U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Trial of Juveniles in Adult Court - The Prosecutor's Perspective (From Major Issues in Juvenile Justice Information and Training - Readings in Public Policy, P 321-332, 1981, John C Hall et al, ed. - See NCJ-77318)

NCJ Number
77326
Author(s)
A R Grundfest; A C Paskow; H E Szabo; R J Williams
Date Published
1981
Length
12 pages
Annotation
The role of the prosecutor in the determination to try specific youths in the juvenile or adult court is examined.
Abstract
Although practices are now changing, historically prosecutors have generally not taken part in decisions involving juvenile court waiver. Juvenile courts have gradually changed from a primary emphasis on rehabilitation to increased formalization and more adversarial proceedings. The presence of defense counsel is not often mandatory, and the judge's role has shifted to the more traditional one of arbiter of facts. As a corollary, the prosecutor's participation has become essential. Nowhere is the prosecutor's role more vital than in the important decision concerning the proper forum for the trial of youths. The fundamental decision whether to try a youth as a juvenile or an adult can be the most important determination to be made in handling youthful criminality. Choice of the proper forum is essential for preserving the juvenile court system's effective functioning and keeping it available only for those still able to benefit from its services. Waiver also most effectively protects society by subjecting dangerous youthful offenders to the full rigors of the adult criminal justice system. Because of the growing adversarial nature of juvenile court proceedings, coupled with prosecutors' unique position in the entire criminal justice system and their assigned role in safeguarding the public welfare, prosecutors must have vigorous participation in the determination of the forum in which a case is handled. Footnotes are provided. (Author abstract modified)