Two data sets were used in my study. One da ta set was derived from Fagan's 1995 research examining the comparative effects of juvenile versus criminal court sanctions on recidivism among juvenile felony offenders from New York versus New Jersey. The other data set came from the Florida 2005 study of the impact of tr ansfer by Lanza-Kaduce, Frazier, and others (Lanza-Kaduce et al., 2005). Sample Selection Both the sample selection process in Fa gans 1995 study and Florida 2005 transfer research were well-designed, which avoided the limitations of methodology in previous research on transfer effects. The 800 matched sample cases of Fagan 1995 study were drawn from a greater New York metropolitan area including tw o counties in New York City and two counties in New Jersey. The four counties shared a simila r context of the social construct such as the juvenile crime problems and characteristics of so cioeconomic factors. The legal context of the greater metropolitan area provided an opportunity for a natural experiment (Fagan, 1990a) to select the comparable matched cases tried in Ne w York City criminal justice system and New Jersey juvenile justice system. The 400 juveniles aged from 15 to 16 who were charged with robbery and burglary in juvenile justice system of New Jersey were matched and compared with the other 400 juveniles with similar age-offense characteri stics who were statutorily excluded from juvenile court and transferred to criminal justice system in New York. Florida 2005 study of transfer e ffects (Lanza-Kaduce et al., 2 005) replicated and extended the prior short-term and long-term studies of tran sfer impacts conducted in Florida. Similarly, in order to make the results of transfer comparis on more validly, the 475 ma tched pairs in Florida
32 2005 study were selected based on seven important criteria to overcome the selection bias inherent in the selection procedure from a si ngle site or one pool of juvenile offenders. Furthermore, the selection was confirmed by the lo cal record details to ensure the comparability of the matched juvenile offenders. The type of offense (burglary v.s. robbery) is one of the most important independent variables in my study. Because the Fagan 1995 study examined the comparative effects of sanctions in the criminal and juvenile justi ce systems for burglary and robbery offenders, the type of offense by robbery and burglary is avai lable in Fagan 1995 New York/New Jersey data set for me to utilize directly. However, in the Florida 1995 data set, the available distinction of offenses includes violent felony, property fel ony, drug felony, other fel ony, misdemeanors, and others. Hence, I selected out the cases of burgl ary and robbery offenses one by one in terms of the records of arrest offense in Florida 2005 data set and coded burglary as 1, robbery as 2, and others as 0. Therefore, a new va riable was created and added into the data set to distinguish robbery, burglary from other offense types, wh ich is what I need to analyze specifically. Recidivism Analysis The recidivism data collected in Florida study were integrated. One of its sources was the information of subsequent arrests from the Fl orida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE). Florida law does not require all arrests to be reported to FD LE. Moreover, law enforcement agencies and Clerks of Court in the criminal ju stice jurisdiction and juve nile justice jurisdiction reported arrests in different ways. Hence, the other source of reci divism the researchers selected was commitment data from Department of Co rrections (Lanza-Kaduce et al., 2005). Then the two sources of data were merged to create an integrated and comprehensive measurement--recidivism after age 18. In the NJ and NY data, the recidivism analysis will be assessed by
33 several measurements of recidivism. The first is the re-arrest rate and th e second is the interval time to re-arrest or called failure time. The purpose of recidivism analys is is to detect whether and how the transfer resulted in different effects on the transferre d young offenders compared to th e retained youths. At the same time, the analysis will expect to examine whether transfer affected recidivism by type of offenses (burglary v.s. robbery). Therefore, the comparisons of recidivism between juveniles transferred and juvenile retained will be conducted both ac ross the two aggregate gr oups and within the breakdown of offense distinctions by property cr ime (burglary) and personal crime (robbery). And the analysis by type of offense will also be conducted within each of the two court jurisdictions. Then, I will utilize regression analysis to furthe r examine the magnitude of transfer effects by type of case or type of offense on reci divism after controlling for other variables. And the time-at-risk, if it is available, will also be adjusted when the comparisons are made. Sanction/Sentence Analysis Sanction analysis will be also conducted by type of offense across the two court jurisdictions and within either of the juvenile ju stice system and criminal justice system as well to examine the disparity of punishments. Then, the multivariate analysis will be utilized to analyze the differences of sancti ons between property juvenile o ffenders (burglars) and personal juvenile offenders (robbery), controlling for othe r variables that might cau se the differences of sanctions. The sanction dimensions in clude conviction, incarceration (also controlling for timeat-risk), sentence length including maximum and minimum sentence. Research Strengths First, both of the data sets are well-des igned with more validly comparable matched samples included. The validity of the comparativ e outcomes of recidivism relys on how well the
34 transfer cases are matched by cases retained in the juvenile courts (Lan za-Kaduce, L. et al., 2005). Second, by using both data sets, the traditional limitations of methodology in the previous research are able to be avoided. The risks of the selection bias of cases from one site would be overcome. The data of Fagans study could ease the question that the different transfer effects are as a result that the youths who are transferred to criminal courts for trial are by themselves more serious and intractable than thos e who are retained. At the same time, justice by geography is usually evident (Bishop, 2000). Tr ansfer practices; c onviction and/or incarceration rates and sanctions vary widely between and within stat es (Howell, 1996). New York would be unique in its juvenile crime problems. New York Juvenile Law also excludes a wi de range of offenses from juvenile justice system (Singer and Mc Dowall, 1988), while in Florida more juvenile offenders are transferred by direct file. The j ustice by geography would be better controlled by using both data sets. Therefore, in order to examine whether tr ansfer brought about di fferent outcomes for burglary and robbery, I will first compare the recidivi sm rate, re-arrest rate, time to first re-arrest across the court jurisdictions and then within e ither of the court jurisdictions by burglary and robbery separately. Next, I will conduct logistic regression analysis to further examine whether the differences, if it existed, are still significant af ter controlling for other variables such as age, gender, race, prior conviction r ecord or number of previous ju venile referrals, weapon use, previous participation in the alcohol/drug program, and risk time (if it is available). I will first analyze Florida 2005 data and th en proceed to the analysis using New York/New Jersey data.
35 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS First, the Florida 2005 study data were analyze d. The findings of recidi vism analysis were presented and then went to th e sanction/punishment analysis. Findings on Recidivism from An alysis of the Florida Data Among the whole group of cases, 402 of the 950 (42.3 percent) cases were felony reoffenders. The transferred youths were significantly more likely to re-offend than the retained youths. Among the youths who were retained in the juvenile justice system, 168 (35.4%) had a record of felony re-offending compared to 234 (4 9.3%) juvenile offenders re-offended who were transferred to the criminal justice system. Then I turn to recidivism by committing bur glary as a property offense compared to recidivism by committing robbery as a personal viol ence offense. There were total 275 juveniles who were charged with burglary, in which 145 j uveniles were transferred to criminal justice courts while the remaining 130 juveniles were retained. Unlike the findings of Fagan in his 1995 study (Fagan, 1995) and the Florida 1997 longterm study of transfer impacts (Winner et al., 1997), the transferred juveniles charged with burglary were much more likely to re-offend than their comparably retained juveniles. The difference was significant in that 55.9 percent of the tr ansferred juvenile burglars did re-offend compared with 33.8 percent of the retained youths charged with similar offense (table 4-1. chi sq. = 13.4; df = 1; p. < .001). With respect to th e juveniles who committed robbery, more youths who were transferred recidivate d than those who were retain ed, although the comparison does not differ significantly. Of the transferred juveniles, 62.5% re-offended after 18 years old compared to 44.4% of the retained youths. It seem ed that the effects of transfer did not differ by type of offense.
36 Table 4-2 showed compared recidivism between these two types of felonies in each of the jurisdictions. In both criminal justice and juvenile justice jurisdictions, the recidivism rates for those juveniles who were charged with the robbery were slightly higher than those of the young burglary offenders. But the difference was not statistically significant. In sum, the recidivism analysis utilizing Florida data set revealed that transferred juveniles were more likely to re-offend violent felony. Th e number of the transf erred juveniles who reoffended was more than the number of the retain ed youths. Contrary to the previous research findings (Fagan, 1995; Winner et al., 1997), those yout hs charged with burglary (property crime) who were transferred and tried as adults were mo re likely to recidivate that their retained counterparts. The trend also held for those w ho were charged with robbery (personal crime). Findings on Sanction/Punishment from Analysis of Florida Data Due to the limited sanction measurements ava ilable in the Florida 2005 study data set, only certainty of punishment could be examined by the conviction rate. Although limitation of measurements existed, some st udies concluded that the perc eived certainty had the most effective impacts on deterrence (Waldo and Ch ircos, 1972; Tittle 1980; Hollinger and Clark, 1983a). Table 4-3 showed the comparisons of conviction rate between the transferred and retained juvenile offenders in the aggregate cases. The conviction rates for the transferred juvenile offenders were signi ficantly higher than those for their matched groups who were retained in the juvenile justic e system. Of the transferred youth s, 90.7 percent were convicted in the criminal justice courts, whereas only 66.5 per cent of those who were retained were convicted in the juvenile justic e courts (chi sq. = 82.852; df = 1; p. < .001). The results of comparisons of conviction rates by type of offenses (burglary and robbery) were indicated in Table 4-4. In both burglary and r obbery cases, the conviction rates were significantly higher in the criminal justice courts for the transferred juveniles. For the burglary
37 young offenders, 94.5 percent of the transferred youths were convicted compared with 66.9 percent of the retained ones (chi sq. = 34.465; df = 1; p. < .001). Likewise, the transferred robbery offenders were more likel y to be convicted than the reta ined ones. For those who were transferred, 87.5% of them were convicted compared with only 55.6% of those who were retained (chi sq. = 5.430; df = 1; p. < .05). Then in order to test whether the punishment certainty differed by type of offenses and there was a lenient gap of sanctions existing for burglary (property crime) and robbery (personal crime), the comparisons of conviction rates between the two type of offenses were made within each of the court jurisdictions (table 4-5, burglary coded as 1, robbery coded as 2). Neither in the crimin al nor the juvenile just ice courts were more juvenile offenders charged with robbery (persona l crime) convicted than the youths charged with burglary (property crime). On the contrary, a slightly higher percent of c onviction rates for the burglary groups occurred but they did not differ significantly in both justice systems. A multivariate logistic regre ssion was also conducted here. The findings showed that the transferred youths were significan tly more likely than the retain ed one to be convicted, after controlling for some factors which possibly had influences on the conviction rate including gender, age, race, the number of previous j uvenile referrals, weapon use, and previous participation in the programs of alcohol/drug abus e or mental treatment (table 4-6, B = -1.693; p. <.001). The results also displayed that male were more likely to be convicted than female. And those juveniles who had previous referra l records or who were provided with mental/drug/alcohol treatment progr am were more likely to be c onvicted that those who did not (table 4-6). In order to further examine the effect s of type of offenses with which the juveniles were charged on conviction, multivariate logistic regression results showed that the type of offenses (burglary v.s. robbery) had no significan t association with convict ion rate (table 4-6).
38 Findings on Recidivism from Analys is of New York/New Jersey Data The recidivism analysis in this data set wa s primarily evaluated by two measurements: rearrest rate and failure time which is the time to the first re-arrest for each case. There were 408 of the 818 cases handled in the New York criminal courts. 313 of these 408 transferred youths (76.7%) were re-arrested compared with 283 of the 410 (69%) retained cases. The transferred young offenders seemed to be much more likely to re-offended (table 4-7, chi sq. = 6.118; df = 1; p. < .05). When it came to compare the failure ti me between the transferred and retained youths, the independent T-test results demonstrated that the youths who were transferred in New York criminal courts recidivated more frequently than those retained in the New Jersey juvenile courts. The failure time of New Jersey retained youths were much longer than that of the transferred cases in New York, although the difference was not st atistically significant (table 4-7). In order to control the variances of re-arr est rate that could be brought a bout by other factors, multivariate logistic regression was used to examine the transfer effects on it. After controlling for age, race, risk time, weapon use in the offense, and prior conviction record, those who were transferred and handled in the New York criminal courts were st ill more likely to be re-arrested (table 4-8, B = 1.039; p.< .001). The re-arrest rate analysis showed that for the robbery cases, the transferred youths (NY) were statistically significantly mo re likely to be re-arrested than those of the retained youths. 75.9% of the transferred juveniles who were char ged with robbery were re-arrested compared with only 67 percent of the retained comparable cases (table 4-9, chi sq. = 6.757; df = 1; p. < .001). However, for the burglary cas es, the re-arrest rate for the retained youths even surpassed that for the transferred ones although they did not differ significantly. Table 4-9 showed that 81.3 percent of the retained juvenile s were rearrested compared with 80.9 percent of the transferred group. The different trends of transfer effects on re-arrest rate between robbery and burglary
39 were consistent with Fagan 1995, 1996s study and the prior Florida 1997 long-term research (Fagan, 1995, 1996; Winner et al., 1997). Respecti ng the comparison of failure time by burglary versus robbery, the mean value indicated that tr ansferred youths who were charged with burglary had a longer time to first re-arrest than the re tained burglary youths offenders (501.1 versus 337.7), although the difference was not significant. On the contrary, for the robbery juvenile offenders, the retained group in New Jersey ha s a significantly 17.5% perc ent longer failure time than their transferred counterparts in Ne w York (NJ: 553.0 versus NY: 456.5; p. < .05). Furthermore, the output from multivariate logistic regression, after controlling age, race, weapon use in the offense, prior conviction record of those youths, and risk time, indicated that significantly more of the transfer red juveniles charged with robbery were re-arrested than those who were retained in the juvenile courts ch arged with similar offense ( table 4-10, B = 1.041, p. < .001). In sum, the recidivism analysis showed that the transferred youths were more likely and quickly to be re-arrested compared to their count erparts retained in the juvenile justice system. With respect to the specific burglary and robbery cases, the re-arrest rate and time to first rearrest were significantly different across the two court jurisd ictions only for robbery juvenile offenders; with their higher re-arrest rate and shor ter failure time in the criminal justice system. As for the burglary, transfer seemed to produce no t much harmful effects on recidivism. Both the value of re-arrest rate and the time to first re-arrest were comparable between the transferred and retained groups char ged with burglary. The comparisons in the criminal court demons trated that the burglary and robbery cases did not differ significantly on the recidivism m easurements (table 4-11). When it came to juvenile court, the re-arrest rate of burglary o ffenders did not differ significantly from that of the
40 robbery offenders. Yet the burglary offenders ha d much less time to firs t re-arrest than the robbery offenders (p. < .05). From the above analysis, it seemed that transfer had different effective impacts on recidivism by type of offenses. For robbery, a pe rsonal crime, the transferred youths were more likely and more quickly to re-offend criminal behaviors than the retained youths, but for burglary, as a property crime, th e transferred subgroup did not pr esent much difference from the retained one. For those who were re tained in the juvenile justice sy stem, the re-arrest rate of the burglary offenders was pretty comparable to th at of the robbery offenders. But once they reoffended, they will be recommitted much more quick ly. The recidivism between the two types of offenses in the criminal justice system did not differ significantly. Findings on Sanction/Punishment from An alysis of New York/New Jersey Data The sanction comparison results showed that the juvenile offenders who were transferred received harsher punishment than their counterp arts tried in the juvenile courts. Of the transferred youths, 25.2 pe rcent compared with only 10.4 percent of the retained ones were incarcerated (chi sq. = 30.168; p. < .001). Bo th the minimum and the maximum sentences received by the transferred youths were significantly longer than those retained in the juvenile justice system (table 4-12). The differences of sanctions between two c ourt jurisdictions for the burglary juvenile offenders were not significant except for maximu m sentence. Both the incarceration rate and minimum sentence length did not differ significan tly between two court jurisdictions for youths charged with burglary (table 413). Although, the maximum sentence by type of court did differ significantly for offenders charged with burglar y (p. < .001), the case number for the transferred included in this analysis is only 1. So the limite d sample number raised the question of validity regarding the results. On the other hand, regarding th e robbery offenders, the transferred youths
41 were more than two times than the retained coun terparts to be incarcerated. Table 4-13 also showed that 24.7 percent of the NY transferred youths were incarcerated compared with 10.1 percent of the NJ retained ones (p. < .001). The tr ansferred robbery offenders were punished 5 to 10 times of sentence length than those retain ed. The mean values of minimum and maximum sentence for the transferred were much more than the retained youths charged with similar offenses. After controlling for race, age, weapon use in the offense, prior conviction record, and risk time, the logistic regressi on also showed that the transfe rred robbery offenders were more likely to be incarcerate d (table 4-14, p. < .001). No significant differences on the sanction were found between the types of offenses charged in both the juvenile and crim inal justice systems (table 4-15). In sum, the results from the New York/New Jersey data (Fagan, 1995) supported that the transferred youths charged with r obbery were tried more harshly than their retained counterparts, even after controlling other rela ted factors. At the same time, they also were more likely and more quickly to recidivate.
42 Table 4-1. Recidivism by type of offenses in Florida Burglary (N=275) Robbery (N=42) The transferred (N=145) The retained (N=130) The transferred (N=24) The retained (N=18) N 81 44 15 8 % 55.9 33.8 62.5 44.4 Chi-sq 13.4 1.354 p <.001 >.20 Table 4-2. Recidivism by type of offens e within court jurisdictions in Florida Criminal Court Juvenile Court Burglary (N=145) Robbery (N=24) Burglary (N=130) Robbery (N=18) N 81 15 44 8 % 55.9 62.5 33.8 44.4 Chi-sq .377 3.232 p >.80 >.10 Table 4-3. Conviction in the aggregate group in Florida All cases (N=950) The transferred (N=475) The retained (N=475) N 431 316 % 90.7 66.5 Chi-sq 82.852 p <.001 Table 4-4. Conviction by type of offenses in Florida Burglary (N=275) Robbery (N=42) The transferred (N=145) The retained (N=130) The transferred (N=24) The retained (N=18) N 137 87 21 10 % 94.5 66.9 87.5 55.6 Chi-sq 34.465 5.430 p <.001 <.05 Table 4-5. Conviction by type of offense within court jurisd ictions in Florida Criminal Court Juvenile Court Burglary (N=145) Robbery (N=24) Burglary (N=130) Robbery (N=18) N 137 21 87 10 % 94.5 87.5 66.9 55.6 Chi-sq 3.562 1.011 p >.10 >.60
43 Table 4-6. Coefficients for logistic regression of conviction in Florida B. S.E. Wald Sig. Type of case (transferred 1; retained 2) -1.693 .196 74.583 <.001 Gender (male 1; female 2) -.778 .342 5.171 <.05 Type of offense (Bu 1; Ro 2) -.068 .157 .188 >.60 Age -.066 .087 .573 >.40 White .277 .184 2.265 >.10 Prior referrals .072 .028 6.512 <.05 Weapon use .063 .207 .093 >.70 Treatment program 1.810 .477 14.391 <.001 Table 4-7. Recidivism by type of case in NY and NJ Total case (N=818) The transferred in NY (N=408) The retained in NJ (N=410) Re-arrest N 313 283 % 76.7 69.0 Chi-sq 6.118 P <0.05 Failure time Mean (days) 464.3 533.2 Sig >.090 Table 4-8. Coefficients for logistic regression of re-arrest in NJ and NY B. S.E. Wald Sig. Site (NJ 1; NY 2) 1.039 .262 15.740 <.001 Age .308 .224 1.889 >.10 Weapon use .415 .212 3.828 >.05 Prior conviction .649 .358 3.290 >.07 White .455 .401 1.288 >.20 Risk Time -.001 .000 7.584 <.01
44 Table 4-9. Recidivism by type of offense in NJ and NY Burglary (N=100) Robbery (N=707) Criminal Court (N=68) Juvenile Court (N=32) Criminal Court (N=340) Juvenile Court (N=367) Re-arrest N 55 26 258 246 % 80.9 81.3 75.9 67.0 Chi-sq .002 6.757 P >.90 <.01 Failure time Mean (days) 501.1 337.7 456.5 553.0 Sig. >.10 <.05 Table 4-10. Coefficients for logi stic regression of re-arrest in robbery case in NY and NJ B. S.E. Wald Sig. Site (NJ 1; NY 2) 1.041 .271 14.714 <.001 Age .305 .235 1.683 >.10 Weapon use .253 .225 1.264 >.20 Prior conviction .550 .372 2.183 >.10 White .957 .501 3.654 >.05 Risk time .000 .000 4.985 <.05 Table 4-11. Recidivism by type of offense within court jurisdictions in NY and NJ Criminal Court (N=408) Juvenile Court (N=399) Burglary (N=68) Robbery (N=340) Burglary (N=32) Robbery (N=367) Re-arrest N 55 258 26 246 % 80.9 75.9 81.3 67.0 Chi-sq .793 2.743 P .373 .098 Failure time Mean (days) 501.12 456.49 337.69 552.97 Sig. .565 <.05
45 Table 4-12. Sanctions by t ype of case in NJ and NY The transferred (N=408) The retained (N=402) Incarceration N 103 42 % 25.2 10.4 Chi-sq 30.168 P <.001 Sentence Minimum (months) 3.48 .38 Sig. <.001 Maximum (months) 39.00 6.24 Sig. <.001 Table 4-13. Sanction by type of offense in NY and NJ Burglary (N=100) Robbery (N=707) Criminal Court (N=68) Juvenile Court (N=32) Criminal Court (N=340) Juvenile Court (N=367) Incarceration N 19 5 84 37 % 27.9 15.6 24.7 10.1 Chi-sq 1.810 26.609 P. >.10 <.001 Sentence Minimum (months) 1.76 .75 3.82 .36 Sig. >.50 <.001 Maximum (months) 144.00 4.46 30.92 6.54 Sig. <.001 <.01 Table 4-14. Coefficients for logist ic regression of incarceration in robbery case in NY and NJ B. S.E. Wald Sig. Site 4.672 .813 33.03 <.001 Age .928 .415 5.007 <.05 White 19.268 8559.718 .000 >.90 Weapon use .022 .327 .005 >.90 Prior conviction 2.487 .671 13.731 <.001 Risk time -.003 .000 69.421 <.001 N included = 452, Missing N = 255 from White
46 Table 4-15. Sanction by type of offense within court ju risdictions in NY and NJ Criminal Court (N=408) Juvenile Court (N=399, missing N=11) Burglary (N=68) Robbery (N=340) Burglary (N=32) Robbery (N=367) Incarceration N 19 84 5 37 % 27.9 24.7 15.6 10.1 Chi-sq .314 .960 P >.50 >.30 Sentence Minimum (months) 1.76 3.82 .75 .36 Sig. >.10 >.30 Maximum (months) 144.00 (note) 30.92 4.46 6.54 Sig. <.01 >.50 Note: N =1 included in the burgl ary case in the criminal court
47 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION The results from both data sets used in this study reached a convergent conclusion in that the juvenile offenders who were transferred to criminal court ju risdiction were more likely to recidivate. They also were more quickly to re -offend based on findings from the New York/New Jersey data set. Compared with the youths who we re tried in the juvenile courts, the transferred juvenile offenders received harsher punishment. They were more likely to be convicted and incarcerated. Besides, they r eceived longer senten ce length once they were incarcerated. When it came to the effects of transfer by type of offenses (burglary v.s. robbery), the analysis using two data sets dem onstrated the inconsistent results by type of offense. The Florida 2005 data analysis showed that the transferred you ng offenders were more likely to be convicted, and they were more likely to recidivate than the retained counterparts re gardless of the type of offenses with which they were charged. Ther efore, the Florida 2005 data supported that the effects of transfer did not differ by type of offe nses charged and the transfer did not have the deterrent effects to prevent the juveniles from re-offending. On the other hand, NY and NJ data set supported that transfer did result in certain negative effects on the juvenile crime prevention. Yet such effects differed by type of offenses. For robbery, punishment were more certain and more serious for the transferred juveniles than si milar cases who were retained to be handled in the juvenile justice courts. They were more likely to be incarcerated. Once they were incarcerated, they also received much longer se ntence than the retained juveniles. Those transferred youths who were char ged with robbery were greatly more likely to be re-arrested after release, controlling for the risk time, a nd they were significantly more quickly to be rearrested than the retained similar group. But this trend did not hold for the burglary. For youth convicted of burglary, there were no significant differences of sa nction they received between
48 the transferred and retained group. Furthermore, the recidivism analysis revealed that the transferred and the retained did not differ significantly in re-arre st rate and the time to first rearrest. The results from the two data sets did not ag ree on the effects of transfer by type of offense. There were some probable explanations First was the limitation on samples of robbery offenders in Florida 2005 data which I used. Th ere were 275 cases of burglary but only 42 cases of robbery. Within 42 cases of robbery offenders, 24 were transferred to criminal justice system and 18 were retained in the juve nile justice system. The results would be less tentative if there were more robbery cases included in the data set. Second, there were many disparities in the transfer practices implemented in the two areas to which the data sets were traced back. The primary method of transfer implemented in Fl orida was prosecutorial wavier. According to Florida law, the Florida prosecutors are authorized the discretion to direct file virtually any case involving a juvenile who is eligible for judicial waiver (Frazier et al. 1994). Since Florida 1994 reform, there were large numbers of juveniles who were transferred to the criminal justice system by prosecutorial waiver a nd research revealed that many of transferred youths were not most serious or intractable juvenile offenders For example, many property offenders who were not much serious were excluded from the juveni le justice system (Fr azier et al. 1994; LanzaKaduce et al, 1998). New York and New Jersey cases were selected based on the statutory waiver implemented in the greater New York metropolitan area (Fagan, 1 995). Third, the Florida 2005 data on sanction measurements was limited. With different rationa les, the two justice systems carried on the different processes to im pose sentences on the juvenile offender. The juvenile courts imposed indeterminate senten ces on the young offenders in order to better rehabilitate them (Singer and McDowall, 1988). So sentence length and case length is not
49 available in the Florida 2005 data Conviction rate is the only measurement of sanction available in the Florida 2005 data set. The limited data al so bear uncertainty on the conclusion regarding the comparison of transfer effects based on different offenses. The fourth, the time interval when these two data sets were collect ed and constructed makes it possibl e the disparate results of the transfer effects by type of offenses from both th e data sets I used in this study. The NY and NJ data were comprised of samples drawn from 1982 to 1983. Yet, the Florida 2005 data included the youths transferred an d retained in 1995 and 1996. It is re asonable that the time period of more than 10 years could produce some changes re garding the effects of transfer in practice. Fagan and his colleagues replicated and extended their previous study of transfer in 2003. Unlike what was found in Fagans prior research (Fagan, 1995), they found that the transferred property offenders were as likely to recidivate as the young offenders charged with personal felony (Redding, in press). The policy of transferring juvenile offenders to the adults courts for trial is primarily based on the deterrence theory that th e harsher punishment, specifically the more certain, serious, and quick punishment can be imposed on the transfe rred youths and then subsequently deter their further criminal behavior, and at the same time, deter the occurrence of cr iminal behaviors by the potential offenders. Consistent with the prior research regarding the deterrence effects of transfer, the findings in this study also showed that the transfer policy has an ineffective effect on deterring crime. There are some possible explanations to acc ount for the ineffectiveness of transfer on reducing crime. First, previous research showed that New York Juveni le Offender Law did not deter juvenile crimes because i t did not sufficiently increase th e risks of punishment (Singer and McDowall, 1988). They indicated that although the New York JO law had been
50 implemented widely but it was still seen that th e law was not applied fully in many cases. They pointed that percent of th e JO arrests made in New York City through 1983 resulted in sentences of confinement imposed by the criminal court; this of course imp lied that 86 percent of the arrested juveniles managed to avoid su ch sentences (Singer and McDowall, 1988). Second, some researchers supported the eff ectiveness of the rehabilitative programs inherent in the juvenile justice system (Reddi ng, 2003). Forst et al. (1989) indicated that results based on the interview of 140 juvenile offenders w ith 59 cased in juvenile facilities and 81 in the adult facilities. They f ound that the criminal facilities were short of effective programs to help juveniles to learn life skill and enhance their t echniques of handling inte rpersonal relations as those available in the juvenile facilities. Third, the criminal behavior cu lture engrained in the adult pr ison or jail would contribute to the higher recidivism for the transferred young offenders in the criminal justice system. The transferred youths were exposed to the adult facility culture and were easily able to learn more advanced techniques of criminal behaviors from th eir older inmates. At the same time, with their bonding to the older career criminals, they might be more and more prone to the attitudes tolerant to serious criminal behaviors or they could develop the percep tions neutralizing their crime motives. Fourth, the different resource available and pr actice implemented acro ss the two correction facilities would engender th e perceptions of the tran sferred youths that they had been unjustly treated compared with their counterparts retained in the juvenile facilities with similar serious offenses charged. The transfer policy was widely used with the belief th at sanctions of adult courts would enhance the fairne ss by making the punishments more proportionate to the severity of offenses committed by the transferred juve niles. However, the punishment based on the
51 offense and the history of prior delinquency negl ected the individual disparity, which raised the question of fairness and effectiveness. Winner et al. (1997) attributed the higher recidivism rate for the transferred youths to the reason that they felt injustice resulted from criminal court processing and then to retaliate by recommitting.
52 CHAPTER 6 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH First, the robbery cases in Florida 2005 data se t are very limited. Th ere are total only 42 robbery cases available. So the limited samples raise the question of th e validity on comparison results of recidivism and sanction between the robbery and burglary juvenile offenders. Second, Florida 2005 data set lacks of information about sentence length and case length, which are important measurements to assess the severity and celerity of punishment. The case length is also unavailable in the NY and NJ data set. Therefor e, it is unclear whethe r the transferred youths received longer sentences than the retained youth s with the limitations of the Florida 2005 data set in this study. Also it cannot be estimated whet her there were any differences of celerity of punishment imposed on the youths across two court ju risdictions within both data sets. Third, the offenses examined in this study are only limite d to violent or serious felony. Therefore, the examination of patterns or comparisons between the two disparate c ourt jurisdic tions of nonviolent offenses committed by juvenile offenders remains intact and needs future research. The last but not least point is that the inform ation of the actual time served in two justice models is unavailable. Accordingly, the conclusi on of the sentence length is needed to be attended cautiously. The tw o court jurisdictions have different sanction practices. In the juvenile justice system, the sentences are often indeterminate, which is the reason of the difficulty in collecting data of the sentence length for the retained youths. At the same time, the criminal courts could impose definite sentences on the tr ansferred youths as adu lts; therefore juveniles can be released on bail like their older adult in mates. Hence, the actual time served is maybe largely different from the length of sentence impose d by the courts. So future research is needed to examine and compare the actual time se rved by the youths tran sferred and retained.
53 The limitations resulted from the lack of meas urements in the Florid a 2005 data set I used could possibly be avoided, if future research can access the larger raw data set of the Florida studies of transfer impacts, which might include some of the measurements or other variables unavailable in this study. This study used th e more limited data on which the previous publications were based. It should be recognized that in the larger ra w data set that was not available for this study there may be some way of dealing with these limitations. It is reasonably believed that the effects of transfer between burglary or property crime offenders and robbery or personal crime offenders on recidivism and sanctions will be clearer if the future research can be conducted with a more comparable number of cases by type of offense and by type of cases (transferred or retained). The question of wh ether the transferred juvenile offenders received harsher punishment than the re tained youths will be better answered if the measurements of punishment certainty (conviction rate, incarceration rate ), severity (sentence length, actual time served) and celerity (case leng th) can be simultaneously aggregated in future studies regarding transfer effects. We can further ascertain the effects of transfer and provide with the important implications for policies, if the future research could exte nd to include nonviolent juvenile offenses for investigation. Many states adjusted the statutes or enacted new legisla tions to decrease the minimum age or broaden the type of offenses of criminal court juri sdiction. As a result, more and more juvenile offenders could be waived to the criminal justice system including many nonviolent youthful offenders. The prior research showed that besides the most serious or chronic juvenile offenders who were transferred to criminal courts for trial, a great number of the juvenile offenders charged with nonviolent or petty offenses were also excluded from the juvenile justice system (Frazier et al. 1994; Lanza-Kadu ce et al, 1998). The effe cts of transfer to
54 those nonviolent juveniles remained in the dark. It will provide the policy makers with more explicit picture about the cons equences of transfer on the juvenile offenders who were transferred charged with nonviolent or not much serious offenses, in turn has important and significant policy implications.
55 APPENDIX A NEW YORK STATUTORY DEFINITI ON OF BURGLARY AND ROBBERY 140. 20 Burglary in the third degree. A person is guilty of burglary in the third degree when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime therein. Burglary in the third degree is a class D felony. 140. 25 Burglary in the second degree. A person is guilty of burglary in the second degree when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime therein, and when: 1. In effecting entry or while in the building or in immediate f light therefrom, he or another participant in the crime: (a) Is armed with explosives or a deadly weapon; or (b) Causes physical injury to any person w ho is not a participan t in the crime; or (c) Uses or threatens the immediate use of a dangerous instrument; or (d) Displays what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgu n, machine gun or other firearm; or 2. The building is a dwelling. Burglary in the second degree is a class C felony. 140.30 Burglary in the first degree. A person is guilty of burglary in the first degree when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling with intent to commit a crime therein, and when, in effecting entry or while in the dwelling or in immediate flight ther efrom, he or another pa rticipant in the crime: 1. Is armed with explosives or a deadly weapon; or 2. Causes physical injury to any person who is not a participant in the crime; or
56 3. Uses or threatens the immediate us e of a dangerous instrument; or 4. Displays what appears to be a pistol, re volver, rifle, shotgu n, machine gun or other firearm; except that in any prosecution under this subdivision, it is an affirmative defense that such pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firear m was not a loaded weapon from which a shot, readily capable of producing deat h or other serious physic al injury, could be discharged. Nothing contained in th is subdivision shall constitute a defense to a prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of, burgl ary in the second degree, burgla ry in the third degree or any other crime. Burglary in the first degree is a class B felony. 160.00 Robbery Robbery is forcible stealing. A person forcib ly steals property and commits robbery when, in the course of committing a larceny, he uses or threatens the immediat e use of physical force upon another person for the purpose of: Preventing or overcoming resistance to the taking of the propert y or to the retention thereof immediately after the taking; or Compelling the owner of such property or anot her person to deliver up the property or to engage in other conduct which aids in the commission of the larceny. 160.05 Robbery in the third degree. A person is guilty of robbery in the third degree when he forcibly steals property. Robbery in the third degree is a class D felony. 160.10 Robbery in the second degree.
57 A person is guilty of robbery in the second de gree when he forcibly steals property and when: 1. He is aided by another pe rson actually present; or 2. In the course of the commission of the crime or of immediate flight therefrom, he or another participant in the crime: (a) Causes physical injury to any person w ho is not a participan t in the crime; or (b) Displays what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgu n, machine gun or other firearm; or 3. The property consists of a mo tor vehicle, as defined in se ction one hundred twenty-five of the vehicle and traffic law. Robbery in the second degree is a class C felony. 160.15 Robbery in the first degree. A person is guilty of robbery in the first degree when he forcibly steals property and when, in the course of the commission of the crime or of immediate flight therefrom, he or another participant in the crime: 1. Causes serious physical injury to any person who is not a pa rticipant in the crime; or 2. Is armed with a deadly weapon; or 3. Uses or threatens the immediate us e of a dangerous instrument; or 4. Displays what appears to be a pistol, re volver, rifle, shotgu n, machine gun or other firearm; except that in any prosecution under this subdivision, it is an affirmative defense that such pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firear m was not a loaded weapon from which a shot, readily capable of producing deat h or other serious physic al injury, could be discharged. Nothing contained in th is subdivision shall constitute a defense to a prosecution for,
58 or preclude a conviction of, robbery in the seco nd degree, robbery in the third degree or any other crime. Robbery in the fi rst degree is a class B felony.
59 APPENDIX B FLORIDA STATUTORY DEFINITIONS OF BURGLARY AND ROBBERY 810.02 Burglary (1)(a) For offenses committed on or before July 1, 2001, "burglary" means entering or remaining in a dwelling, a struct ure, or a conveyance with the intent to commit an offense therein, unless the premises are at the time open to the public or the defendant is licensed or invited to enter or remain. (b) For offenses committed after July 1, 2001, "burglary" means 1. Entering a dwelling, a structur e, or a conveyance with the intent to commit an offense therein, unless the premises are at the time open to the public or the defendant is licensed or invited to enter; or 2. Notwithstanding a licensed or invited entry, remaining in a dwelling, structure, or conveyance: a. Surreptitiously, with the intent to commit an offense therein; b. After permission to remain therein has b een withdrawn, with the intent to commit an offense therein; or c. To commit or attempt to commit a forcible felony, as defined in s. 776.08. (2) Burglary is a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonmen t for a term of years not exceeding life imprisonment or as provide d in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if, in the course of committing the offense, the offender: (a) Makes an assault or ba ttery upon any person; or (b) Is or becomes armed within the dwelling, st ructure, or conveyance, with explosives or a dangerous weapon; or (c) Enters an occupied or unoccupi ed dwelling or structure, and:
60 1. Uses a motor vehicle as an instrumentality, other than merely as a getaway vehicle, to assist in committing the offense, and thereby damages the dwelling or structure; or 2. Causes damage to the dwelling or struct ure, or to property w ithin the dwelling or structure in excess of $1,000. (3) Burglary is a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if, in the course of committing the offense, the offender does not make an assault or battery and is not and does not become armed with a dangerous weapon or explosive, and the offender enters or remains in a: (a) Dwelling, and there is anot her person in the dwelling at th e time the offender enters or remains; (b) Dwelling, and there is not another pers on in the dwelling at the time the offender enters or remains; (c) Structure, and there is another person in the structure at the time the offender enters or remains; or (d) Conveyance, and there is another person in the conveyance at the time the offender enters or remains. (4) Burglary is a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if, in the course of committing the offense, the offender does not make an assault or battery and is not and does not become armed with a dangerous weapon or explosive, and the offender enters or remains in a: (a) Structure, and there is not another person in the structure at the time the offender enters or remains; or
61 (b) Conveyance, and there is not another person in the conv eyance at the time the offender enters or remains. 812.13 Robbery (1) "Robbery" means the taking of money or other property which may be the subject of larceny from the person or custody of another, w ith intent to either permanently or temporarily deprive the person or the owner of the money or other property, wh en in the course of the taking there is the use of force, violen ce, assault, or putting in fear. (2)(a) If in the course of committing the r obbery the offender carried a firearm or other deadly weapon, then the robbery is a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life im prisonment or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (b) If in the course of committing the r obbery the offender carried a weapon, then the robbery is a felony of the first de gree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (c) If in the course of committing the robbery the offender carried no firearm, deadly weapon, or other weapon, then the robbery is a felony of th e second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (3)(a) An act shall be deemed "in the course of committing the robbery" if it occurs in an attempt to commit robbery or in flig ht after the attempt or commission. (b) An act shall be deemed "i n the course of the taking" if it occurs either prior to, contemporaneous with, or subsequent to the taki ng of the property and if it and the act of taking constitute a continuous seri es of acts or events.
62 LIST OF REFERENCES Ainsworth, J. E. (1999). Re-ima gining childhood and reconstructing the legal order: The case for abolishing the juvenile court. In B. C. Feld (Ed.), Readings in Juvenile Justice Administration (pp. 8-13). New York: Oxford. Barnes, C. W., & Franz, R. S. (1989). Questi onably adult: Determinants and effects of the juvenile waiver decision. Justice Quarterly 6, 117-136. Bishop, D. M. (2000). Justice offenders in the adu lt criminal justice system. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 81-167). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bishop, D. M., Frazier, C. E., Lanza-Kaduce, L., & Winner, L. (1996a). The transfer of juveniles to criminal court: Does it make a difference? Crime and Delinquency 42, 171-191. Bortner, M. A. (1986). Traditiona l rhetoric, organizationa l realities: Remand of juveniles to adult court. Crime and Delinquency 32, 53-73. Butts, J. A., & Poe-Yamagata, E. (1993). Offenders in juvenile court, 1990 Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justi ce Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Champion, D. J. (1989). Teenage felons and wa iver hearings: Some recent trends, 1980-1988. Crime and Delinquency 35, 577-585. Champion, D. J., & Mays, G. L. (1991). Transferring juveniles to cr iminal courts: Trends and implications for criminal justice New York: Praeger. Cullen, F.fT. (2005). The twelve people who saved rehabilitation: How the science of criminology made a difference. Criminology 43, 1-42. Dawson, R. O. (1992). An empirical study of Kent style juvenile transfers to criminal court. St. Marys Law Journal 23, 975-1054. Dawson, R. O. (2000). Judicial waiv er in theory and practice. In J. A. Fagan & F. E. Zimring (Eds.), The changing borders of juvenile justice: Transfer of adol escents to the criminal court (pp. 45-82). Chicago and London: Th e University of Chicago Press. Eigen, J. P. (1981). Punishing youth ho micide offenders in Philadelphia. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 72, 1072-1093. Empey, L. (1979). Introduction: The social constr uction of childhood and juvenile justice. In L. T. Empey (Ed.), The future of childhood and juvenile justice (pp. 1-34). Charlottesville, Va: University Press of Virginia. Fagan, J. A., & Deschenes, E. P. (1990). Determin ants of judicial waiver decisions for violent juvenile offenders. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 81, 314-347.
63 Fagan, J. A. (1990a). Natural experiments. In K. Kempf (Ed.), Measurement issues in criminology (pp. 108-137). New York: Springer-Verlag. Fagan, J. A. (1995). Separating the men from th e boys; The comparative advantage of juvenile versus criminal court sanctions on recidivism among adolescent felony offenders. In J. C. Howell, B. Krisberg, J. D. Hawkins, & J. J. Wilson (Eds.), A sourcebook: Serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders (pp. 238-260). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fagan, J. A. (1996). The comparative advantage of juvenile versus criminal court sanctions on recidivism among adolescent felony offenders. Law and Policy 18, 77-114. Farrington, D. P. (2003). Developmental and lif e-course criminology: Key theoretical and empirical issues. Criminology 41, 221-256. Feld, B. C. (1990). Bad law makes hard cases: Re flections on teen-aged axe-murders, judicial activism, and legislative default. Law and Inequality 8, 1-102. Feld, B. C. (1993). Criminalizing the American juvenile court. Crime and Justice 17, 197-280. Feld, B. C. (1997). Abolish the juvenile cour t: Youthfulness, crimin al responsibility, and sentencing policy. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 88, 68-136. Feld, B. C. (1999). In re Gault revisited: A cross-state comparison of the right to counsel in juvenile court. In B.C. Feld (Ed.), Readings in Juvenile Justice Administration (pp. 117126). New York: Oxford. Forst, M., Fagan, J., & Vivona, S. T. (1989). Yout h 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., & Winner, L. (1994). Juvenile justice transfer legislation in Florida: A ssessing the impact on the crimin al justice and corrections systems. A report prepared for the Leroy Collins Ce nter for public polic y on behalf of the task force for review of the crimin al justice and corrections systems. Griffin, P., Torbet, P., & Szymanski, L. (1998). Tr ying juveniles as adults in criminal court: An analysis of state transfer pr ovisions. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juveni le Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. P. (1983a). Dete rrence in the workplace: Perceived certainty, perceived severity and employee theft. Social Forces 62, 394-418. Howell, J. C. (1996). Juvenile transfers to th e criminal justice system: State of the art. Law and Policy 18, 17-60. Jensen, E. L., & Metsger, L. K. (1994). A test of the deterrent effect of legislative waiver on violent juvenile crime. Crime and Delinquency 40, 96-104.
64 Kinder, K., Veneziano, C., Fichter, M., & Azum a, H. (1995). A comparison of the dispositions of juvenile offenders certified as adults with juvenile offe nders not certified. Juvenile and Family Court Journal 46, 37-42. Klein, E. K. (1998). Dennis the menace or billy the kid: An analysis of the role of transfer to criminal court in juvenile justice. American Criminal Law Review 35, 371-410. Lanza-Kaduce, L., Frazier, C. E., & Bishop, D. M. (1998). Juvenile transf ers 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., & Frazi er, C. E. (2005). Juvenile offenders and adult felony recidivism: The impact of transfer. Journal of Crime and Justice 28, 59-77. Levitt, S. D. (1998). Juvenile crime and punishment. Journal of Political Economy 106, 11561185. Lipsey, M. W. (1999). Can rehabili tative programs reduce the reci divism of juvenile offenders? An inquiry into the effectiveness of practical programs. The Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law 6, 611-642. Mack, J. W. (1999). The juvenile court. In B. C. Feld (Ed.), Readings in Juvenile Justice Administration (pp. 13-20). New York: Oxford. McCarthy, F. B. (1977). The role of the concep t of responsibility in juvenile delinquency proceedings. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 10, 181-219. Myers, D. L. (2001). Excluding violent youths from juvenile court: The effectiveness of legislative waiver. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. Paternoster, R. (1987). The dete rrent effect of the perceive d certainty and severity of punishment: A review of the evidence and issues. Justice Quarterly 4, 173-217. Paternoster, R. (1989). Decisions to participate in and desist from four types of common delinquency: Deterrence and the rational choice perspective. Law and Society Review 23, 7-40. Platt, A. (1999). The triumph of benevolence: The origins of the juvenile justice system in the United States. In B. C. Feld (Ed.), Readings in Juvenile Justice Administration (pp. 20-35). New York: Oxford. Podkopacz, M. R. & Feld, B. C. (1995). Judicial waiver policy and practice: Persistence, seriousness and race. Law and Inequality 14, 73-177. Podkopacz, M. R. & Feld, B. C. (1996). The end of the line: An empirical study of judicial waiver. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 86, 449-492. Redding, R. E. (2003). The effects of adjudicating and sentencing juveniles as adults: research and policy implications. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 1, 128-155.
65 Redding, R. E. (In press). The deterrent effects of juvenile transfer law. U.S. Government Printing Office. 2007. Rodriguez, N. (2003). Youth transfer d ecisions: Exploring county variations. Juvenile and Family Court Journal 54,33-46. Schuman, H., & Scott, J. (1989). Ge nerations and collective memories. American Psychological Review 54, 359-381. Sherman, L. W. (1993). Defiance, deterrence, and i rrelevance: A theory of the criminal sanction. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 30, 445-473. Singer, S. I., & McDowall, D. (1988). Criminaliz ing delinquency: The deterrent effects of the New York juvenile offender law. Law and Society Review 22, 521-535. Singer, S. I. (1999). The automatic waiver of juve niles and substantive jus tice. In B. C. Feld (Ed.), Readings in Juvenile Ju stice Administration (pp. 204-210). New York: Oxford. Snyder, H., & Sickmund, M. (1999). Juvenile offenders and victims: 1999 national report. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justic e, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Strom, K., Smith, S., & Snyder, H. (1998). State court processing sta tistics, 1990-1994: Juvenile felony defendants in criminal courts (Special report). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Tanenhans, D.S. (2000). The evolution of transfer out of the juvenile court. In J. A. Fagan & F. E. Zimring (Eds.), The changing borders of juve nile justice: Transfer of adolescents to the criminal court (pp. 13-44). Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Tittle, C. R. (1980). Sanctions and social de viance: The question of deterrence. New York: Praeger. Waldo, G. P., & Chircos, T. G. (1972). Perceive d penal sanction and self-reported criminality: A neglected approach to deterrence research. Social Problems 19, 522-540. Weissman, J. C. (1983). Toward an integr ated theory of delin quency responsibility. Denver Law Journal 60, 485-518. Winner, L., Lanza-Kaduce, L., Bishop, D. M., & Fr azier, C. E. (1997). The transfer of juveniles to criminal court: Reexamining recidivism over the long term. Crime and Delinquency 43, 548-568. Zimring, F.E. (1991). The treatment of hard cases in American juvenile justice: In defense of discretionary waiver. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, and Public Policy 5, 267-280. Zimring, F.E. (1998). American youth violence. New York: Oxford University Press.
66 Zimring, F. E. (2000). The punitive necessity of wa iver. In J. A. Fagan & F. E. Zimring (Eds.), The changing borders of juvenile justice: Trans fer of adolescents to the criminal court (pp. 207-224). Chicago and London: The Un iversity of Chicago Press.
67 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Yang Liu was born in Wuhan, China. She was good at music. In 1998, Yang began her undergraduate study in Zhongnan University of Ec onomics and Law, majoring in international law. She acquired a solid academic background in law and other related areas of social science. She was interested in criminol ogy during her undergraduate study. After graduation, she had 3 years of work e xperience in business and law, in Shenzhen, China. In fall 2005, after careful deliberation, she began her gradua te studies in Department of Criminology, Law and Society, at the University of Florida and began her new life as a graduate student. She received a Master of Arts degree in criminology. Upon graduation, Yang plans to proceed to her research in criminology and law.