Prosecutor's Guide to the Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines

• NCJ Number: 216419
• Author(s): C. Kevin Morrison J.D.; Delores Heredia Ward J.D.; Stephanie LoConto J.D.
• Date Published: May 2006
• Length: 35 pages
• Grant Number(s): 2005-MU-FX-0012
• Sponsoring Agency: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)
• Corporate Author: American Prosecutors Research Institute
• Sale Source: American Prosecutors Research Institute
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: From the American Prosecutors Research Institute Special Topics Series

Annotation

This monograph describes the similarities and differences between the Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Juvenile Delinquency Cases issued in 2005 by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) and the National District Attorneys Association’s (NDAA’s) juvenile policy positions stated in their 1996 Resource Manual and Policy Positions on Juvenile Crime Issues.

Abstract

Comparisons of the NCJFCJ’s and the NDAA’s juvenile justice policies indicated that the most significant area of agreement between the two documents concerned the role of the prosecutor in juvenile delinquency proceedings. Both hold that prosecutors should be experienced and should be present at every phase of a delinquency case. The NCJFCJ and the NDAA also agree on the importance of expanding the use of alternatives to the formal juvenile court process and both agree that the most important criterion for juvenile diversion is the juvenile’s acceptance of responsibility for the offense. The major point of disagreement between the NDAA and the NCJFCJ occurs in the area of waiver/transfer to adult court, with the NCJFCJ stating that such decisions should be made only by juvenile court judges while the NDAA holds that prosecutors are in a unique position to waiver decisions. Moreover, the NDAA holds that waiver decisions should be based on the three guiding principles of balanced justice: furthers public safety, holds the offender accountable, and develops offenders’ skills. The NDAA and the NCJFCJ also differ in regards to sentencing, with the NDAA espousing a balanced approach to juvenile sentencing and the NCJFCJ arguing for a more traditional “best interests” standard for juvenile sentencing. However, the NDAA and the NCJFCJ agree on the use of blended sentencing for juvenile offenders that strikes a compromise between juvenile and adult sanctioning. The NDAA and the NCJFCJ also largely agree that juvenile court proceedings should have a certain degree of openness and transparency and they both agree that victims should have the same rights in juvenile proceedings as they do in adult proceedings. Both positions also hold parents financially accountable for their children’s crimes and both support establishing information systems capable of measuring juvenile justice performance. Footnotes