NCJ Number
239717
Date Published
August 2012
Length
7 pages
Annotation
This report presents findings from a county-by-county analysis of prosecutorial direct-file practices in California for 2003 through 2010, in order to determine whether Proposition 21 (2000), which is intended to reduce the number of juveniles sentenced to secure facilities, has had the unintended consequence of causing county prosecutors to file more juvenile cases in adult court as a means of obtaining their sentencing to a secure facility.
Abstract
The study found that 65 percent of adult criminal court transfers of juveniles during the study period did not result in commitment to the Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF) or to adult prison terms. Thus, prosecutorial direct file of juveniles for processing in adult court has not proven to be an effective means of obtaining State prison sentences for youthful offenders compared to previously existing mechanisms, such as judicial transfer after juvenile court fitness hearings. Although the study was unable to determine the exact number of direct-file cases that resulted in transfer from DJF to State prison at age 18, the number was apparently small. In addition, the frequent use of direct file has had no apparent effect on crime compared to its infrequent use or no use. The overall statewide increase in direct-file rates during 2003-2010 is attributed to a group of counties whose prosecutors use direct file significantly more often than the State average. This increase in direct-file rates is not correlated with county juvenile court commitments to DJF. Further, county commitments to DJF varied significantly and declined greatly during the period. The data indicate that 10 counties continue to rely on the State system through both high rates of juvenile court DJF commitments and prosecutorial direct filing of juveniles to adult court. 1 figure and 11 references