the prosecution of youth as adultsyouthlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/the-prosecution... ·...
Post on 16-Aug-2021
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
A COUNTY-LEVEL ANALYSIS OF PROSECUTORIAL DIRECT FILE IN CALIFORNIA AND ITS DISPARATE IMPACT ON YOUTH OF COLOR
THE PROSECUTION OF
YOUTH AS ADULTS
Laura Ridolfi W. Haywood Burns InstituteMaureen Washburn Center on Juvenile and Criminal JusticeFrankie Guzman National Center for Youth Law
1 | P a g e
Introduction
Background
“(T)ransfer of juveniles to adult court should be rare and
only after a very thoroughly considered process.” National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
2 | P a g e
Figure 1: Pathways to Adult Prosecution, 2014
3 | P a g e
Data Analysis and Limitations
4 | P a g e
Statewide Trends in Direct File
Figure 2: The Percentage of Youth Transferred to the Criminal System Due to Direct File or a
Judicial Transfer Hearing, 2003-2014
50%53% 52%
71%
64%
72%69%
73% 75%81%
84%80%
50%47% 48%
29%
36%
28%31%
27% 25%19%
16%20%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Percentage Prosecutorial Direct File Percentage Judicial Transfer
Source: DOJ, 2014c
Takeaway
A growing share of
youth prosecuted in
the adult system
arrive as a result of
direct file rather
than a judicial
transfer hearing.
5 | P a g e
Figure 3. One-Day Snapshot5 of Youth Tried as Adults and Detained in Juvenile Halls, 2003-
2014
County-Level Variations in the Use of Direct File
125
53
138
428
299
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Transfer Hearing ADP Direct File ADPSource: BSCC, 2014
Takeaway
Since 2003, a
greater number of
youth are being
held in juvenile halls
during criminal
proceedings despite
declines in the
number of youth
held for judicial
transfer hearings.
6 | P a g e
Figure 4. Direct File Cases Compared to Judicial Transfer Hearings by County, 2014
Note: Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Colusa, Del Norte, El Dorado, Glenn, Humboldt, Imperial, Inyo, Lake, Lassen,
Mariposa, Modoc, Mono, Plumas, San Benito, San Francisco, San Mateo, Sierra, Siskiyou, Tehama, Trinity,
Tuolumne, and Yolo counties reported no direct file or transfer hearings in 2014.
72% (n=474)
61% (n=14)
71% (n=5)
100% (n=11)
56% (n=19)
57% (n=13)
68% (n=23)
24% (n=18)
100% (n=7)
100% (n=2)
50% (n=1)
29% (n=6)
67% (n=6)
70% (n=7)
75% (n=3)
82% (n=27)
100% (n=1)
42% (n=23)
100% (n=49)
97% (n=63)
100% (n=14)
100% (n=37)
89% (n=8)
88% (n=35)
100% (n=2)
100% (n=2)
88% (n=7)
100% (n=7)
100% (n=5)
100% (n=6)
100% (n=21)
100% (n=19)
87% (n=13)
28% (n=183)
39% (n=9)
29% (n=2)
44% (n=15)
43% (n=10)
32% (n=11)
76% (n=57)
50% (n=1)
71% (n=15)
33% (n=3)
30% (n=3)
25% (n=1)
18% (n=6)
58% (n=32)
100% (n=5)
100% (n=2)
11% (n=1)
12% (n=5)
12% (n=1)
13% (n=2)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
State of California
Alameda
Butte
Contra Costa
Fresno
Kern
Kings
Los Angeles
Madera
Marin
Mendocino
Merced
Monterey
Napa
Nevada
Orange
Placer
Riverside
Sacramento
San Benito
San Bernardino
San Diego
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
Santa Barbara
Santa Clara
Santa Cruz
Shasta
Solano
Sonoma
Stanislaus
Sutter
Tulare
Ventura
Yuba
Percentage Direct File Percentage Transfer Hearing
Takeaway
Counties vary in their reliance on direct file, with most reporting a greater number of direct
file cases than judicial transfer hearings.
Source: DOJ, 2014b
7 | P a g e
Figure 5. Direct File Rate by County (per 100,000 pop. ages 14-17), 2014
Source: DOJ, 2014b
Note: Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Colusa, Del Norte, El Dorado, Glenn, Humboldt, Imperial, Inyo, Lake, Lassen,
Mariposa, Modoc, Mono, Plumas, San Benito, San Francisco, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Sierra, Siskiyou,
Tehama, Trinity, Tuolumne, and Yolo counties reported no direct file cases in 2014.
309.8
265.7
104.0
93.9
81.32
73.9
67.8
66.0
61.1
48.2
47.1
39.6
38.0
37.0
33.9
31.7
30.6
29.1
25.8
23.5
23.1
22.9
21.9
19.1
17.9
16.8
16.2
15.9
15.8
15.1
8.8
4.8
3.4
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Yuba (n=13)
Kings (n=23)
Sutter (n=6)
Napa (n=7)
San Joaquin (n=42)
Madera (n=7)
Tulare (n=21)
Nevada (n=3)
Sacramento (n=49)
Butte (n=5)
San Bernardino (n=63)
Ventura (n=19)
Santa Clara (n=35)
Santa Barbara (n=8)
Merced (n=6)
Fresno (n=19)
Solano (n=7)
Sonoma (n=7)
Monterey (n=6)
Kern (n=13)
Mendocino (n=1)
State of California (n=474)
Shasta (n=2)
Alameda (n=14)
Contra Costa (n=11)
Marin (n=2)
Santa Cruz (n=2)
Orange (n=27)
Riverside (n=23)
Stanislaus (n=5)
San Diego (n=14)
Placer (n=1)
Los Angeles (n=18)
Takeaway
Statewide, there were
approximately 23 cases of direct file
for every 100,000 youth ages 14-17
in 2014. County rates of direct file
varied substantially, from 0 to 310
cases per 100,000 youth.
8 | P a g e
Figure 6. Direct File Rate by County (per 1,000 serious felony arrests for ages 10-17), 2014
Source: DOJ, 2014b; DOJ 2014a
Note: Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Colusa, Del Norte, El Dorado, Glenn, Humboldt, Imperial, Inyo, Lake, Lassen,
Mariposa, Modoc, Mono, Plumas, San Benito, San Francisco, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Sierra, Siskiyou,
Tehama, Trinity, Tuolumne, Yolo reported no direct file cases in 2014.
541.7
252.7
200.0
157.9
157.9
122.2
119.3
111.1
108.5
102.0
90.5
75.8
67.3
65.6
55.6
52.3
50.7
48.8
48.4
47.6
44.8
43.2
42.9
40.8
40.0
37.8
35.7
29.2
25.4
24.1
17.4
16.1
6.6
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Yuba (n=13)
Kings (n=23)
Napa (n=7)
Nevada (n=3)
Sutter (n=6)
Sacramento (n=49)
Tulare (n=21)
Madera (n=7)
San Joaquin (n=37)
Butte (n=5)
Ventura (n=19)
Santa Clara (n=35)
San Bernardino (n=63)
Santa Barbara (n=8)
Kern (n=13)
Fresno (n=19)
Sonoma (n=7)
Shasta (n=2)
Riverside (n=23)
Merced (n=6)
Statewide (n=474)
Solano (n=7)
Orange (n=27)
Monterey (n=6)
Mendocino (n=1)
Contra Costa (n=11)
Marin (n=2)
Alameda (n=14)
Stanislaus (n=5)
Santa Cruz (n=2)
San Diego (n=14)
Placer (n=1)
Los Angeles (n=18)
Takeaway
Statewide, there were
approximately 45 cases of direct file
for every 1,000 serious juvenile
felony arrests, but county rates of
direct file varied substantially, from
0 to 542 cases per 1,000 arrests.
9 | P a g e
Figure 7. Percentage of Direct File Cases Involving 14- or 15-year-olds, 2010-2014
4%
13%
2%
8%
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%
14-years-old
15-years-old
Fewer than 50 direct files per 100,000 youth population
More than 50 direct files per 100,000 youth population
Takeaway
Counties with more
than 50 cases of direct
file per 100,000 youth
directly filed a greater
share of 14- and 15-
year-olds than counties
with lower rates of
direct file.
Source: DOJ, 2014b
10 | P a g e
Direct File and Rates of Youth Arrest
Figure 8. Serious Felony Arrests and Direct File by County (per 100,000 pop. ages 14-17), 20146
279
523
329
239
379
336
281
221
251
238
359
224
244
288
354
303
359
290
310
212
296
259
230
323
238
224
342
190
167
301
256
150
263
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Yuba
Kings
Sutter
Napa
San Joaquin
Madera
Tulare
Nevada
Sacramento
Butte
San Bernardino
Ventura
Santa Clara
Santa Barbara
Merced
Fresno
Solano
Sonoma
Monterey
Kern
Mendocino
Statewide
Shasta
Alameda
Contra Costa
Marin
Santa Cruz
Orange
Riverside
Stanislaus
San Diego
Placer
Los Angeles
Arrests (per youth 10-17)
Direct Files (per youth 14-17)
Takeaway
County reliance on
direct file is not
correlated with
relevant youth arrest
rates.
Source: DOJ, 2014a; DOJ, 2014b
11 | P a g e
Direct File and Racial and Ethnic Disparities
Figure 9: Rate of Direct File by Race and Ethnicity (per 100,000 pop. ages 14-17), 2003-2014
10 8
46
91
24 26
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
White Black Latino
Takeaway
Racial and ethnic disparities in direct file prosecutions have grown since 2003. While the rate of
direct file is decreasing for White youth, it has increased for Black and Latino youth.
Source: DOJ 2014c
12 | P a g e
Figure 10: Disparity Gap in the Rates of Direct File, 2003-2014
Source: DOJ 2014c
Takeaway
For every White youth directly filed in 2003, there were 2.4 Latino youth and 4.5 Black youth. In
2014, 3.3 Latino youth and 11.3 Black youth were directly filed for every White youth.
13 | P a g e
Figure 11. Rates of Direct File for White and Black Youth (per 100,000 pop. ages 14-17), 2014
Figure 12. Disparity Gap for White and Black Youth (per 100,000 pop. ages 14-17), 2014
30
41
136
44
15
33
19
13
8
8
8
5
13
5
14
200
98
81
10
3
629
617
458
433
376
372
275
244
236
229
220
182
180
157
149
118
98
91
85
61
61
38
25
6
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Butte
Sutter
Kings
Madera
Tulare
Shasta
San Joaquin
Sacramento
Fresno
San Bernardino
Santa Barbara
Monterey
Placer
Sonoma
Santa Clara
Alameda
Contra Costa
State of California
Stanislaus
San Diego
Kern
Riverside
Solano
Los Angeles
Yuba
Napa
Nevada
Ventura
OrangeWhite Black
Takeaway
In nearly all California counties
that direct filed youth in 2014,
Black youth were far more likely
than White youth to be direct filed.
In these counties, Black youth
were two to 25 times more likely
to be direct filed than White youth,
with nine counties direct filing
Black youth but no White youth.
25
2120
1715
13 12 12 11
8 8 8
53
2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Tim
es
Mo
re L
ike
ly t
ha
n W
hit
e
Black youth were directly filed in
these nine counties but no White
youth were, so the disparity gap
cannot be calculated. This
suggests extreme disparity in the
use of direct file.
Source: DOJ, 2014b
14 | P a g e
Figure 13. Rates of Direct File for White and Latino Youth (per 100,000 pop. ages 14-17), 2014
Figure 14. Disparity Gap for White and Latino Youth (per 100,000 pop. ages 14-17), 2014
200
136
98
8
33
44
10
14
41
19
13
3
8
13
5
5
8
30
81
514
323
114
92
86
85
84
71
70
65
63
62
54
50
46
38
35
34
33
30
30
26
24
22
17
9
6
5
5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
Yuba
Kings
Napa
Madera
Santa Clara
San Joaquin
Marin
Tulare
Ventura
Sonoma
Solano
Mendocino
Santa Barbara
Merced
Sutter
Sacramento
Santa Cruz
San Bernardino
Orange
Monterey
Fresno
State of California
Kern
Stanislaus
Riverside
Alameda
San Diego
Contra Costa
Los Angeles
Butte
Nevada White Latino
Takeaway
In nearly all California counties
that direct filed youth in 2014,
Latino youth were more likely
than White youth to be direct
filed. In these counties, Latino
youth were up to 11 times more
likely to be direct filed than White
youth, with 12 counties direct
filing Latino youth but no White
youth.
11
10
7
53 3
3 3 2 2 2 2 21 1 1 1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Ala
me
da
Fre
sno
Lo
s A
ng
ele
s
Ma
de
ra
Ma
rin
Me
nd
oci
no
Me
rce
d
Mo
nte
rey
Sa
nta
Ba
rba
ra
Sa
nta
Cru
z
So
no
ma
Sta
nis
lau
s
Sa
nta
Cla
ra
Ora
ng
e
Ve
ntu
ra
So
lan
o
Riv
ers
ide
Sta
te o
f C
alifo
rnia
Yu
ba
Sa
n Jo
aq
uin
Sa
n B
ern
ard
ino
Kin
gs
Sa
cra
me
nto
Ke
rn
Tu
lare
Na
pa
Su
tte
r
Sa
n D
ieg
o
El D
ora
doTim
es
Mo
re L
ike
ly t
ha
n W
hit
e
Latino youth were directly filed in
these 12 counties but no White youth
were, so the disparity gap cannot be
calculated. This suggests extreme
disparity in the use of direct file.
Source: DOJ, 2014b
15 | P a g e
Conclusion
.
16 | P a g e
References
17 | P a g e
18 | P a g e
Appendix 1. Trends in Judicial Transfer Hearing Outcomes, 2003- 2014
Number of Judicial Transfer Hearings Resulting in a Transfer to Criminal Court, 2003-2014
Source: DOJ, 2014c
Percentage of Judicial Transfer Hearings Resulting in a Transfer to Criminal Court, 2003-2014
Source: DOJ, 2014c
Year Hearings Transfers No Transfers % Transfer % No Transfer
2003 586 404 182 69% 31%
2004 360 252 108 70% 30%
2005 431 318 113 74% 26%
2006 374 263 111 70% 30%
2007 510 401 109 79% 21%
2008 525 332 193 63% 37%
2009 488 346 142 71% 29%
2010 321 260 61 81% 19%
2011 304 227 77 75% 25%
2012 191 146 45 76% 24%
2013 192 122 70 64% 36%
2014 183 122 61 67% 33%
Average 372 266 106 72% 28%
69%
70%
74%
70%
79%
63%
71%
81%
75%
76%
64%
67%
31%
30%
26%
30%
21%
37%
29%
19%
25%
24%
36%
33%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2003 (n=586)
2004 (n=360)
2005 (n=431)
2006 (n=374)
2007 (n=510)
2008 (n=525)
2009 (n=488)
2010 (n=321)
2011 (n=304)
2012 (n=191)
2013 (n=192)
2014 (n=183)
Unfit FitNo Transfer Transfer
19 | P a g e
Appendix 2. The Demographics of Direct File Youth, 2010-2014
Number of Youth Percentage of Youth
Gender Male 2998 96%
Female 125 4%
Race and Ethnicity Latino 1858 58%
Black 810 27%
White 284 10%
Asian/Pacific Islander 152 4%
American Indian 2 0%
Unknown 17 1%
Age 14-Years-Old 86 3%
15-Years-Old 292 9%
16-Years-Old 855 27%
17-Years-Old 1690 54%
Over 18 200 6%
Source: DOJ, 2014b
CENTER ON JUVENILE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE40 Boardman PlaceSan Francisco, CA 94103www.cjcj.orgmaureen@cjcj.org
NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW405 14th St, 15th FloorOakland, CA 94612www.youthlaw.orgfguzman@youthlaw.org
W. HAYWOOD BURNS INSTITUTE475 14th Street, Suite 800Oakland, CA 94612www.burnsinstitute.orglridolfi@burnsinstitute.org
About the Authors Frankie Guzman is a juvenile justice attorney at the National Center for Youth Law working to reduce the practice of prosecuting and incarcerating children in California’s adult criminal justice system. Laura Ridolfi is the Director of Policy at the W. Haywood Burns Institute. Laura works with jurisdictions across the country to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in the justice system. Maureen Washburn is the Policy Analyst the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice where she supports the organization’s mission of reducing society’s reliance on incarceration as a solution to social problems by conducting research and engaging in legislative advocacy.
top related