Defining the Age of Criminal Responsibility 145were treated more punitively by the criminal justice system than those adjudicated for
felonies in juvenile court. The two samples were taken from St. Louis, Missouri. I he
total sample consisted of 11 1 male juveniles ranging in ages trom 14 to 17.
it was clear that the cases were moved more rapidly at the juvenile level as opposed
to the adult level. For all the 1993 cases, all juveniles in the adjudicated sample had their
cases decided. At the adult level, however, nearly two-thirds of the cases had either been
taken under advisement or were pending (36.0 and 29.7% respectively). It is clear that for
many of the juveniles transferred to general jurisdiction court, there were no immediate
consequences. It is also apparent that for most of the cases, transfer to general jurisdiction
court did not mean that a "get tough" policy was implemented. Of the sample remanded
to adult court, 6.3% were sent to prison. Another 17.0% were placed on probation. Most
of the remaining cases had not been completed, and many will most likely be dismissed.
In contrast, nearly one-half (49.5%) of the sample that went through juvenile court
was placed on probation, and 20.7% was placed with the Division of Youth Services
and sent to an institution. Cases determined at the juvenile court level were thus more
likely to receive the services provided by the juvenile court. It was found that youths are
treated as first-time offenders when they reach adult courts. The results suggest that most
liivemles transferred to adult court are not given longer punishments than if they had
remained in the juvenile justice system. Furthermore, it is not clear that at the adult level
they will receive the services for youth potentially available to them if they had gone to
juvenile court. General jurisdiction court might be the only solution for a small number
of youthful offenders who have committed very serious crimes, but this policy appears
unlikely as implemented at present to either have a deterrent effect or to deal with the
problems facing juvenile offenders. (Adapted from Kinder cl <(/.. 1995, pp. 37—41)There are several types of waivers, but the two most common are the judicial
waiver and the legislative waiver (Fritsch & Hemmens, 1995). The judicial waiver is
popular because it allows the juvenile court judges to use their discretionary power
to waive jurisdiction and send the case to adult court. The juvenile court may decide
on its own to use a waiver or base its decision on the prosecuting attorney's motion.
The legislative waiver is sometimes called the automatic waiver because this waiver
can cause some juvenile offenders to completely bypass the juvenile justice system
and go directly to the adult criminal justice system at the time of the arrest. For
example, if a 14-year-old juvenile in Idaho is arrested for the possession of drugs
and/or firearms near a school or at a school event, the youth is automatically sent
to a criminal court (Fritsch & Hemmens, 1995). The judge in Idaho has no power
of discretion in this case because the juvenile meets one of the requirements of the
Idaho state government legislative waiver. In the example of Kent v. United States
(1966), the juvenile court judge ordered a judicial waiver to place the 16-year-old
Kent into the criminal court system and he was tried as an adult. Kent's counsel
filed a "question of waiver" motion. This motion was filed in the juvenile court
asking for a hearing to present reasons why Kent should be tried as an adult and his
motion was refused.
Juvenile offenders who appear before a judge in juvenile court are no longer seen
or treated as immature children who deserve protection from the juvenile justice
system. Instead juveniles who are accused of serious crimes are held accountable and
punished (Fritsch & Hemmens. 1995). This has led to treating juvenile offenders the