How Tough on Crime
Became Tough on Kids:

Prosecuting Teenage Drug Charges in Adult Courts

For more information, contact:
The Sentencing Project
1705 DeSales Street NW
8th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 628-0871
sentencingproject.org
twitter.com/sentencingproj
facebook.com/thesentencingproject

This report was written by Josh Rovner, State Advocacy Associate at
The Sentencing Project.
The Sentencing Project is a national non-profit organization engaged
in research and advocacy on criminal justice issues. Our work is
supported by many individual donors and contributions from the
following:
Atlantic Philanthropies
Morton K. and Jane Blaustein Foundation
craigslist Charitable Fund
Ford Foundation
Bernard F. and Alva B. Gimbel Foundation
Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund
General Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church
Mott Philanthropy
Open Society Foundations
Petschek Foundation
Public Welfare Foundation
Rail Down Charitable Trust
David Rockefeller Fund
Elizabeth B. and Arthur E. Roswell Foundation
San Francisco Foundation
Tikva Grassroots Empowerment Fund of Tides Foundation
Elsie P. van Buren Foundation
Wallace Global Fund
Copyright © 2016 by The Sentencing Project. Reproduction of this
document in full or in part, and in print or electronic format, only by
permission of The Sentencing Project.

2 The Sentencing Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction	3
Pathways to Adult Courts	

4

Transfer Pathways for Drug Charges	

5

States Underreport Most of Their Transfers	

9

Transfer Laws Do Not Reduce Offending or Recidivism 	

10

Reforms and Recommendations	

11

Prosecution on teenage drug charges in adult courts 1

2 The Sentencing Project

INTRODUCTION
Transfer laws in 46 states and the District of Columbia permit youth to be tried as
adults on drug charges.
Successful campaigns to raise the age of juvenile
court jurisdiction have rolled back some excesses of
the tough on crime era. After the implementation of
Louisiana’s SB 324 in 2017 and South Carolina’s SB
916 in 2019, just seven states will routinely charge 17year old offenders as adults, including the two states
that also charge 16-year olds as adults.1 Despite other
state laws that differentiate between adults and youth,
placing limits on teens’ rights to serve on juries, vote,
or marry without parental consent, the criminal justice
system in these jurisdictions erases the distinction
when they are arrested.
Though the vast majority of arrested juveniles are
processed in the juvenile justice system, transfer laws
are the side door to adult criminal courts, jails, and
prisons. These laws either require juveniles charged
with certain offenses to have their cases tried in adult
courts or provide discretion to juvenile court judges or
even prosecutors to pick and choose those juveniles
who will be tried in adult courts.
It is widely understood that serious offenses, such as
homicide, often are tried in adult criminal courts. In fact,
for as long as there have been juvenile courts,
mechanisms have existed to allow the transfer of some
youth into the adult system.2 During the early 1990s,
under a set of faulty assumptions about a coming
generation of “super-predators,” 40 states passed
legislation to send even more juveniles into the adult
courts for a growing array of offenses and with fewer
procedural protections.3 The super-predators, wrote
John J. DiIulio in 1995, “will do what comes ‘naturally’:
murder, rape, rob, assault, burglarize, deal deadly drugs,
and get high.”4

but fully 46 states and the District of Columbia permit
juveniles to be tried as adults on drug charges. Only
Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, and New Mexico
do not. States have taken steps to close this pathway,
including a successful voter initiative in California,
Proposition 57. Nationwide, there were approximately
461 judicial waivers (those taking place after a hearing
in juvenile court) in 2013 on drug charges. The totals
stemming from other categories of transfer are not
available.
From 1989 to 1992, drug offense cases were more likely
to be judicially waived to adult courts than any other
offense category.5 Given the recent wave of concern
over opiate deaths, it is reasonable to fear a return to
this era, even as public opinion now opposes harsh
punishments for drug offenses.6
The ability of states to send teenagers into the adult
system on nonviolent offenses, a relic of the war on
drugs, threatens the futures of those teenagers who
are arrested on drug charges, regardless of whether or
not they are convicted (much less incarcerated) on
those charges. Transfer laws have been shown to
increase recidivism, particularly violent recidivism,
among those convicted in adult courts. Research shows
waiver laws are disproportionately used on youth of
color. Moreover, an adult arrest record can carry collateral
consequences that a juvenile record might not. Since
very few criminal charges ever enter the trial phase, the
mere threat of adult prison time contributes to some
teenagers’ guilty pleas. This policy report reviews the
methods by which juveniles can be tried as adults for
drug offenses and the consequences of the unchecked
power of some local prosecutors.

This tough-on-crime era left in its wake state laws that
still permit or even require drug charges to be contested
in adult courts. Scant data exist to track its frequency,
Prosecution on teenage drug charges in adult courts 3

PATHWAYS TO ADULT COURTS
All states set an age boundary, generally at 18 years of
age, dividing juveniles from adults. The federal
government, 41 states and the District of Columbia set
the default maximum age for juvenile court jurisdiction
at 17 years. In seven states (Georgia, Louisiana,
Michigan, Missouri, South Carolina, Texas and
Wisconsin), the maximum age is 16 years. In two states
(New York and North Carolina), the maximum age is 15
years.7 In every state, additional juveniles can be
transferred into the adult criminal justice system via
one of three broad paths.

JUDICIAL DISCRETION
Judicial or discretionary waivers mean that the decision
to transfer an individual case into adult court is in the
hands of the juvenile court judge, following a request
from a prosecutor and a transfer hearing. There are
circumstances in which the waiver is a presumptive
waiver, in which the prosecutor requests the transfer
and the burden is on the young person to argue against
it.8 The transfer hearing separates discretionary waivers
from prosecutorial and automatic transfers. Forty-four
states and the District of Columbia allow for judicial
waivers.9

PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION
Juvenile and criminal courts can share jurisdiction for
some criminal charges, thus allowing prosecutors to
determine whether charges should be filed in juvenile
court or criminal court, though age requirements differ
depending on the charge.10 Used in 14 states and the
District of Columbia,11 prosecutorial discretion is the
label for such a transfer; it is also termed “direct file,”
because prosecutors file the charges directly in adult
courts without the procedural difficulties of obtaining
a judicial waiver. Before 1970, only Florida and Georgia
allowed for prosecutorial discretion.12
4 The Sentencing Project

STATUTORY EXCLUSION
Under statutory exclusion laws, juveniles arrested on
a set of specified offenses are automatically treated as
though they were adults. Statutory exclusion laws, while
neutral in appearance, increase the power of prosecutors.
“The selection of the charge becomes the selection of
the court,” notes Franklin Zimring.13 A variation of the
statutory exclusion is a mandatory or automatic waiver,
in which certain cases begin in juvenile court only to
verify that the case meets the requirements for transfer
to adult court. Legislatures in 29 states have given
criminal courts exclusive jurisdiction over at least one
class of juvenile offenses.14 Before 1970, only eight
states had automatic transfers, typically for murder.15
In 33 states and the District of Columbia, once a juvenile
has been convicted of an offense as an adult, he or she
will henceforth always be treated as an adult.16 These
laws are called once an adult, always an adult, despite
the fact that the defendant is still under 18. For example,
a Washington juvenile could be convicted of a charge
of burglary (a so-called adult offense), sentenced to
probation, and then would be charged as an adult on
any criminal offense, including simple possession of
LSD.17

TRANSFER PATHWAYS FOR DRUG
CHARGES
The existence of a vast array of transfer mechanisms
masks the extent to which juveniles can be charged as
adults for drug charges. Some states specify drug
charges in their criminal code; far more common is
wide-ranging discretion over “any criminal offense” or
“any felony,” meaning even drug charges can fall under
the umbrella of transfer laws.

charges are troubling because drug arrests are among
the most common reasons that teenagers are arrested.18
These four states sharply limit the ability of courts and
prosecutors to send drug charges to adult court, which
is an important step in limiting the total number of
juveniles in adult courts.

STATES WITH NO MECHANISM TO CHARGE
JUVENILES AS ADULTS FOR DRUG OFFENSES

JUDICIAL DISCRETION: ALLOWS JUVENILES TO
BE TRANSFERRED ON DRUG OFFENSES AFTER
A HEARING

Only four states – Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts,
and New Mexico – have no mechanism under which
juveniles can be charged as adults for drug offenses.
Wide-ranging discretion and laws that specify drug

The 41 jurisdictions shown in Figure 1 demonstrate the
sweeping powers of transfer provisions. In 30 of these
states, juvenile courts have the power to transfer
juveniles for nearly any offense. Delaware has no lower

Figure 1. State use of judicial discretion for drug charges

Prosecution on teenage drug charges in adult courts 5

Figure 2. State use of direct file for drug charges

bound whatsoever for juvenile court jurisdiction,
meaning a child of any age at all – theoretically, even
a toddler – could be brought to juvenile court and then
transferred to adult court if the child is “not amenable
to the rehabilitative processes.”19 South Carolina makes
any misdemeanor eligible for transfer; drug offenses
taking place in school zones can be transferred starting
at age 14.
State laws occasionally specify some limits on this
wide-ranging power. In Arkansas, juveniles can be
transferred, starting at age 14, for any felony committed
by a so-called habitual offender (defined as a person
having committed three felonies over two years);
starting at age 16, any juvenile can be transferred
regardless of criminal history.
A select number of states specify that drug charges
are eligible for transfer to adult court. For example,
Idaho (like Delaware, a state with no lower bound of
juvenile court jurisdiction) specifies courts have
discretion to transfer juveniles for manufacture, delivery
or possession with intent to deliver in a school zone.
Indiana grants this discretion, for 16- and 17-year olds,
for felony violations of the controlled substances law.
6 The Sentencing Project

In Missouri, anyone over 12 can be tried as an adult
(following a transfer hearing) for distribution. In New
Jersey, the crimes of manufacturing or distributing
controlled substances (or any attempt to) can be waived
into adult court for people 16-years old and over. In
Kentucky, class D felonies, which include some drug
offenses, can be transferred starting at age 16. In
Oregon, many drug crimes are class A or B felonies, and
eligible for transfer at age 15.

DIRECT FILE: ALLOWS PROSECUTORS TO
CHARGE JUVENILES AS ADULTS ON DRUG
OFFENSES
Eleven states, shown in Figure 2, place the power to
transfer juveniles for drug offenses entirely in the hands
of prosecutors. Three of these states – Arkansas,
Florida, and Nebraska – allow prosecutors to charge
juveniles as adults for any offense or any felony.
In the other eight states, drug charges are identified in
state statutes as a transferable offense, solely at the
discretion of the prosecutor. In Arizona, possession of
drugs if the youth had two prior adjudications can be

Figure 3. State use of automatic transfer for drug charges

transferred. In California, 14-year olds can be charged
as adults for manufacturing, compounding, or selling
at least half an ounce of any of various controlled
substances under specified aggravating circumstances;
at age 16, those aggravating circumstances are not
required. Louisiana law gives prosecutors discretion
on the second felony-level violation of the controlled
substances law. In Michigan, prosecutors can charge
14-, 15- and 16-year olds as adults for the unlawful
manufacture, creation or delivery of a minimum quantity
of certain controlled substances, or possession with
intent to manufacture, create, or deliver the same; any
attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit any of
these offenses. In Montana, prosecutors can charge
16-year olds as adults for criminal distribution,
production, manufacture, or possession of dangerous
drugs (and the attempt to do so), a charge that becomes
automatically adult for 17-year olds. Oklahoma
prosecutors can charge 16- and 17- year olds as adults
for trafficking in or manufacturing illegal drugs. In
Virginia, prosecutors can charge anyone 14 and over
with manufacture, sale, distribution and possession
with intent to do so for a set of illicit substances, as
long as the youth had two prior delinquent adjudications

for that same offense. Wyoming has a similar law, in
that prosecutors can charge anyone 14 or over as an
adult for any felony as long as the youth had two prior
felony-level adjudications.

NO DISCRETION: STATES THAT
AUTOMATICALLY CHARGE JUVENILES AS
ADULTS ON CERTAIN OR ALL DRUG OFFENSES
Twenty-one states, shown in Figure 3, automatically
charge some juveniles as adults for a set of drug-related
offenses. These states fit into three broad categories;
South Carolina falls into all three.
Nine states automatically charge youth as adults for
drug-related offenses under certain conditions:
Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa,
Minnesota, Nevada, South Carolina
In Arizona, anyone 15 and over with at least two previous,
separate felony adjudications must be tried as an adult
for any subsequent felony. South Carolina uses this
standard for those 14 and over. In Delaware, trafficking
or attempting to traffic certain illegal drugs is an adult
Prosecution on teenage drug charges in adult courts 7

offense if the youth (age 14 and over) has been previously
adjudicated delinquent on a felony; if the juvenile (age
15 and over) possessed a gun, any felony is an adult
charge. In Florida and Iowa, drug trafficking while in
possession of a firearm is an adult offense for 16- and
17-year olds. In Idaho, manufacture, delivery, or
possession with intent to deliver in a school zone is an
adult charge for anyone 14 and older. In Illinois, some
drug violations near school zones or public housing are
presumptively waived for anyone 15 and over. In
Minnesota and Nevada, any felony committed with
possession of a firearm is an adult offense for 16- and
17-year olds.
Five states automatically charge youth as adults for
certain drug-related offenses:
Alabama, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina, South
Dakota
In Alabama, drug trafficking is an adult offense for 16and 17-year olds. In Montana, criminal distribution,
production, manufacture or possession of dangerous
drugs, is an adult charge for 17-year olds. In North
Dakota, anyone over 14 is automatically charged as an
adult for manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent
to manufacture or deliver a controlled substance (with
exceptions for small amounts of marijuana). In South
Carolina, the distribution of various controlled
substances, along with hiring a person under 17 for
transportation of drugs, is an automatic adult charge
for a 16-year old.20 In South Dakota, the distribution of
one pound or more of marijuana to a minor is an adult
offense.21
Nine states automatically charge youth as adults,
unconditionally, for all offenses:
Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, New York, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin
There are nine states that unconditionally charge 17year olds as adults for all offenses: Georgia, Louisiana,
Michigan, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin.22 New York and North
Carolina are the two states that also charge 16-year
olds as adults for all offenses. In regard to drug charges,
these laws mean that everything from manufacturing
and selling large amounts of methamphetamines to
possession of a small amount of LSD is an adult charge.
8 The Sentencing Project

AUTOMATICALLY CHARGE JUVENILES AS
ADULTS ON DRUG OFFENSES IF PREVIOUSLY
CONVICTED AS ADULT
A majority of states have a “once an adult, always an
adult” laws. Such laws require that a juvenile convicted
previously as though he or she were an adult will
henceforth be tried as an adult, regardless of charge.
For example, in Washington state, a juvenile could be
convicted of a charge of burglary, sentenced to probation,
and then would be charged as an adult on simple
possession of marijuana.23
States that use “once-an-adult, always-an-adult” laws
are Alabama, Arizona, California, Delaware, Dist. of
Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire,
North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

STATES UNDERREPORT MOST OF
THEIR TRANSFERS
The extent of this problem is masked by the fact that
22 states do not report on any of their transfers. For
example, among the 28 states plus the District of
Columbia that collect and report data on transfers, only
five disaggregate judicial waivers from prosecutors’
direct filings. Eleven states allow prosecutors discretion
to charge juveniles on drug offenses, and six of them
do not report data on any of their transfers. The
knowledge gap is vast.
Donna Bishop estimated that 210,000 to 260,000
juveniles were annually charged as adults in 1996, 85
percent of them via prosecutorial discretion, statutory
exclusions and jurisdictional boundaries.24 Butts and
Mitchell calculated that 200,000 juveniles were tried in
2000 as adults due to court age boundaries and an
additional 55,000 due to statutory exclusions and
prosecutorial discretion.25 As of 2010, OJJDP estimated
137,000 arrested youth were referred annually to adult
courts in the states that exclude 16- or 17-year olds
from their juvenile courts.26 This decline over time is
more due to falling juvenile arrest rates27 than less
frequent use of waivers. Regardless of the exact number,
these experts’ calculations show a vast number of
transfers hidden from the general public, far higher than
the 4,000 judicial waivers annually estimated by OJJDP.28
This discrepancy points to the need for jurisdictions to
report, with specificity, the number of juveniles tried as
adults and the charges thereunder.

•	

In Arizona, a state government report for FY2015
found 224 youth directly filed and judicially waived
into the adult system; 31 of these youth were
transferred on drug charges, and only three of the
31 were waived following a waiver hearing.29

•	

In California, a state government report for 2015
found 492 cases directly filed into adult court, two
of them on drug charges; 76 juveniles were
transferred following a fitness hearing, (California’s
term for a waiver hearing).30

•	

In Florida, 1607 juveniles were transferred into adult
court in FY15, 55 of them on felony drug charges.31

•	

In Michigan, which automatically charges all 17-year
olds as though they were adults, there were 12
juveniles transferred by direct file in 2015 and 37
by judicial waiver.32 Charges are not specified.

Nationwide, there were approximately 461 judicial
waivers in 2013 on drug charges.33 The totals stemming
from other categories of transfer are not available.

Policymakers and the public are left with a fragmented
and scattered list to get a sense of prosecutorial
discretion. Only four states that utilize prosecutor
discretion (direct file) for drug charges provide any data
on its use. The little data available demonstrate that
drug transfers are far more likely to occur by automatic
waivers than following a hearing in juvenile court.

Prosecution on teenage drug charges in adult courts 9

TRANSFER LAWS DO NOT REDUCE
OFFENDING OR RECIDIVISM
Statutory changes during the early 1990s preceded a
drop in juvenile offending, and many politicians credited
the newly harsh punishments;34 researchers cast doubt
on any such relationship. Zimring and Rushin, looking
only at violent offending, compared homicide trends
from the newly transferable teenagers with those of
older adolescents (aged 18 to 24), finding that the
declines in homicide rates dropped in roughly equal
measures for both age groups. “These laws did little to
uniquely deter juvenile offenders,” they found. 35
State borders provide another opportunity for
comparison. A study of young offenders in the New
York City metro area found “adolescents processed in
the New York adult courts [where 16- and 17-year olds
are routinely charged as adults] were more likely to be
re-arrested, they were re-arrested more often and more
quickly and for more serious offenses, and they were
re-incarcerated at higher rates than those in the New
Jersey juvenile courts [where they are not].”36 Any
deterrent effect of transfer laws is unlikely. To take one
example, the John Howard Association of Illinois
interviewed six young people who were sentenced as
adults while they were still teenagers, none of whom
were aware that they could be prosecuted as adults.37
Moreover, other studies, including one from the CDC,38
have found that harsher penalties increase reoffending
rates, partially because the adult system is a “school
for crime.” 39 Thus, two of the main arguments in favor
of transfer – that they might deter offending and reduce
reoffending – have not been proven true. The CDC has
found other harms to juveniles who have been
transferred, such as far higher rates of suicide and
violent victimization while in prison, either by prison
guards or by other inmates.40

10 The Sentencing Project

In short, transfer into the adult system has proved
ineffective at reducing offending, ineffective at reducing
reoffending, and puts young people at risk of abuse or
worse while incarcerated.

REFORMS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Some states have taken steps to limit transfer, though
there is far more work ahead. In Kansas, which saw 30
transfers in FY2015,41 SB 367 (2015) eliminated waivers
on drug charges though it still allows for once an adult,
always an adult prosecutions. In Vermont, H95 (2016)
eliminated direct file for all but the most serious
offenses. New Jersey’s S2003 (2014) elimated transfer
for 14- and 15- year olds. Illinois passed PA 94-0574 in
2005, reversing a 1995 law that required 15- and 16-year
olds be tried as adults for drug offenses within 1,000
feet of a school or public housing.42 (At the time, Illinois
required that all 17-year olds be treated as though they
were adults.) In Chicago’s Cook County alone, automatic
transfers fell from 361 to 127 after passage with no
increase in juvenile court petitions, according to a
comprehensive review of the law by the Juvenile Justice
Initiative. 43
Presently, many states are addressing transfer. Bills to
raise the age for all juveniles are perennially on legislative
agendas in the seven states that have yet to move their
age boundary to include most 16- and 17-year olds in
their juvenile systems.44 California voters supported
Proposition 57 in the November 2016 elections, sharply
limiting direct file and expands the requirements for
transfer under the state’s fitness hearings. In Florida,
direct file reform (SB 314) attained passage in three
Senate committees in 2016, and advocates there are
working to pass it in 2017.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The transfer of juveniles into adult court, according to
Steven Zane and colleagues, is a policy without a
rationale.45 It is not clear if legislators believe certain
offenses or certain juveniles are beyond rehabilitation,
since the expansions of transfer in the 1990s were so
all-encompassing as to allow even drug offenders into
the adult system.

States should raise their ages of juvenile court
jurisdiction to age 18, and should undertake a study
– as Connecticut is already doing – to explore the
feasibility and impact of raising juvenile court jurisdiction
through late adolescence. Brain science research, which
has influenced U.S. Supreme Court decisions on serious
juvenile offending, has made clear that adolescent
development continues through one’s mid-20s. Juvenile
courts and facilities are capable of finding ways to hold
young offenders accountable without the severe
consequences of adult charges on one’s record.
Moreover, states should eliminate direct file and
automatic waivers into adult courts. The decision is far
too consequential to leave in the hands of prosecutors
without the due process afforded in a transfer hearing.
The evidence is strong that requiring a transfer hearing
sharply limits the frequency with which prosecutors
will seek adult charges against teenagers.
States can go further by eliminating low-level charges,
like drug offenses, from adult courts altogether. From
1989 to 1992, drug offense cases were more likely to
be judicially waived to criminal court than any other
offense category.46 Fears of a wave of drug use could
make that happen again. And since we know transfer
doesn’t work, we need to prevent that from happening.
Lastly, states and localities ought to collect and report
data on all juvenile transfers. The relatively small number
of judicial waivers – though still in the hundreds annually
-- leaves a mistaken impression of the scope of transfer.
The vast majority of transfers, either through minimum
age requirements, automatic transfers, and direct filings,
are hidden from view.
The examples of Illinois and Kansas, each of which
passed laws to keep juveniles charged with drug
offenses from adult courts, show that states can make
needed reforms without harming public safety. It is time
for the rest of the nation to follow their lead.
Prosecution on teenage drug charges in adult courts 11

ENDNOTES
25	 Butts, J. A., & Mitchell, O. (2000). Brick by brick: Dismantling
1	 OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book. Online. Available: http://
the border between juvenile and adult justice. In C.M. Friel
www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/qa04115.
(Ed.), Criminal justice 2000: Boundary changes in criminal
asp?qaDate=2014. Released on October 1, 2015.
justice (Vol. 2, pp. 167-213). Washington, D.C: National
Institute of Justice, Cited in Howell, J. C., Feld, B. C., Mears,
2	 Shook, J. Contesting Childhood in the US Justice System:
D. P., Petechuk, D., Farrington, D. P. and Loeber, R. (2013)
The transfer of juveniles to adult criminal court. Childhood
Young Offenders and an Effective Response in the Juvenile
November 2005. 12: 461-478 at 464.
and Adult Justice Systems: What Happens, What Should
3	 Zimring, F. The Power Politics of Juvenile Court Transfer:
Happen, and What We Need to Know. Washington, D.C.:
A Mildly Revisionist History of the 1990s, 71 La. L. Rev. 1
U.S. National Institute of Justice (NCJ 242935) at 8.
(2010) at 8.
26	 Sickmund, M. and Puzzanchera, C. Juvenile Offenders and
4	 Dilulio Jr., John J. The Coming of the Super-Predators.
Victims: 2014 National Report. Pittsburgh: National Center
Weekly Standard, November 27, 1995, pages 23-28.
for Juvenile Justice. p. 103-104.
Available: http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-coming-of27	 OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book. Online. Available: http://
the-super-predators/article/8160.
w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / c r i m e / J A R _ D i s p l a y.
5	 Delinquency Cases Waived to Criminal Court, 2010, p. 2.
asp?ID=qa05200. December 13, 2015.
6	 Pew Research Center (2014, April 2). America’s New Drug 28	 Hockenberry, Sarah, and Puzzanchera, Charles. 2015.
Policy Landscape: Two-Thirds Favor Treatment, Not Jail,
Juvenile Court Statistics 2013. Pittsburgh, PA: National
for Use of Heroin, Cocaine. Online: http://www.people-press.
Center for Juvenile Justice.
org/2014/04/02/americas-new-drug-policy-landscape/.
29	 Administrative Office of the Courts, Juvenile Justice
7	 OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book. Louisiana will continue to
Services Division (2010). Juveniles Processed in the Arizona
charge 17-year-olds as adult through July 2017. South
Court System FY2009. Available: https://www.azcourts.
Carolina will continue to charge 17-year-olds as adults until
gov/jjsd/Publications-Reports.
2019.
30	 Harris, K. Attorney General of California (2015). Juvenile
8	 Griffin, P., Addie, S., Adams, B., and Firestine, K. Trying
Justice in California. Available: http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/
Juveniles as Adults: An Analysis of State Transfer Laws
files/agweb/pdfs/cjsc/publications/misc/jj15/jj15.pdf?
and Reporting. Washington, DC: Dept. of Justice, Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Sept. 2011. 31	 Florida Department of Juvenile Justice. Delinquency Profile.
Available: http://www.djj.state.fl.us/research/delinquencyp. 2.
data/delinquency-profile/delinquency-profile-dashboard.
9	 OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book.
32	 Michigan State Court Administrator’s Office. Michigan
10	 Griffin, P. (2011). p. 2.
Supreme Court Annual Report Circuit Court Statistical
Supplement 2015. Available: http://courts.mi.gov/
11	 OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book.
education/stats/Caseload/Documents/Caseload/2015/
12	 Griffin, P. (2011). p. 9.
Statewide.pdf.
13	 Franklin E. Zimring, The Power Politics of Juvenile Court 33	 Sickmund, M., Sladky, A., and Kang, W. (2015). “Easy Access
Transfer: A Mildly Revisionist History of the 1990s, 71 La.
to Juvenile Court Statistics: 1985-2013.” Online. Available:
L. Rev. 1 (2010) at. 9.
http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezajcs/. Data source:
National Center for Juvenile Justice. (2015). National
14	 OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book.
Juvenile Court Data Archive: Juvenile court case records
15	 Griffin, P. (2011). p. 9.
1985-2013 [machine-readable data files]. Pittsburgh, PA:
NCJJ [producer].
16	 OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book.
17	 Jurisdictional boundaries » Washington. Retrieved from 34	 Zimring, F. and Rushin, S. Did Changes in Juvenile Sanctions
Reduce Juvenile Crime Rates? A Natural Experiment
http://www.jjgps.org/jurisdictional-boundaries/
(October 29, 2013). Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law,
washington#transfer-provisions.
Vol. 11, 2013; Illinois Public Law Research Paper No. 14-22,
18	 Puzzanchera, C. and Kang, W. (2014). “Easy Access to FBI
p. 58.
Arrest Statistics 1994-2012” Online. Available: http://www.
35	 Zimring, F. and Rushin, S. (2013).
ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezaucr/.
36	 MacArthur Foundation Network on Adolescent Development
19	 10 Del. C. § 1010(a)(2).
and Juvenile Justice. Issue Brief 5: Then Changing Borders
20	 Section 16-1-10 http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/
or Juvenile Justice: Transfer of Adolescents to the Adult
t16c001.php.
Criminal Courts. Available: http://www.adjj.org/
downloads/3582issue_brief_5.pdf.
21	 S 22-42-7 http://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/Codified_Laws/
DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=22-42-7.
37	 John Howard Association of Illinois (Sept. 2014). In Their
Own Words: Young People’s Experiences in the Criminal
22	 Louisiana and South Carolina have enacted legislation to
Justice System and Their Perceptions of Its Legitimacy, p.
include 17-year olds in their juvenile systems in future years.
10.
23	 Jurisdictional boundaries » Washington. Retrieved from
38	
McGowan A, Hahn R, Liberman A, et al. Effects on violence
http://www.jjgps.org/jurisdictional-boundaries/
of laws and policies facilitating the transfer of juveniles
washington#transfer-provisions.
from the juvenile justice system to the adult justice system:
24	 Bishop, D. M. (2000). Juvenile Offenders in the Adult Criminal
a systematic review. Am J Prev Med 2007;32(4S):S7–S28
Justice System. Crime and Justice, Vol. 27, 81-167, p. 97.
at S17.
12 The Sentencing Project

39	 Howell, J. C., Feld, B. C., Mears, D. P., Petechuk, D., Farrington,
D. P. and Loeber, R. (2013) Young Offenders and an Effective
Response in the Juvenile and Adult Justice Systems: What
Happens, What Should Happen, and What We Need to
Know. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Institute of Justice
(NCJ 242935), p. 4, 10-11.
40	 McGowan, et al. (2007).
41	 Summary of Juvenile Offender Caseloads, year ending July
30, 2015. Available: http://web.kscourts.org/
stats/15/2015%20JuvenCarOffender.pdf
42	 E. Kooy (June 2008). Changing Course: A Review of the
First Two Years of Drug Transfer Reform in Illinois. Juvenile
Justice Initiative. Available: http://jjustice.org/wordpress/
wp-content/uploads/JJI-REPORT.pdf.
43	 E. Kooy (June 2008).
44	 Louisiana and South Carolina have enacted legislation to
include 17-year olds in their juvenile systems in future years.
45	 Zane, S., Welsh, B., and Meats, D. (2016). Juvenile Transfer
and the Specific Deterrence Hypothesis, Criminology and
Public Policy, Vol. 15, Issue 3.
46	 Delinquency Cases Waived to Criminal Court, 2010, p. 2.

Prosecution on teenage drug charges in adult courts 13

Prosecution on Teenage Drug Charges in
Adult Courts
Josh Rovner
December 2016

Related publications by The Sentencing Project:
•	
•	
•	

1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tel: 202.628.0871
Fax: 202.628.1091
sentencingproject.org

Racial Disparities in Youth Commitments and Arrests (2016)
Declines in Youth Commitments and Facilities in the 21st Century
(2015)
Disproportionate Minority Contact in the Juvenile Justice System
(2014)

The Sentencing Project works for a fair and effective U.S. justice system by
promoting reforms in sentencing policy, addressing unjust racial disparities and
practices, and advocating for alternatives to incarceration.