U.S. Department of Justice, Office Of Justice Programs, Innovation - Partnerships - Safer Neighborhoods
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Working for Youth Justice and Safety
OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book logo jump over products navigation bar
OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book logoAbout SSBFrequently Asked QuestionsPublicationsData Analysis ToolsNational Data SetsOther ResourcesAsk a Question
Juvenile Population Characteristics
Juveniles as Victims
Juveniles as Offenders
Juvenile Justice System Structure & Process
Overview
Related FAQs
Related Publications
Related Links
Case Flow Diagram
Law Enforcement & Juvenile Crime
Juveniles in Court
Juveniles on Probation
Juveniles in Corrections
Juvenile Reentry & Aftercare
Statistical Briefing Book Home

OJJDP logo

Printer-priendlyPrinter-friendly
Juveniled Justice System Structure & Process
Juveniles Tried as Adults
Q: Are transfer (waiver) laws the only laws that enable states to impose adult sanctions on juvenile offenders?
A: Most states have multiple ways to impose adult sanctions on offenders of juvenile age.

Provisions for imposing adult sanctions, 2011

  Once an
adult/
 
State
          Judicial waiver          
Concurrent
jurisdiction
Statutory
exclusion
Reverse
waiver
always
an adult
 Blended sentencing 
Discretionary Presumptive Mandatory Juvenile Criminal

Number of states 45 15 15 15 29 24 34 14 17
Alabama X X X
Alaska X X X X

Arizona X X X X X
Arkansas X X X X X
California X X X X X X X

Colorado X X X X X X
Connecticut X X X
Delaware X X X X X

Dist of Columbia X X X X
Florida X X X X X
Georgia X X X X X

Hawaii X X
Idaho X X X X
Illinois X X X X X X X

Indiana X X X X
Iowa X X X X X
Kansas X X X X

Kentucky X X X X
Louisiana X X X X
Maine X X X

Maryland X X X X
Massachusetts X X X
Michigan X X X X X

Minnesota X X X X X
Mississippi X X X X
Missouri X X X

Montana X X X X
Nebraska X X X
Nevada X X X X X

New Hampshire X X X
New Jersey X X X
New Mexico X X X

New York X X
North Carolina X X X
North Dakota X X X X

Ohio X X X X
Oklahoma X X X X X X
Oregon X X X X

Pennsylvania X X X X X
Rhode Island X X X X X
South Carolina X X X

South Dakota X X X X
Tennessee X X X
Texas X X X

Utah X X X X
Vermont X X X X
Virginia X X X X X X

Washington X X X
West Virginia X X X
Wisconsin X X X X X
Wyoming X X X

Note: Table information is as of the end of the 2011 legislative session.

  • All States have provisions for trying certain juveniles as adults in criminal court. This is known as transfer to criminal court. There are three basic transfer mechanisms: judicial waiver, statutory exclusion, and concurrent jurisdiction.
  • In states with a combination of provisions for transferring juveniles to criminal court, the exclusion, mandatory waiver, or concurrent jurisdiction provisions generally target the oldest juveniles and/or those charged with the most serious offenses, whereas younger juveniles and/or those charged with relatively less serious offenses may be eligible for discretionary waiver.
  • Under judicial waiver provisions the juvenile court judge has the authority to waive juvenile court jurisdiction and transfer the case to criminal court.
  • With concurrent jurisdiction, original jurisdiction for certain cases is shared by both criminal and juvenile courts, and the prosecutor has discretion to file such cases in either court. This type of transfer is also known as prosecutorial waiver, prosecutor discretion, or direct file.
  • Under statutory (or legislative) exclusion provisions, State statutes exclude certain serious, violent, or repeat juvenile offenders from juvenile court jurisdiction. In most States, statutory exclusion provisions are limited by age, offense, and/or prior court history criteria.
  • Blended sentencing laws address the correctional system (juvenile or adult) in which certain offenders of juvenile age will be sanctioned. Such statutes can be placed into two general categories: juvenile court blended sentencing and criminal court blended sentencing.
  • With juvenile court blended sentencing, the juvenile court has the authority to impose adult criminal sanctions on certain juvenile offenders. The majority of such laws authorize the juvenile court to combine a juvenile disposition with a criminal sentence that is suspended. If the youth successfully completes the juvenile disposition, the criminal sanction is not imposed. If, however, the youth does not cooperate or fails in the juvenile sanctioning system, the adult criminal sanction is imposed.
  • Criminal blended sentencing provisions allow criminal courts to sentence certain transferred juveniles to sanctions otherwise available only to offenders handled in juvenile court. As with juvenile blended sentencing, the juvenile disposition may be conditional -- the suspended criminal sentence is intended to ensure good behavior. Criminal court blended sentencing gives juveniles prosecuted in criminal court one last chance at a juvenile disposition, thus mitigating the effects of transfer laws (at least in individual cases).

Internet citation: OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book. Online. Available: http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/qa04115.asp?qaDate=2011. Released on December 17, 2012.

 

USA.gov | Privacy | Policies & Disclaimers | FOIA | Site Map | Ask a Question | OJJDP Home
A component of the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice