Juvenile Transfers to Adult Court: A Lingering Outcome of the Super-Predator Craze

by John Kelly, The Chronicle of Social Change

September 28, 2016

Twenty years ago, in a speech at Keene State College in New Hampshire, then-First Lady Hillary Clinton made a comment about juvenile crime that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump called her out on in Monday’s debate.

Discussing the need for a top-level fight against gangs that harkened the mob-busting of previous decades, Clinton told reporters that “they are not just gangs of kids anymore.”

“They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘super-predators,’ ” Clinton continued. “No conscience, no empathy, we can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel.”

The term super-predator was coined by author John DiIulio in a book that foresaw an America done in by child armies. From Moral Poverty—and How to Win America’s War Against Crime and Drugs:

“America is now home to thickening ranks of juvenile ‘super-predators’—radically impulsive, brutally remorseless youngsters, including ever more pre-teenage boys, who murder, assault, rape, rob, burglarize, deal deadly drugs, join gun-toting gangs and create serious communal disorders. They do not fear the stigma of arrest, the pains of imprisonment or the pangs of conscience … At core the problem is that most inner-city children grow up surrounded by teenagers and adults who are themselves deviant, delinquent and criminal.”

DiIulio’s prose was based largely on the predictions of researcher James Alan Fox, who had forecasted a “bloodbath of teenage violence” coming in the 1990s and beyond.

None of the super-predator/bloodbath stuff turned out to be true, of course. Juvenile crime, and specifically violent crime, plummeted in the United States after the racially tinged prognostications of the time.

DiIulio, who would go on to lead the newly established Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives for George W. Bush, had publicly disavowed the super-predator comment by 2001. Fox pretty much immediately backed off his comments, conceding in a 1996 USA Today column that “I never meant there would be a blood bath. Some of it was part of getting people’s attention.”

Clinton was publicly mum on the topic for 20 years until this year’s presidential primaries, when a young protestor disrupted a fundraiser to challenge on the subject. Clinton responded in a statement to The Washington Post the next day:

“Looking back, I shouldn’t have used those words, and I wouldn’t use them today. My life’s work has been about lifting up children and young people who’ve been let down by the system or by society, kids who never got the chance they deserved. And unfortunately today, there are way too many of those kids, especially in African-American communities. We haven’t done right by them. We need to.”

In the years since the super-predator forecast, some of the harshest punishments handed down to juveniles have been rolled back. Since 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court has separately ruled the following things to be unconstitutional:

• Death penalty for juveniles.
• Juveniles getting life without parole for any crime other than a homicide.
• Juveniles automatically getting life without parole under any state sentencing guideline.

In addition, several states have reconsidered their age of jurisdiction. Massachusetts and Illinois no longer consider 17-year-olds to be adults in the eyes of the law; Connecticut used to consider 16- and 17-year-olds to be adults.

But if Clinton is elected and feels the need to atone for her contribution to the super-predator fiasco, she might take an interest in the largest facilitator of adult crime for adult time: transfer policies, the ways in which counties and states shift a juvenile offender into adult court after arrest.

There are a few basic policies used for transfers of juvenile offenders into the adult system:

• Direct file: Prosecutors have the discretion, on certain specified crimes, to begin a juvenile’s case in adult court.
• Judicial waiver: The judge has the discretion to move a case into adult court.
• Automatic: Established law or policy calls for instantaneous transfer for a certain threshold of offenses.
• Once an adult: Rules that mandate a transfer to adult court for any crime if the juvenile has been transferred before.

It would be unfair to lay transfer laws wholly at the doorstep of the super-predator craze. Florida, which transfers more juveniles to adult court than any state, has permitted direct files by prosecutors since the 1970s.

But as the party platforms from the 1996 presidential race suggest, there was a particular zeal for the promotion of these policies at the time.

From the GOP’s 1996 platform:

“We will stress accountability at every step in the system and require adult trials for juveniles who commit adult crimes.”

From the Democrats’ 1996 platform:

“When young people cross the line, they must be punished. When young people commit serious violent crimes, they should be prosecuted like adults.”

A more accurate description would be that the super-predator craze did two things. First, it validated the increase in transfer permissions that immediately preceded. Between 1992 and 1995, 41 states adopted or expanded laws in a way that facilitated more transfers of juveniles.

Second, it facilitated further elimination of transfer restrictions that opened up adult court as a possibility for younger juveniles, or juveniles accused of lesser offenses.

The use of transfers varies widely from state to state. But every state has at least one way to transfer juveniles into adult court. And few states have changed their policies about transfers in the years since the super-predator craze, even as national juvenile justice advocacy groups have focused attention on the subject.

There is growing recognition that the incarceration of juvenile offenders in adult settings is a bad idea. A 2008 paper published by the Justice Department found that juveniles were more likely to reoffend after being sent to adult facilities than those sent to juvenile facilities.

But incarceration is just one end result of a juvenile case getting transferred to adult court. Others include case dismissal, acquittal, time served, probation and, in some states, a reversal of the case back to juvenile court by a judge.

And decades after transfer laws were stepped up, we know very little about their impact other than that the juveniles who get jailed or imprisoned with adults do worse than similar offenders housed in the juvenile system. The fate of juveniles transferred to adult court is one of the biggest blind spots in what we know about youth who come into contact with either family or criminal court.

After years of delays, a federal study on the subject funded back in 2010 appears to be near completion, though Youth Services Insider has heard that some states are being less than helpful in the collection of information for it. We were told that at least some numbers would come out in 2016; our guess is that you’ll see them after the election.


John Kelly is senior editor for The Chronicle of Social Change.




Groove of the Day

Listen to Simple Plan performing “I’m Just a Kid”


Weather Report

79° Cloudy and Rain



3 Responses to “hangover”

  1. 1 Willow54
    October 2, 2016 at 5:07 am

    Maybe the interested parties are looking at this from the wrong angle. There is a big difference between the process and the outcome, which I am at a loss to understand why those who administer justice cannot seem to see.

    I don’t have a problem with juveniles being tried in an ‘adult’ court for serious crimes like murder. This is what we do here in the UK, although the court system is quite different from the US I should say. We do have Youth Courts, but a juvenile appearing in one to be arraigned for murder would automatically be transferred to a Crown Court (our equivalent of your adult court) for the case to be formally tried. The difference I am referring to is that, once convicted, the minor would always be placed in a juvenile facility to begin their sentence, and only if that sentence was long enough to extend beyond the age of 21 would the individual then be moved to an adult prison.

    Juveniles under 16 are normally placed in local secure units close to family where they have a relatively comfortable regime, they receive counselling and education, wear their own clothes and have access subject to co-operation and good behaviour to some home comforts like games consoles and music players, for example. Those aged 16 to 21 usually go to a juvenile prison where the regime is more formal and there is less scope for nurture. There is, however, still access to counselling, work and training opportunities and education. Transfers to adult facilities normally take place within days of the inmate turning 21. Depending upon the schedule of the particular facility, it isn’t impossible that the inmate could be transferred on the day of their actual birthday.

    Sentencing here also seems less punitive. A juvenile convicted of murder in the UK would automatically receive a life sentence, but life doesn’t actually mean life behind bars here. A life sentence in the UK consists of two elements, the ‘punishment’ part which requires the offender to spend a minimum period in custody before being eligible for parole, then the life license begins. This is basically parole for the remainder of the offenders’ life. If they break the terms of their license/parole it is an automatic recall to prison for a minimum of two years. For a juvenile, the punishment part of the life sentence would normally begin at 12 years minimum. Judges can then apply aggravating or mitigating factors to adjust this to a final tally.

    All of the above seems to generally satisfy the public desire for accountability and protection here. The system seems to work well enough and we just don’t have cases being discussed in social media or other outlets decrying the treatment of juveniles as being too harsh such as those that interest us on this blog.

    I understand from information received from another contributor to the blog, that the US has different laws in every state, and that this hampers any unified approach to juvenile justice, but Obama abolished life without parole for juveniles didn’t he? So why couldn’t any future president abolish the practice of incarcerating juveniles in adult prisons? That would go a long way to addressing the issues that surround juvenile justice today.

  2. 2 Frank Manning
    October 3, 2016 at 12:40 am

    Hey Willow, Just so you know, no, Obama did not abolish life without parole for juveniles. The US Supreme Court did that, ruling that such draconian sentencing violates the Constitution. Obama abolished solitary confinement for juveniles incarcerated in federal facilites. Unfortunately there are very few such juveniles. Here in Washington, state law prohibits putting juveniles in adult prisons or jails. We do have people in every state who are working tirelessly to abolish this barbarity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: