| The central questions this research explored are: (1) Under NJSA 2A;4A-20 (1983), which allows the court to consider “the probability that he can be rehabilitated as a juvenile prior to reaching the age of 19, when deciding a waiver motion, how is that probability defined in the minds of the courtroom players who are responsible for a this determination?” (2) What variables (developmental, legal, extralegal) significantly distinguish those juveniles who are transferred to Adult Court form those youth retained in the Juvenile Justice system?; The population for this study included 301 complaints for juvenile crimes for which an urban county Juvenile Prosecutor's Office sought a waiver motion between the years 1997–2001. Primary data were gathered from juvenile files and records located in three departments: Prosecutor's Office, Court Office, and Probation Department. Independent variables were collected in three areas: Rehabilitation/Developmental Needs, Legal Characteristics of the Offense and Offender, and Extralegal Factors of the case. The 301 offenses were committed by 237 individuals. Thus, group comparisons were made between Repeater and Non Repeater offenders.; Logistic Regression Models were estimated to determine which factors were significant predictors of the binary dependent variable Transfer versus Not Transfer to Adult Court. Youthful offenders facing their first possible waiver consideration to adult court (Non Repeaters), having a Learning Disorder met a four times greater risk of transfer than youth without such a disorder. Older offenders (17–171/2) faced a 5 times greater risk relative to 14–16 year olds. However, coming from a Currently Stable Family and having less than two Prior Adjudications were advantages, significantly reducing the odds of transfer.; Repeaters were distinguishable by their Use/Serious Drug Use which increased the probability of transfer 5 times relative to Non Users. Interestingly, use of a Public Defender lowered the risk of transfer relative to juveniles who used Private Counsel.; These unexpected findings pose serious policy questions regarding the treatment of juvenile offenders with mental health issues and learning disorders. Forty-three percent of the cases involved youth who had at least one rehabilitation need as measured by the DSM IV categories. Yet none of these mental health conditions was significantly related to the transfer decision. Regarding Learning Disabilities, the apparent message from the court is not only that the juvenile justice system cannot meet this need, but that the youngster is receiving greater punishment because of it. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)... |
