| Juvenile violent crime surged in the late 1980s and the increase continued until the mid-1990s (Austin, Johnson, & Gregoriou, 2000; Bilchik, 1999; Brink, 2004). This period of increased juvenile violent crime gave rise to the idea that a new "superpredator" youth was evolving, which resulted in a new set of legal means by which juveniles could be transferred to adult criminal court to be tried as adults. In addition to the traditional mechanism of judicial waiver, many jurisdictions developed stricter transfer methods, including mandatory and presumptive waiver. This study examined archival data from adjacent, relatively similar states, to determine whether the new juvenile transfer methods (Oklahoma), have had the desired effect of reducing violent juvenile crime when compared to traditional methods alone (Missouri). The period examined was between 2002 and 2005, and the top ten most populated counties from each state were analyzed (n = 20). I used four regression analyses, one for each year under study, each with five covariates. The five covariates used were number of males, number of African Americans, number of Hispanics, number of high school graduates, and number of people under the U.S. poverty level in each county. The data revealed that the states did not differ in terms of juvenile violent crime over the course of the four years studied, with only one variable (the covariate of total African American population), accounting for unique variance in explaining differences in juvenile violent crime rates. This finding suggested that the juvenile violent crime rate was not affected by stricter juvenile waiver provisions. Further research should be conducted to assess this question more fully (e g, addressing the low power afforded by this study) and to explore better methods of addressing violence among juveniles by the legal system. |
