Extended Jurisdiction Juvenile Prosecutions in Illinois

• NCJ Number: 198727
• Journal: On Good Authority Volume: 6 Issue: 5 Dated: December 2002 Pages: 1-4
• Author(s): Timothy Lavery
• Date Published: December 2002
• Length: 4 pages
• Grant Number(s): 98-JE-FX-0017
• Contract Number(s): 011G0000257
• Sponsoring Agency: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP); Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission
• Sale Source: NCJRS Photocopy Services
• Publication Format: News/Media
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This is a report on the methodology and findings of an evaluation of the impact of the provision for extended jurisdiction juvenile (EJJ) prosecution, which is included in Illinois' 1998 Juvenile Justice Reform Provisions.

Abstract

EJJ prosecution comes into play if there is probable cause to believe that a minor at least 13 years old has committed an offense that would be considered a felony if committed by an adult. Minors who are found guilty in EJJ prosecutions receive both a juvenile sentence and an adult sentence. The adult sentence is stayed and not imposed unless the offender violates the conditions of the juvenile sentence. EJJ prosecutions are intended to provide minors who have committed serious offenses with a last chance to avoid adult sanctions. The threat of an adult sentence is intended to be a deterrent to future criminal activity. The evaluation of this provision included the administration of a survey to State's attorneys or assistant State's attorneys who prosecute juvenile cases, public defenders who defend juvenile cases, and juvenile court judges for each county. Respondents (76 prosecutors, 51 public defenders, and 85 juvenile court judges) answered questions about their participation in and opinions of EJJ prosecutions. Surveys were administered during the spring and summer of 2000. The evaluation also included a case study of an EJJ prosecution that included interviews with those involved in the case. Evaluation findings indicate that EJJ prosecutions are occurring infrequently due to multiple factors. Among these factors are the mandated option for a juvenile to request a jury trial, which involves more time and resources than if a judge hears the case; potential conflict between EJJ provisions and waiver laws (transfer of a juvenile to the jurisdiction of an adult court); and complaints by public defenders that many aspects of the procedures for invoking the adult sanction are unfair. 1 figure and 1 table