Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE FEDERAL APPROACH TO THE PROSECUTION OF JUVENILE CRIME?
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE FEDERAL APPROACH TO THE PROSECUTION OF JUVENILE CRIME?
Do you wish to request the book?
WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE FEDERAL APPROACH TO THE PROSECUTION OF JUVENILE CRIME?
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE FEDERAL APPROACH TO THE PROSECUTION OF JUVENILE CRIME?
2022
Overview
[...]whether small numbers can be celebrated depends on where the unnumbered offenders go and how they are treated there. [...]she notes that, unlike the federal adult system that has been sharply criticized for its disruptive impact on its state adult counterparts (I'll call this the federalism problem), the federal juvenile system has avoided this disruptive effect on the state juvenile systems.4 These distinctions are true and important. The primary recommendation of the report was for Congress to establish an official mechanism for referring cases against minors to their state juvenile courts, which was already occurring \"by arrangement\" in many districts.10 In making this recommendation, the report emphasized the special expertise of those distinct state juvenile court systems and the special parent-like role they were designed to fulfill.11 The report considered and rejected proposals to create a separate federal juvenile court system, emphasizing the excessive and unnecessary costs that would be associated with an attempt to duplicate the states' resources and expertise, and the states' special responsibility to assume a parental role over their young citizens.12 Shortly following the publication of this report, Congress enacted two laws that addressed the prosecution of minors who violated federal laws. Under the FJDA, the cases were (and are) charged by the same prosecutorial office before the same federal judges in the same federal courts as the adult cases are.18 Under these two federal laws together, federal prosecutors had authority to decide which cases involving minors got deferred to state courts, and whether the cases retained in federal court were tried as delinquency cases or adult criminal cases.19 In the years following the enactment of these laws, the number of minors tried as juvenile delinquents in federal court ranged from 600 to over 1,000 per year.20 At the time of this response, I have not found data that indicates how many additional minors were tried as adults during this period, nor how many minors, potentially tried in federal court, were deferred for state prosecution.
Publisher
Boston University School of Law
Subject
