1

WhenJuvenileCourtistheDefaultStartingPlaceforYouth:

AReviewofOutcomesFollowing2015AutomaticTransferChangesinCookCounty

ByElizabethKooy,LCSW

ResearchandPolicyConsultant

JuvenileJusticeInitiative

May2020

518Davis,#211,Evanston,IL60201www.jjustice.org@JJInitiative847-894-4206

2

TableofContents

ExecutiveSummary Page3

I.HistoryofTransferStatutesinIllinois Page5

II.PreviousTransferResearchandReforms Page5

III.Historyof2015TransferReform(PA99-0258)andAlvarezV.Howard Page8

IV.PostPA00-0258andAlvarezv.HowardData Page10

V.Conclusion Page14

Endnotes Page16

“[I]tdoesn’tmakesenseforustotransfer,indiscriminately,youngpeopletoadultcourt.”i

ThenSenatorBarackObama,SenateFloordebate,Jan.29,1998

“Judgesshouldbetheonestodecidewhetherachildshouldbetransferredtoadultcourt,notaone-size-fits-alllaw.”

ChicagoTribuneEditorial,November21,2000

“Whenshouldateenbetriedasanadult?Letjudgesdecide.Whenteensautomaticallyaretriedasadults,therehabilitativecapabilitiesofjuvenilecourtarelost.”

ChicagoSunTimesEditorial,September19,2019ii

3

ExecutiveSummary

Anyexaminationoftheprosecutionandsentencingofchildrenintheadultcriminalcourtmustbeginwiththeacknowledgementthatnootherdevelopednationallowschildrenundertheageof18tobeprosecutedandsentencedunderadultcriminallaws.iii

Otherdevelopednationsabidebyinternationalstandardsthatrequirespecializedjuvenileorfamilycourtstoreviewcasesinvolvingchildrenundertheageof18.Thereasonisthatjuvenilecourtshaveprogramsandsanctionsappropriatetoadolescentdevelopmentforchildrenundertheageof18inconflictwiththelaw.

Ironically,theconceptofaspecializedjuvenilecourtbeganinIllinois,thehomeoftheworld’sfirstjuvenilecourt,overacenturyagoin1899.Yet,Illinoiswasalsooneofthefirststatestobegin“automatically”prosecutingandsentencingchildreninadultcourt.Illinoisbeganwith“toughoncrime”lawsthatrequiredautomaticadulttrialandsentenceforchildrenasyoungasage13andalsoincludedautomaticadulttrialandsentencingforlowleveldrugoffensesforchildrenages15and16.Fromtheearliestreviewsofautomatictransferpoliciesinthe1980s,studiesconsistentlydemonstratedthattransferringyouthtoadultcourtresultedinpooroutcomesforpublicsafetyandprofoundracialdisparities.iv

Troubledbytheresearchdemonstratingpooroutcomes,theIllinoisLegislaturebegandismantlingthe“automatic”transferstatutesbeginningwiththefirstrollbackin2003withaReverseWaiveroptionfordrugoffenses.vThelegislaturethenended“automatic”transferfordrugoffensesin2005,endingwhathadbeenlabeledthemostraciallybiaseddrugtransferlawinthenation.ThisfirsttransferreformreducedthenumberofautomatictransfercasesinCookCountybyanaverageof75%,withoutanincreaseinjuvenilecourtcasesandwhilemaintainingpublicsafety.vi

TheJuvenileJusticeInitiativethenconductedanextensiveanalysisoftheremainingautomatictransfercategories.Theresultingreportincludedadetailedreviewoftheautomatictransferstudiesandreforms.viiThis2014studyontransferstoadultcourtinCookCountyrevealedpooroutcomes,overlybroadimpactwith54%oftheconvictionsforlesseroffenses,ashockinglackofcourtreview(90%werepled),andnearlyuniversalapplicationincasesofchildrenofcolor–in3yearsofdata,therewasonlyonewhitechildtransferredtoadultcourt.

Onceagain,theresearchfindingsledtoadditionaltransferreformintheIllinoisLegislature.In2015,theLegislaturechangedthestatutetorequirecasestobegininjuvenilecourtforanumberofthe“automatic”transfercategories,includingyouthwhowere15yearsofage.viiiThesecasescouldstillbeprosecutedinadultcourt,butonlyafterajuvenilecourtjudgeapprovedapetitionbytheprosecutortotransferthecase.Thisbi-partisanlegislativereformshiftedtheprocessfroman“automatic”adultcourtcasebasedsolelyonageandcharge,toadueprocesshearingwithanindividualizedreviewoftheprobablecauseforthechargedoffenseandofthestrengthsandneedsandrisksofthechildchargedwiththeoffense.Withthisreform,thechildbecamethefocusasopposedtotheoffense.

4

Subsequently,inAlvarezV.Howard,theIllinoisSupremeCourtmadethe2015transferchangesretroactive.ixThismeantthatallcasesofchildrenwhowerependingtrialintheadultcourtbutfellunderthecategoriesofthereform(15yearsold,etc)weresenttojuvenilecourt,leavingituptotheprosecutortodecidewhethertopetitiontosendthecasetoadultcourt.

Findings

Therewere181youthwithcasespendingintheadultcourtthatfellundertheAlvarezv.Howardrulingandweresenttojuvenilecourt.Thisreportdetailstheoutcomeinthecasesofthe181youth(in186cases)whowouldhavebeenremainedinadultcriminalcourtbutsuddenlygotachancetobegintheircasesinjuvenilecourt:

• 89.9%ofthecases(165cases)remainedinjuvenilecourt(wereneverpetitionedtoadultcourt)

• Giventimetothoroughlyreviewthe186cases,theprosecutorpetitionedforadultprosecution/sentencinginonly21cases(10.1%).

• Followingahearinginjuvenilecourt,9ofthe21casesweresenttoadultcourtorgrantedextendedjurisdictionjuvenile.xIn11casestheprosecutor’spetitionswerenotgrantedandthecasesremainedinjuvenilecourt.

Thus,only9of186cases(lessthan5%)endedupbackinadultcourtorwithsuspendedadultsentencing(EJJ),uponthoroughreviewbytheprosecutorandthejuvenilecourt.Asthisreportdocuments,theopportunityforprosecutorialdiscretiontopetitiontoadultcourtalongwithadueprocesshearingandrehabilitativeprotectionsinjuvenilecourtmakesaprofounddifferenceinoutcomesofcasesofchildreninconflictwiththelaw.

Recommendation

Illinoisshouldendall“Automatic”Transferprovisionsinfavorofdiscretionarytransfer.Youthshouldonlybetransferredtoadultcourtfortrialandsentencingafterathoroughreviewbyajuvenilecourtjudgeratherthanaprosecutordecidingwhereachildshouldbetriedandsentenced.YouthinIllinoisdeserveasystemthatfavorstherehabilitativeeffortsofthejuvenilecourtsimilartooursystemmorethanfivedecadesagopriortoanyautomatictransferprovisions.

5

I. HistoryofTransferStatutesinIllinois

Thejuvenilecourthasalwayshadprovisionstotransferthemostseriousoffensestoadultcourt.In1903,fouryearsaftertheinceptionoftheseparatesystem,CookCountytransferred14youthfuloffenderstotheadultsystem.xi

From1903tothe1980s,alltransferstoadultcourtinIllinoisweredoneviadiscretionarytransfer,withajuvenilecourtjudgereviewingtheState’spetitiontotransfertoadultcourt.

• From1982to2000,theLegislatureenacted“automatic”transferlaws-automaticallychargingcertaincrimescommittedbyyouthofspecificagesintheadultcourt.In1982whenthefirstautomatictransferprovisionswereenactedbytheLegislature,theyonlyincludedmurder,rape,deviantsexualassault,andarmedrobberywithafirearm.xiiGradually,theLegislatureaddedoffensestotheautomatictransferstatute.

• In1990,theLegislatureaddedmandatorytransferprovisions,requiringthejuvenilecourtjudgetotransferbasedoncertainfacts.In1995,theLegislatureaddedpresumptivetransferstatutescreatingapresumptionoftransferbasedoncertainfactors.

• In1999,theLegislatureaddedprovisionsforExtendedJurisdictionJuvenilewhereajuvenilewouldgetajuvenilesentenceandanadultsentencetobeusedifthejuveniledidnotdowellunderthejuvenilesystem.

By2000,theIllinoistransferlawswereamongthemostcomplicatedinthenation.Therewere22differentwaysforchildrentobetriedand/orsentencedasadults.(SeeTable1forIllinoisTransferStatutes)

II. PreviousTransferResearchandReforms

Beginningin1983,theChicagoLawEnforcementStudyGrouppublishedseveralstudiesreviewingbothpreandpostautomatictransferdecisions.Theoriginalstudyofpre-automatictransferwhenjudicialdiscretionarytransferwastheprimaryformofchildrenbeingsenttoadultcourtshowedthat48.8%ofyouthweretransferredonamurdercharge.xiiiTheChicagoLawEnforcementStudyGroup’snextstudylookedattheeffectsofautomatictransferpassageintheLegislature.Thestudyfoundthatmorethantwicethenumbersofyouthwereprosecutedasadultsthanduringtheprevioustwoandahalfyearperiod.xiv

TheChicagoLawEnforcementStudyGroupconcludedin1988thattheautomatictransferfailedtoimproveeffortstocontrolseriousjuvenileoffendingandrecommendedamodifiedversionofjudicialtransfer.xv

6

TABLE 1: ILLINOIS TRANSFER STATUTES PRIOR TO 2003 ROLLBACK (REVERSE WAIVER OF DRUG OFFENSES) Ages Crimes DateEnacted

EXCLUDED705ILCS405/5-120

ALL17yearolds AllCrimes 1906Boys1973Girls

AUTOMATICTRANSFER705ILCS405/5-130(1)(a)

15and16yearolds Murder 1982

705ILCS405/5-130(1)(a) 15and16yearolds AggravatedCriminalSexualAssault 1982705ILCS405/5-130(1)(a) 15and16yearolds ArmedRobberywithafirearm 1982705ILCS405/5-130(1)(a) 15and16yearolds AggravatedVehicularHijacking 1995

15and16yearolds UnlawfulUseofaWeapononSchoolGrounds

1985

705ILCS405/5-130(2)(a) 15and16yearolds DeliveryofaControlledSubstancewithin1000feetofaschoolorpublichousing(includespossessionwithintenttodeliver)

1985/1990

705ILCS405/5-130(1)(a) 15and16yearolds AggravatedBatterywithin1000feetofaschool

2000

705ILCS405/5-130(4)(a) 13and14yearolds MurderinthecourseofAggravatedCriminalSexualAssault

1995

705ILCS405/5-130(5)(a) AnyMinor ViolationofBailBondorEscape 1991705ILCS405/5-130(6) AnyMinor OnceTransferredandConvicted-

AlwaysTransferred1999

MANDATORYTRANSFER705ILCS405/5-805(1)(a)

15and16yearolds ForcibleFelonywithpriorfelonyconvictionandgangactivity

1990

705ILCS405/5-805(1)(b) 15and16yearolds Felonywithpriorforciblefelonyconvictionandgangactivity

1990

705ILCS405/5-805(1)(c) 15and16yearolds PresumptiveTransferCrimeandpriorforciblefelony

1990

705ILCS405/5-805(1)(d) 15and16yearolds AggravatedDischargeofaFirearmwithin1000feetofaschool

1995

PRESUMPTIVETRANSFER705ILCS405/5-805(2)(a)(i)

15and16yearolds ClassXfeloniesotherthanArmedViolence

1995

705ILCS405/5-805(2)(a)(ii) 15and16yearolds AggravatedDischargeofaFirearm 1995705ILCS405/5-805(2)(a)(iii) 15and16yearolds ArmedViolencewithafirearmwhen

predicatedoffenseisaClass1or2felonyandgangactivity

1995

705ILCS405/5-805(2)(a)(iv) 15and16yearolds ArmedViolencewithafirearmwhenpredicatedonadrugoffense

1996

705ILCS405/5-805(2)(a)vi) 15and16yearolds ArmedViolencewithamachinegunorotherweaponin(a)(7)ofSection24-1oftheCriminalCodeof1961

1996

DISCRETIONARYTRANSFER705ILCS405/5-805(3)(a)

13,14,15,16yearolds

AnyCrime 1973(1903firsttransfers)

EXTENDEDJURISDICTIONJUVENILE705ILCS405/5-810

13,14,15,16yearolds

AnyFelony 1999

7

AstudybytheJuvenileTransferAdvocacyUnitoftheLawOfficeoftheCookCountyPublicDefender,examiningthechildrenautomaticallytransferredtoadultcourtinCookCountyfrom1999to2000,helpedfocusattentionontheneedtoreformthestate’stransferlaws.xviThedatarevealedthatoutof393youthautomaticallytransferredtoadultcourtanddetainedinCookCountryfromOctober1999--September,2000,virtuallyall(99.6%)oftheyouthsubjecttoautomatictransfersinCookCountywereminorities–onlyoneCaucasianwasautomaticallychargedasanadultwithadrugoffenseduringthetwo-yearperiod.Two-thirdsoftheautomatictransferswerefornonviolentdrugoffenses.Moreover,closetotwo--thirdsofthejuvenileshadnotbeenaffordedanyjuvenilecourtrehabilitativeservicespriortotheautomatictransfer.Thestudydemonstratedthattheyouth“automatically”triedinadultcourtondrugoffenseswerereceivingminorsentences(notprison)ifsentencedatall–morethan90percentoftheyouthconvictedofadrugoffensereceivedeitherasentenceofprobationorbootcamp.All,however,sufferedtheconsequencesofacriminalconviction.

ThisresearchfurtherdemonstratedthatthiswasaCookCountyissue.AutomatictransfersoutsideofCookCountywerefarfewer,despitehigherarrestratesoutsideCookCounty.OnlytwoyouthoutsideofCookCountyweretransferredfordrugoffenses.xviiNewspapersreportedtheIllinoisDrugTransferLawwascalledthe“worst”youthdruglawinthenationbecauseofitsracialdisparities.xviii

Beginningin2001,theIllinoisLegislaturebeganconsideringrollingbackthetransferprovisions.In2001,abilltobringbackyouthtransferredfordrugoffensesfailedonacommitteevoteintheHouse9to2.However,twoyearslaterin2003,theGeneralAssemblyagreedtoareversewaiverprovisionforyouthchargedwithnon-ClassXdrugoffensesandthenin2005movedtheClassXdrugoffendersonlytoapresumptivetransferprovisionandexpandedtheprovisionofaggravatedbatterywithafirearm(PA95-0574).TheegregiousnessofthetransferlawsandtheIllinoisrollbacksweretheimpetustochallengetransferstatutesinotherstatesaswell.

TheLegislaturealsoraisedtheageofjuvenilecourtjurisdictionfrom17to18,beginningwithmisdemeanoroffensesin2010(PA95-1031)andaddingfelonychargesin2014(PA98-0061).xix

In2014,theJuvenileJusticeInitiativepublisheditsfindingsfromthreeyearsworthoftransferdatainCookCounty,Illinois.xxDuringthethree-yearspan,257childrenundertheageof17wereautomaticallytriedasadultswithoutanyconsiderationfortheirage,lackofmaturity,orinvolvementintheoffense.TheresearchonceagainshowedthatthetransferlawsinIllinoiswereoutofstepwiththeintentofthelawsthemselves.Insteadofchildrenbeingconvictedforegregiousoffenses,54%wereconvictedandsentencedforlesseroffensesthantheoriginalchargedoffenseandwouldnothavebeentransferredtoadultcourtwiththeconvictedoffense.Afull90%oftheyouthpledguiltyratherthanstandtrialandhadnoopportunityfortheirindividualcircumstancestobeconsideredbythejudgeinadultcourt.Theresearchalsoshowedthatthelawsdisproportionatelyimpactedyouthofcolor.Inthethreeyearsworthofdata,onlyonewhitechildwasautomaticallyprosecutedasanadult.Further,theoutcomesshowedthatyouthspentonaverageoverayearandupto19monthsawaitingtrial.

8

Figure1.Figure1showsacomparisonofyouthprofilesbeforeandaftertheAutomaticTransferProvisions.xxiFrom1975to1981theaverageannualnumberofyouthdiscretionarytransferstoadultcourtwas57with68%blackyouth,48%transferredonmurdercharges,Brieand22%transferredonArmedRobberywithaFirearmcharges.From2010to2012withautomatictransferprovisions,theaverageannualnumberofyouthtransferredautomaticallytoadultcourtincreasedto86with83%beingblackyouth,13%beingchargedwithmurder,and30%beingchargedwithArmedRobberywithaFirearm.

Basedontheresearchfrom2010-2012andthe30yearsworthofdataindicatingthese“automatic”transferlawswerefailedpolicies,theIllinoisLegislaturecontinuedtoscalebackthetransferstatutes.In2015,IllinoismadebroadchangestotheIllinoisTransferStatutesthroughPA99-0258.

III. Historyof2015TransferReform(PA99-0258)andAlvarezV.Howard

InApril2015,theIllinoisSenateCommitteeonCriminalLawamendedHB3718,raisingtheminimumageofautomatictransferfrom15to16yearsofage.Inaddition,theamendmentdeletedautomaticadultprosecutioninchargesofarmedrobberywithafirearm,and/oraggravatedvehicularhijackingwithafirearm,althoughitleftintactautomatictransferfor16and17yearoldschargedwithmurder,aggravatedcriminalsexualassault,and/oraggravatedbatterywithafirearm.Theamendmentalsoprovidedaprovisionforcircuitclerkstotrackyouthprosecutedinadultcourt,whetherbyautomatictransfer,discretionarytransfer,habitualoffenderorExtendedJurisdictionJuvenileprovisions.

9

Althoughdiscussionsonthesebroadrevisionshadtakenplaceforyears,theultimatepassageofthebillwasquickwithbipartisansupportandlittleopposition.WrittentestimonyfromtheDirectoroftheCookCountyJudicialAdvisoryCouncilconcludedthattherewassupporttoendautomatictransferfromeverylevelofgovernment,includingacommentfromtheIllinoisSupremeCourtinPeoplev.Patterson,urgingthelegislaturetoreformtheautomatictransferstatute.TheSenateCriminalLawCommitteepassedthereformona10to1voteonMay6,2015.ItpassedtheIllinoisSenate48-16onMay9,2015.TheSenateAmendmentthenpassedtheHouseJuvenileJusticeandSystemInvolvedYouthCommittee16-0onMay27,2015.TheIllinoisHouseconcurredwiththeSenateAmendment79-32onMay31,2015andonAugust4,2015,theGovernorsignedPA99-0258intolawwithaneffectivedateofJanuary1,2016.

IllinoisStatutesontryingorsentencingchildrenasadultswentfrom22exemptionsandthousandsofchildrentosixexemptionsandhundredsofchildrenoverthecourseof12yearsoflegislativerevisions.(SeeFigure3forTransferStatutesfrom2015topresent).

Table 2. Illinois Transfer Statutes Post 2015 Legislative Changes Ages Crimes DateEnacted

AUTOMATICTRANSFER705ILCS405/5-130(1)(a)

16and17yearolds Murder 1982

705ILCS405/5-130(1)(a) 16and17yearolds AggravatedCriminalSexualAssault 1982705ILCS405/5-130(1)(a) 16and17yearolds AggravatedBatterywithafirearm

personaldischargerequired2015

PRESUMPTIVETRANSFER705ILCS405/5-805(2)(a)(i)

15and16and17yearolds

ForcibleFelonywithpriorfelonyconvictionandgangactivity

2015

DISCRETIONARYTRANSFER705ILCS405/5-805(3)(a)

13,14,15,16,17yearolds

AnyCrime 1973(1903firsttransfers)

EXTENDEDJURISDICTIONJUVENILE705ILCS405/5-810

13,14,15,16,17yearolds

AnyFelony 1999

BecausethelawhadaJanuary1,2016effectivedateandcaseswerependingthatwouldotherwisebetriedinjuvenilecourtfollowingthereform,youthprosecutedasadultspetitionedthecourtstoallowthemtobetriedasjuveniles.LuisM.,a15-year-oldpendingtrialonmurdersoughttohavehiscasemovedbacktojuvenilecourtforadiscretionaryhearing.TheHonorableCarolHowardofCookCountygrantedhisrequestandCookCountyState’sAttorneyAnitaAlvarezsoughtawritofmandamusorprohibitiondirectingJudgeHowardtorescindtheorder.TheIllinoisSupremeCourtrejectedS.A.Alvarez’smandamus,concludingthatthejuveniletransferstatutewasproceduralinnatureandthereforeappliedretroactivelyunlessthecasehadbeentransferredtoadultcourtpursuanttoadiscretionarytransferhearing.

10

IV. PostPA00-0258andAlvarezv.HowardData

FollowingthesigningofPA99–0258andsubsequentAlvarezv.Howarddecision,181youthwith186caseswereremandedtotheCookCountyJuvenileJusticecourtsforpossiblediscretionarytransferorothertransfer/EJJmotions.Theyearsofarrestwerefrom2010to2015.Thefollowingchartsanddatadescribethechargesandoutcomesofthese186cases.xxii

Thedatarevealsthatin90percentofcases,oncethoroughlyreviewedinthejuvenilesystem,theyweredeterminedtobeappropriateforjuvenilecourtandwerenotevenpetitionedtobetriedorsentencedasadults.

Figure2.Prosecutordiscretiononwhethertofilemotionsfortransferhearings,ExtendedJurisdictionJuvenilehearingsorremaininjuvenilecourtreveals89.9%ofremandedcaseswerenotprosecutedinadultcourtaftergoingbacktojuvenilecourt.xxiii

Prosecutorsdiddecidein21casesthateitheradulttransferorEJJwasappropriateandpetitionedthejuvenilecourtjudgeinthesecasesforeitherdiscretionarytransferorEJJ.Ofthe21cases,onlythreeweregranteddiscretionarytransferandonlysixweregrantedExtendedJurisdictionJuvenile.In55%ofthecases,thejuvenilecourtjudgedeterminedthatadulttransferorEJJwasinappropriatefortheyouthandtheyouththenremainedinjuvenilecourtfortrialandsentencing.

11

WhenprosecutorsdidaskfortransferorEJJsentencing,theydidsoononlyfourdifferentcharges:ArmedRobberywithaFirearm,Murder,AggravatedBatterywithaFirearm,andAggravatedCriminalSexualAssault.Ineachofthesecases,thejuvenilecourtjudgeheldahearingwithdueprocessprotectionstoindividuallyrevieweachcaseandexaminetheparticularrehabilitativeservicesandsanctionsavailableinjuvenilecourt.Uponeachindividualreview,thejuvenilecourtjudgedecidedin55%ofthecasespetitionedtotransfertoadultcourtorasuspendedsentence,thattherewereadequateservicesandsanctionsavailableinjuvenilecourttoaddresstherisksandneedsoftheindividualyouth.

Figure3.Ofthe21prosecutorpetitionstogobacktoadultcourtorforExtendedJuvenileJurisdiction,45%weregranted–9caseswerereturnedtoadultcourtorweregrantedExtendedJurisdictionJuveniledesignation.55%or11caseswerenotgrantedandremainedinjuvenilecourt.

12

Figure4.Thechargesofthe21caseswhereprosecutorspetitionedajuvenilecourtjudgetodiscretionarilytransferayouthtoadultcourtortodesignatethecaseExtendedJurisdictionJuvenilerevealsonly28%or6caseswereformurdercharges.xxiv

13

Figure5.Outcomesfromthe21caseswhereprosecutorspetitionedforeitherdiscretionarytransferorExtendedJurisdictionJuveniledesignationbychargerevealsDiscretionaryTransfergrantedonlyinArmedRobberywithaFirearmcases.Inthreemurdercases,fouraggravatedbatterywithafirearmcases,andtwosexualassaultcases,discretionarytransferandEJJsanctionsweredeniedbyajuvenilecourtjudge.Inonecase,itwasfoundthattheyouthwasnoteligibleforremandbacktojuvenilecourtbutinsteadtheadultcourthadjurisdiction.xxv

14

Figure6.InFigure6,thecaseoutcomesofall186postAlvarezv.Howardreveal39.3%receivedtimeserved,27.2%receivedjuvenilecourtprobation,13.3%receivedasentenceattheDepartmentofJuvenileJusticeandanadditional13.3%werenotprosecutedagainonceinjuvenilecourt(NolleProsequi).xxvi

Intheverysmallpercentageofcaseswheretheprosecutorspetitionedforadultsanctions(11%),thejuvenilecourtjudgegrantedthepetitionsforadultsanctionsinnearlyhalfofthecases(45%or9casestotal).Thus,averysmallpercentageofyouth(4.8%oftotalcasesremanded)weretransferredbacktoadultcourtorweregivenExtendedJurisdictionJuveniledesignationafterthe2015Legislativechangesandcourtdecisionthatthechangeswereretroactive.

V.Conclusion

PriortoPA99-0258andthesubsequentAlvarezv.Howarddecision,181youthwith186caseswereautomaticallyintheadultcourtfacingadultsentencinguponconviction.Priordataonyouthprosecutedintheadultsystemrevealsthatmostwouldhavereceivedlengthytermsofincarcerationinadultprisonunderthemandatoryadultsentencingprovisions.

The2015reformsgavethese181youthasingularchancetobereconsideredforjuvenilecourtprosecution.Withoutthepressureoftheimmediate“automatic”transferdecisionthatistriggeredbytheinitialchargewithinhours/daysofarrest,theprosecutorhadtimeforextensiveindividualreview.

15

Uponreview,theprosecutordeterminedthatinthevastmajorityofcases(89.9%),theyouthbelongedinjuvenile,notadult,court.Juvenilecourtjudicialreviewoftheremaining11%ofthecasesresultedinmorethanhalfremaininginjuvenilecourt.Thus,177oftheoriginal186cases(95.2%)wereprosecutedinjuvenilecourtandreceivedjuvenilecourtsanctionsratherthanadultcourtorExtendedJurisdictionJuvenilewithastayedadultsentence.

Thiscohortofcasesthatfellbetweenthepreandpost2015transferprovisionsdemonstratesthattimeforindividualreviewbyboththeprosecutorandthejuvenilecourtreducesdramaticallythenumberofcasesofjuvenilessenttoadultcourt.

Itfurtherdemonstratesthatboththeprosecutorandthejuvenilecourtbelievedmostcasesofyouthundertheageof18subjecttoautomaticadultprosecutioncouldbehandledthroughjuvenilecourtprogramsandsanctions,ifgivensufficienttimeforindependentreview.

InMarch2018,theInter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRightsreleaseditsreportChildrenandAdolescentsintheUnitedStatesAdultCriminalJusticeSystem.xxviiTheCommissionconcludedthattheUnitedStateswasrequiredtorespondtoyouthinconflictwiththelawthroughthejuvenilejusticesystembasedoninternationallawandtreatiessignedbytheU.S.:

“TheCommissionnotesthatwhenratifyingtheICCPRin1992,eventhoughitco-sponsoredtheprovisiontotreatchildrenseparatelyaccordingtotheirageandstatus,theUnitedStatesmaintainedareservation“totreatjuvenilesasadults”inexceptionalcircumstances.However,asconcludedbytheHumanRightsCommitteeinitsobservationsontheUnitedStates’compliancewiththistreaty,theUnitedStatesdoesnotlimititstreatmentofchildrenasadultstoexceptionalcircumstances.TheCommissionobservesthattheambiguityofthisreservationhasbeenconvertedintoanexpansivegapinjuvenilejusticesystemsacrosstheU.S.,resultingintheviolationofchildren’shumanrightsonfederal,state,andlocallevels.”(Page132)

Asthedatainthisstudyreveals,automatictransferprovisionsresultinfarlargernumbersofchildrenprosecutedinadultcourtthanwouldexistifgiventimeforindividualreviewbytheprosecutorandjuvenilecourt.AutomatictransferprovisionswouldthenviolatetheU.S.reservationtotheICCPRtotreatjuvenilesasadultsonlyin“exceptional”cases.

Inurgingthelegislaturetoendautomatictransferin2015,theDirectoroftheCookCountyJusticeAdvisoryCouncilconcluded:“Regardlessofthecrimetheyareaccusedof,everychildinIllinoisdeservesachancetoprovethattheyaresuitablefortherehabilitativemissionofthejuvenilejusticesystem.Weaskthatyou…..workwithustoendtheautomatictransferofjuvenilestoadultcourtandrestorejuvenilecourtjudges’discretionastheyarethebestpositionedpartytomakethesedecisions.”xxviii

Itisnowtimetofinishthereformsthatbeganin2015,andendautomatictransferofchildrentoadultcourt.

16

Endnotes

ihttp://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans90/ST012998.pdfiihttps://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/9/19/20874164/juvenile-court-transfer-adult-court-lake-county-michael-nerheim-editorialiiiChildrenandAdolescentsintheUnitedStatesAdultCriminalJusticeSystem.,(2018),Inter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRights.http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/Children-USA.pdfivTheinitialreportsonpreandpostautomatictransferinthe1980swerefromtheChicagoLawEnforcementStudyGroup.SeeReed,D.,Johnson,M.,Karales,K.,&Stevens,A.O.,(1983).Needed:SeriousSolutionsforSeriousJuvenileCrime;AReportontheResultsofTransferringSeriousJuvenileOffenderstoCriminalCourtsforTrialinCookCounty,ILfrom1975through1981.Chicago,IL:ChicagoLawEnforcementStudyGroup.SeealsoRegykysmT.,Stevens,A.O.,&Faggiani,D.(1988).StateSchooltoStateville:AReportonMandatoryTransferandCriminalProsecutionofJuvenilesinCookCounty,IL,Jan.,1980toJune,1985.Chicago,IL:TheChicagoLawEnforcementStudyGroup.vPA92-0665amendedtheJuvenileCourtActasfollows: Ifaminorissubjecttotheprovisionsofsubsection(2)ofthisSection,otherthanaminorchargedwithaClassXfelonyviolationoftheIllinoisControlledSubstancesAct,anypartyincludingtheminororthecourtsuaspontemay,beforetrial,moveforahearingforthepurposeoftryingandsentencingtheminorasadelinquentminor.This“ReverseWaiver”provisionwasmodeledafterReverseWaiverprovisionsinPennsylvania.Thehearingtobeconductedinadultcourtrequiredthatthecourttakeintoconsiderationthefollowing:a)theageoftheminor,b)anypreviousdelinquentorcriminalhistoryoftheminor,c)anyabuseandneglecthistoryoftheminor,d)anymentalhealthoreducationalhistoryorboth,e)Whetherthereisprobablecausetosupportthecharge,whethertheminorischargedthroughaccountability,andwhetherthereisevidencetheminorpossessedadeadlyweaponorcausedseriousbodilyharmduringtheoffense.TheReverseWaiveroptionnolongerwasusedoncethe2005Legislativechangesofremovalofdrugoffensestotheautomatictransferstatutewentintoeffect.viKooy,E.,(2008)ChangingCourse:AReviewoftheFirstTwoYearsofDrugTransferReforminCookCounty,IL.,https://jjustice.org/changing-course-a-review-of-the-first-two-years-of-drug-transfer-reform-in-illinois/viiIshida,K.,Clarke,E.,&Reed,D.,(2014)AutomaticAdultProsecutionofChildreninCookCounty,2010-2012,https://jjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/Automatic-Adult-Prosecution-of-Children-in-Cook-County-IL.pdfviiiPublicAct99-0258http://ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/99/099-0258.htmixAlvarezv.Howard,IL120729https://courts.illinois.gov/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2016/120729.pdfxExtendedJurisdictionJuvenileinIllinoiswasanotherattempttohavemorechildrenpunishedundertheadultsysteminanefforttoappeasethosewantingtobetougheroncrime.YouthwhoweresubjecttoExtendedJuvenileJurisdictionweregivenasentenceinjuvenilecourtandasentenceinadultcourtthatwasstayedpendingthattheyouthcomplieswithhis/herjuvenilesentence.TheyouthunderEJJisaffordedajurytrialandthetrialispublic.EJJremainsineffectinthestatutesforanychild13andoverchargedwithanyfelony.ItisusedacrossIllinoisbutthereisnosetrationaleforwhenaprosecutorrequestsEJJnorwhatisconsiderednon-compliancewiththejuvenilesentence.xiKooy,E.,(2001).TheStatusofAutomaticTransferstoAdultCourtinCookCounty.Chicago,IL:LawOfficeoftheCookCountyPublicDefender.xiiIshidaetal.,(2014)xiiiReed,D.,Johnson,M.,Karales,K.,&Stevens,A.O.,(1983).Needed:SeriousSolutionsforSeriousJuvenileCrime;AReportontheResultsofTransferringSeriousJuvenileOffenderstoCriminalCourtsforTrialinCookCounty,ILfrom1975through1981.Chicago,IL:ChicagoLawEnforcementStudyGroup.xivRegykysmT.,Stevens,A.O.,&Faggiani,D.(1988).StateSchooltoStateville:AReportonMandatoryTransferandCriminalProsecutionofJuvenilesinCookCounty,IL,Jan.,1980toJune,1985.Chicago,IL:TheChicagoLawEnforcementStudyGroup.xvId.xviKooy,E.,(2001)xviiUnpublishedresearchbytheJuvenileJusticeInitiativeforfirstrollbackoftransferprovisionsshowedthatthevastmajorityofautomatictransferswerefromCookCounty.DuringOctober1999throughSeptember2000,the

17

JuvenileTransferAdvocacyUnitintheLawOfficeoftheCookCountyPublicDefenderfound393youthautomaticallytransferredtoadultcourtfromCookCounty.Lessthan1%ofautomatictransfersinCookCountycamefromsuburbanCookCountyzipcodes.In2001,theJuvenileJusticeInitiativefound14youthfromallother101Illinoiscountieswereautomaticallytransferredtoadultcourt.Thus,97%ofallyouthautomaticallytransferredtoadultcourtinIllinoiswerefromCookCounty.xviiiKooy,E.,(2008)xixPA95-1031(2010)raisedtheageofjuvenilecourtto18formisdemeanoroffenses.http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=095-1031Subsequentlyin2014,theLegislatureraisedtheageofjuvenilecourtto18forfelonychargesaswellinPA98-0061http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/98/098-0061.htmxxIshidaetal.,(2014)xxiId.xxiiDatawasobtainedfromtheLawOfficeoftheCookCountyPublicDefenderandanalyzedbytheJuvenileJusticeInitiative.xxiiiId.xxivId.xxvId.xxviId.xxviihttp://www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/Children-USA.pdfxxviiihttps://jjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/Testimony-Cook-County-Judicial-Advisory-Council-IL-House-Cmte-3-10-15.pdf