The bill H.R. 96 1005 summarized the reforms supported by the Legislative Oversight Committee; when it was passed into law, it contained additional elements, including “ a 1-year mandatory parole period, remov[al] [of] the cap on restitution for parents of delinquent youth, and… increased agency access to youth records” (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention para. 39). Two of the most significant changes that would affect juvenile justice at every level were the redefinition of age limits for particular crimes.
First, H.R. 96 1005 changed the age for “aggravated juvenile offenders” so that children as young as ten years old could be charged and convicted for violent crimes (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention para. 44), a significant change. Second, H.R. 96-1005 expanded the “crimes for which a district attorney may elect to file adult criminal charges and allow[ed]for transfer to criminal court of juveniles ages 12 and 13 charged with class 1 or 2 felonies, rather than juveniles ages 12 to 14” (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention para. 47). These changes went into effect on January 1, 1997. Norton states that the guiding philosophy and theory of juvenile justice law in Colorado from 1996 forward is based on the goal of “maintaining an effective juvenile justice system [that ensures] the safety of community” (36).
The implications of these changes to the Colorado state statutes were significant because, among other consequences, they expanded the pool of potential offenders substantially by decreasing the threshold age for criminal offenses. Norton offers a concise explanation of the processes by which a juvenile appears before the court and is considered as an adult. In Colorado, as is the case in many states, there are two methods that are used to try children and adolescents as adults. The first is the transfer method; the second is the direct file method (Norton 40). The transfer method involves filing the case in juvenile court and later requesting a transfer to a district court, which hears the cases of accused adults (Norton 40). It is actually the judge who hears the case in juvenile court who determines whether a transfer would be appropriate; this decision is made based on several variables, including “the age and maturity of the juvenile and the seriousness and the circumstances of the alleged crime” (Norton 40). These variables and the manner in which they should be considered and weighted are described in the decision rendered in the case Kent v. United States [383 U.S. 541 (1966): 566–67] (U.S. Department of Justice 2). Part of the record for this case reads that “the waiver of jurisdiction is a ‘critically important’ [p542] action determining vitally important statutory rights of the juvenile.”
Norton explains that the second, method, direct file, is used more frequently, as accused adolescents who fit a certain set of criteria can automatically be sent before a district court (40). In Colorado, these criteria include being 14 years of age or older and/or the severity of the offense, as well as any previous criminal history (Norton 40). Direct file is a preferred method for prosecutors, who have eagerly pursued adult convictions of adolescent offenders accused of criminal acts. In a later section of this paper, the rate of direct file motions in the state of Colorado will be documented and discussed at greater length.
Related Articles
Case Studies in Social Deviance : Deviant Behavior in Societal Context
Parent Responsibility for Children’s Crimes : A Legal and Ethical Discussion
Implications for the Sentencing Phase of Juveniles Tried as Adults
Trying Juveniles as Adults : A Case Study of Colorado Juvenile Justice
