During the last 20 years, efforts to "get tough" on crime in America has resulted in the initiation of a number of punitive sanctions designed to send a message to criminal offenders and society. This new message has been "if you do the crime, you do the time." This philosophy has spilled over into the juvenile court arena as well, where more and more juvenile offenders have been transferred to the adult criminal court to receive adult punishment for their crimes. Such punitive sanctions are in opposition to the original foundation of the juvenile court system, a system designed more than a century ago to deal specifically with youthful offenders. Ideally, juvenile delinquents would receive the benefit of treatment and rehabilitation efforts, with the belief that, due to their young ages, they should not be handled in the same fashion as adult offenders. As violent juvenile crime escalated in the late 1980s, a more punitive response emerged in which juveniles who committed serious crimes against persons and society would be addressed in the much harsher adult court. Responding to the American public's outcry regarding the perceived juvenile crime wave, many states enacted stronger penalties for juvenile offenders and instituted various mechanisms that made the transfer of youthful offenders to the adult court easier and more efficient. Many states implemented legislative (statutory) waivers, in which the state statutes would identify which cases would be handled by the adult court. Other states provided the prosecutor's office with the ability to determine which court would have jurisdiction over the case. The state of Tennessee, however, did not increase the methods of transfer; instead, this state utilized, and continues to utilize, judicial waiver as its only form of transfer mechanism. This research addresses how justice officials in the state of Tennessee view the juvenile court, their roles in dealing with youthful offenders, and how the determination is made that decides which cases remain under the paternalistic goals of juvenile court versus those cases that are moved to the more punitive adult criminal court. The justice officials in the state of Tennessee overwhelmingly support judicial transfers in which the final decision is made by juvenile court judges, with very little support for prosecutorial or legislative waivers; this support reflects an adherence to the goals of the original juvenile court system established in 1899. / A Dissertation submitted to the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy. / Spring Semester, 2006. / February 24, 2006. / Juvenile Transfer, Juvenile Waiver, Juvenile Justice, Juveniles In Tennessee Courts / Includes bibliographical references. / Bruce Bullington, Professor Directing Dissertation; Neil Abell, Outside Committee Member; Dan Maier-Katkin, Committee Member.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:fsu.edu/oai:fsu.digital.flvc.org:fsu_180937 |
| Contributors | Massey-Anderson, Donna Marie (authoraut), Bullington, Bruce (professor directing dissertation), Abell, Neil (outside committee member), Maier-Katkin, Dan (committee member), College of Criminology and Criminal Justice (degree granting department), Florida State University (degree granting institution) |
| Publisher | Florida State University, Florida State University |
| Source Sets | Florida State University |
| Language | English, English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Text, text |
| Format | 1 online resource, computer, application/pdf |
| Rights | This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s). The copyright in theses and dissertations completed at Florida State University is held by the students who author them. |
Page generated in 0.0218 seconds