ABSTRACT
Such changes were brought about in part by Kent v. United States , a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court began to require due process in juvenile waivers and lawmakers tried to construct simple and expedient alternatives to juvenile waiver hearings. Mechanisms included automatic exclusion based on specific age or offense criteria, authorization of prosecutors to direct-file juvenile cases in criminal court, or empowering judges to sentence directly to adult correctional institutions or blend dispositions by imposing a juvenile institutional commitment followed by commitment to adult criminal facilities (Ullman, 2000 ). These changes were fueled in part by alarm over an increase in juvenile violence, an expanding caseload of juvenile drug offenders, and judicial assessments that many adjudicated delinquents were no longer amenable to treatment ( Snyder, Sickmund, & Poe-Yamagata, 2000 ). In addition, offense exclusion provided a politically attractive strategy for “get tough” public officials who proposed to “crack down” on increased youth crime. Figure 5.10 shows juveniles waived to criminal court from 1993 through 2007, the most
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Thousands
recent available picture. Offenses for which waivers were sought included offenses against the person and property, drug law violations, and public order. Waivers have generally decreased since 1994, when they peaked.
