The purpose of this study was to compare two groups of males in Arizona Department of Corrections (ADJC) custody with regard to three factors. The first group consisted of youth sentenced to ADJC who later received criminal charges for which they were transferred to the adult court system, ("Transferred" group), and the second group involved youth sentenced to ADJC who did not receive any additional criminal charges for which they were transferred, ("Non-Transferred" group). The variables examined were: youth with versus without a special education disability diagnosis, most serious level of offense for which the youth was imprisoned, and ethnicity. Due to the lack of prior research in this area, only null hypotheses were formulated. The first hypothesis was there would be no significant differences between the two groups on the observed versus expected frequencies of each of the variables studied. The second hypothesis was that there would be no significant association between the two groups with regard to their disability status on each of the variables.The results showed that regarding disability status, the null hypothesis was not rejected. The frequency of disabilities represented in both groups and the proportion of youth eligible to receive special education services was not different. Regarding the seriousness of offense level, the null hypothesis that both groups were identical was not rejected; indicating that the Transferred group was not significantly different from the Non-Transferred group in frequency of most serious offense level. In terms of disability status, and level of offense committed, the null hypothesis was also not rejected. Finally, regarding ethnic representation, no significant associations were found for the groups.The groups studied showed a larger percentage of youth receiving special education services, in comparison to the percentage of youth receiving special education services within the whole educational system. The groups also had a larger percentage of minorities compared to the latest Arizona census information on ethnic backgrounds of children under age 18. The results highlight the similarities between the Transferred and Non-Transferred groups and discuss the implications of the findings, future research directions, and the study's limitations.

The purpose of this study was to analyze the influences such as age at current offense, gender, race, previous convictions, and the seriousness of crimes that contributed to the decisions received by juveniles in adult court. This study examined a secondary data set from the United States Department of Justice entitled Juvenile Defendants in Criminal Courts (JDCC): Survey of 40 Counties in the United States, 1998. The cases from these 40 jurisdictions represented all filings during one month in 75 of the most populous counties. The current study found significant differences among race, prior criminal history, current offense severity, and juveniles adjudicated in adult court. Future research should therefore continue to examine the impact of juveniles adjudicated in adult court to better inform the debate surrounding the potential dangers associated with juvenile offending and adult criminal sanctions.

The objectives of this thesis were to observe how the Canadian youth justice system has dealt with the regulation of the transfer of young offenders to the adult court and how the Canadian statutes have regulated the imposition of adult offences for young offenders. For this, I drew a distinction between two levels of observation: first, I observed the process of "creation of statutes" by the political system. Second, I observed the process of "understanding and interpretation of statutes" by the judicial system. The notion of "political system" includes the legislation enacted by Parliament, parliamentary debates, and reports published by the Government of Canada. The notion of "judicial system" includes the decisions of the Montreal Youth Court. For the first level of observation ("creation of statutes"), I observed and analyzed the work of the political system for the period 1842 to 2012. Starting in 1857, many statutes regulated different aspects of the criminal law system as it applied to young people. The first statute to deal with youth offenders comprehensively and different from adult offenders was the Juvenile Delinquents Act (1908); this statute was replaced by the Young Offenders Act (1982). The current statute is the Youth Criminal Justice Act (2002). With regard to the Juvenile Delinquents Act (1908) and the Young Offenders Act (1982), I observed how the political system regulated the mechanism of transferring a young person to the adult court. This mechanism allowed the youth court to decide a question of jurisdiction: whether the young person would be processed and sentenced within the youth justice system, or whether the young person would be sent to the adult court for him to be dealt with and sentenced therein. With regard to the Youth Criminal Justice Act (2002), I observed how the political system has regulated the imposition of adult sentences by the youth court. This statute replaced the mechanism of transfer under the two previous statutes by the imposition of adult sentences within the youth justice system. For the second level of observation ("the understanding and interpretation of statutes"), I observed how the Montreal Youth Court had understood and interpreted the statutory provision that allowed the youth court to transfer a young person to the adult court for the young person to be dealt with and sentenced therein. My period of observation is from 1911 to 1995. I argue that both the political and the judicial systems have been strongly influenced by the theories of deterrence, denunciation, retribution, and rehabilitation. The influence that each theory has exercised on each system varies. The political system, originally focused on the rehabilitation of young people, has been slowly “contaminated” by the most punitive theories, such as deterrence and denunciation. This shift started in the 70’s and slowly increased over the years. Conversely, while the judicial system does not seem to have been originally influenced by the theories of rehabilitation, its focus has slowly shifted towards this objective as the primary goal of their intervention towards young offenders since the 70’s. However, the “successful rehabilitation” of a young person has become a goal in itself, where “unsuccessful offenders” have been transferred to the adult court and dealt with the adult punitive justice system.

The objectives of this thesis were to observe how the Canadian youth justice system has dealt with the regulation of the transfer of young offenders to the adult court and how the Canadian statutes have regulated the imposition of adult offences for young offenders. For this, I drew a distinction between two levels of observation: first, I observed the process of "creation of statutes" by the political system. Second, I observed the process of "understanding and interpretation of statutes" by the judicial system. The notion of "political system" includes the legislation enacted by Parliament, parliamentary debates, and reports published by the Government of Canada. The notion of "judicial system" includes the decisions of the Montreal Youth Court. For the first level of observation ("creation of statutes"), I observed and analyzed the work of the political system for the period 1842 to 2012. Starting in 1857, many statutes regulated different aspects of the criminal law system as it applied to young people. The first statute to deal with youth offenders comprehensively and different from adult offenders was the Juvenile Delinquents Act (1908); this statute was replaced by the Young Offenders Act (1982). The current statute is the Youth Criminal Justice Act (2002). With regard to the Juvenile Delinquents Act (1908) and the Young Offenders Act (1982), I observed how the political system regulated the mechanism of transferring a young person to the adult court. This mechanism allowed the youth court to decide a question of jurisdiction: whether the young person would be processed and sentenced within the youth justice system, or whether the young person would be sent to the adult court for him to be dealt with and sentenced therein. With regard to the Youth Criminal Justice Act (2002), I observed how the political system has regulated the imposition of adult sentences by the youth court. This statute replaced the mechanism of transfer under the two previous statutes by the imposition of adult sentences within the youth justice system. For the second level of observation ("the understanding and interpretation of statutes"), I observed how the Montreal Youth Court had understood and interpreted the statutory provision that allowed the youth court to transfer a young person to the adult court for the young person to be dealt with and sentenced therein. My period of observation is from 1911 to 1995. I argue that both the political and the judicial systems have been strongly influenced by the theories of deterrence, denunciation, retribution, and rehabilitation. The influence that each theory has exercised on each system varies. The political system, originally focused on the rehabilitation of young people, has been slowly “contaminated” by the most punitive theories, such as deterrence and denunciation. This shift started in the 70’s and slowly increased over the years. Conversely, while the judicial system does not seem to have been originally influenced by the theories of rehabilitation, its focus has slowly shifted towards this objective as the primary goal of their intervention towards young offenders since the 70’s. However, the “successful rehabilitation” of a young person has become a goal in itself, where “unsuccessful offenders” have been transferred to the adult court and dealt with the adult punitive justice system.