The history of juvenile transfer to adult court dates back to the 19 th and 20 th Centuries. With increasing rates of juvenile delinquencies, the state and federal governments through legal reforms established laws that facilitated the transfer of the juvenile offenders to adult courts. As such, over the years, many juveniles have been tried in adult courts, and each convicted culprit has received punishment according to the rules and regulations of the state. The State of Virginia has carried out a number of the sentencing of the juveniles who have been transferred to adult courts. Most of the offenses that warrant transfer to adult courts include premeditated murder, kidnapping, and other capital offenses. In bounding over juveniles to adult courts, Virginia State has relied on three principal mechanisms, which includes statutory exclusion, prosecutorial discretion, and judicial waiver.
In Virginia, a juvenile court can decide to waive its jurisdiction on a particular case to a criminal court. In such instances, the judges of the juvenile court explore all the dimensions of the court and conclude that it best suits to be heard and determined in adult courts. In making such transfer requests, the judges consider specific factors including age, the efficacy of treatment, the seriousness of the offense, and offense history. The guidelines that are used are explained in the case of Kent v. Unites States (Richards & Smith, 2015). Whereas some states empower the judges to make absolute discretionary decisions regarding juvenile transfers, others including Virginia have set specific circumstances where a judicial waiver is mandatory.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The second mechanism that has been utilized to bind over juveniles to adult courts is prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutorial discretion also refers as concurrent jurisdictions allow the prosecutor to file a case either in criminal or juvenile court. The exercise of prosecutorial waiver is often determined by the seriousness of the offense and age. The statutory exclusion often refers to the baseline regulations that are enacted by the state in which predetermined factor grants an adult court jurisdiction over particular cases. Again, another principal mechanism that is frequently used is a reverse waiver and “once an adult, always an adult.” “Once an adult, always an adult” is a legal provision that applies to juveniles who have a history of committing crimes or who have been waived from the jurisdiction of juvenile courts. Under these two provisions, any juvenile who has committed a subsequent crime must be tried in an adult court through statutory exclusion or automatic waiver.
Determination of whether a suspected offender should be tried in an adult court or juvenile court has always been predicated on the 18 th birthday as the cut-off age. On the other hand, the society and law enforcers understand that some offenses by juveniles warrant determination in adult courts. As such, the state of Virginia has created conditions and criteria that bound an individual to a criminal court if the juvenile offender meets the criteria. The criteria used in the transfer process include the history of offenses, the gravity of the crime, age, and the perceived inability of appropriate treatment by the juvenile justice system. The supporters of juvenile transfer process base their rationale on the chronic, violent, and serious juvenile convicts who believe that the juvenile process is failing to achieve its mandate of reforming the offenders to be useful members of the society. When the juvenile offenders continue to engage in criminal activities with the subsequent offense becoming more serious than the previous one, then it necessitates the state to convict the juvenile offender in adult criminal court where appropriate justice can be administered.
Juvenile courts in Virginia fall in the civil court's category. Such implies that juvenile offenders are not convicted but are regarded as adjudicated delinquent. The circuit court in Virginia is a criminal court of record. As such, the based on the opinion of the public domain, the interest of the society is best served when chronic juvenile offender are tried in adult criminal courts where longer prison sentence can be administered to the young convicts.
Virginia General Assembly mandated the Virginia Commission to study serious juvenile offenders. The commission worked in collaboration with the Department of Corrections (DOC) and the Department of Youth and Family Services (DYFS). The studies produced impressive findings that the state adopted to review and reform the juvenile transfer statutes. According to the task force, changes necessary in the juvenile transfer statues of Virginia. The first change that was recommended includes lowering the minimum age of transfer from 15 years to 14 years. Based on the empirical studies that were conducted, the data showed that the number of juveniles engaging in criminal acts was gradually increasing from the age of 14 years (Gillespie, Smith, Bjerregaard, & Fogel, 2014). This means that the number of juveniles who would be tried in adult courts was projected to increase significantly.
The task force recommended the expansion of criteria that juvenile courts would utilize in instituting juvenile transfer. Again, a recommendation that forms part of the current provisions on transfers offers a continuum of factors that are considered for the juvenile transfer process to be within the law and satisfactorily approved. The third change was sentencing of juveniles who have committed offenses prescribed for death or life sentence as punishment. The crimes would automatically qualify the offender as an adult without considering the pliability of treatment in the juvenile system ( Siegel & Welsh, 2014 ). Such implies that a juvenile will in the State of Virginia will be tried in an adult court if he or she is convicted of committing capital offenses that warrant capital punishments. The last statute reform that was proposed by the commission was the termination of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction over the convicted juvenile. Any future criminal acts by the juvenile will be treated by the criminal courts, which give harsher sentences to offenders. It is, therefore seen that a juvenile loses his or her rights to receive protection from juvenile court system if he or she has been transferred and convicted in the adult criminal court (Gillespie, Smith, Bjerregaard, & Fogel, 2014).
Another important aspect of the Virginia Statutes on juvenile transfer is contained in the report that was published in 1995 under the chair of the Attorney General of Virginia Jim Gilmore. Juvenile Justice Reform was established during a period when the society was experiencing an escalation in criminal activities judging from the number of arrests that were made. The commission suggested 28 recommendations, with five recommendations dealing exclusively with the transfer of juveniles to adult courts. The recommendations and increased media coverage on the pertinent issues facilitated the State of Virginia to reform laws of the juvenile justice system. The Juvenile Justice Reform that occurred in 1996 introduced more significant changes, which included the addition of statutory waivers and more prosecutorial discretion powers. The Code of Virginia has sections that focus directly on the juvenile transfers to criminal courts. Two types of certifications that govern juvenile transfers to adult courts include prosecutorial certification and automatic certification. In determining the certifications, the juvenile conducts a preliminary hearing to decide whether there is a probable cause. In this phase, the court disregards whether the offender is a “proper person” to be tried in a juvenile court. Upon establishment of a probable cause in the juvenile court, the juvenile offender will be tried in the appropriate court fitting the crime committed.
Evaluation of Risk Factors
The actions of Jake, the school shooter who killed the principal, a teacher and two students with a firearm can be traced back to root causes. The root causes of Jake’s action are premised on the risk factors especially the development factors during his formative years. Whereas the actions of are unwarranted and should be vilified in all measures, it is imperative to assess the risk factors as they are the core contributors to his action. The risk factors can be categorized into three domains including family, school, and the community. A synergy of all the three domains produces a lethal force that requires intensive and comprehensive measures to contain ( Bartol & Bartol, 2014 ). In the case of Jake, it is evident that the inefficiencies of the domains attributed to his violent and murderous actions.
From the first aspect of risk factors, it is important to examine the family construct. Jake as a young person has both parents. As such, parental supervision and disciple primarily affect the behaviors of Jake. Jake turns out to be an antisocial person based on the description his girlfriend tells the police during questioning. The girlfriend admits that people hate Jake, which affects his socialization skills. However, it can be assumed that Jake’s inability to develop and maintain formidable social relationships is attributed to poor parental supervision and discipline. During his earlier years, Jake might have exhibited antisocial skill, which pushed his peers away from him. In such a case, parents who are keen on their children will be quick to notice the anomaly and take necessary actions to correct the mistake. However, it seems that Jake’s Parents were too busy to understand and discipline their son to be a socially- inclusive person. Multiple types of research have shown that parents play an instrumental role in shaping the social orientation of children ( Bartol & Bartol, 2014 ).
Conflicts in the family may have influenced Jake to take the actions he had taken. Jake exhibited signs of violent anger and rage, all of which is tied to the family setting. In the first instance, the risk factor that may have attributed to the actions was poor parental discipline and supervision. This point is entangled to the first point for two reasons. First, parents who are always conflicting have little time to focus on their children. Second, the parents set a bad example for the child. The child grows up knowing that the only way of solving conflict is through violence. Indeed, Jake had committed an offense; he brought cigarettes to school despite the ban on the drug. Instead of accepting the punishment for his actions, Jake is offended by the teacher who caught him and the Principal who had him suspended for three days. In the end, Jake feels he has a plausible reason for revenging despite being caught on the wrong side of the law.
Probably Jake’s parents had an attitude that condoned criminal behaviors. During the development stages, the child can start engaging in petty criminal practices, which can culminate in severe acts as the child ages. Either Jake’s parents accepted the criminal behaviors of their son as innate, or they disregarded the social development of Jake completely. Again, history of criminal activities may have inspired Jake to commit the murders. For instance, if Jakes parents have been convicted of various felonies in the past, then Jake would draw his inspirations from the parents, who are the role models. The last element in the family domain is poverty. Studies have shown that juvenile delinquencies are higher in poor neighborhoods compared to affluent societies (Nagin, 2014). First, in such neighborhoods, people are struggling to survive which may lead to the emergence and surge in crimes such as mugging, kidnapping, and robbery. Another research has shown that drug use is prevalent in poverty-stricken societies. The primary offense of was possession of cigarette. As a matter of logic, he might have been using other hard drugs including bhang, cocaine, and heroin.
The second domain of risk factor in Jake’s case is the school. The violent behavior and antisocial attitude that Jake developed may be attributed to low performance in school beginning in elementary stages. The performance of a student is contingent on various internal and external factors. As such, with an assumption that Jake had disciplinary issues since his elementary classes, then low discipline level is counterproductive with high academic and extracurricular achievement. Jake’s girlfriend admits that most students dislike him (Laureate Education, 2016). The feeling of social exclusion and resentment may have motivated Jake to take revenge on his fellow students and teachers. In the backdrop of the school shootings that have marred the US in recent times, research has revealed that aggressive behaviors such as bullying have played a more significant role in enhancing the fatal shootings. The school may have contributed to Jakes action by establishing a platform where some students exuded due dominance over others. In the spirit of fighting for recognition and relevance, Jake committed a capital crime.
The third domain that may have contributed to Jake’s action is the community. The community plays an instrumental role in shaping the lives of the young population. Such implies that the society should establish norms and ethics that promote individual wellbeing ( Siegel & Welsh, 2014 ). Perhaps the community where Jake comes from is morally dysfunctional and ethically deficient. Such communities have propensities to harbor violent individual who have a negative influence on the youths and teenagers. Media portrayal of violence is also another element of community that may have influence, Jake. Jake’s decision to commit atrocities against his victims was made possible through the availability of firearms. Jake’s girlfriend worries when she discovers that Jake and his two friends have been engaging in shooting ranges in the wood with their parent's rifles. One issue that is evident in this case is the availability of deadly weapons and the inefficacy of laws in protecting the children from access to such weapons. Whereas, the Second Amendment gives eligible citizens a right to own firearms, failure to adhere to strict guidelines have resulted into fatal shootings that have claimed hundreds of innocent lives both within and outside the school setting (Walsh, 2015).
The development risk factors that may have contributed to Jake’s action are generally encompassed in the domains that have been discussed. Conversely, it is vital to examine the personal aspect of Jake’s actions. First, friendships that people develop influence their behaviors. Jake’s girlfriend is worried about the friendship he forms with his two friends. When Jake posts his intents on the internet, the two friends give him a thumb up and encourage him to teach the teacher a lesson (Laureate Education, 2016). Again, he also learns to use a gun from his friends. It is evident that either one or a synergy of risk factors contributed to Jake’s actions.
Recommendations of Forensic Risk Assessment Tools
The risk factors that may have contributed to Jake’s action can be assessed using the following forensic risk assessment tools: the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG), and Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY).
PCL-R is the first instrument that suits the risks factors outlined in Jake’s case. The instrument, which was developed by Robert Hare, is a diagnostic tool that predicts antisocial and psychopathic traits of subjects ( Yang, Wong, & Coid, 2010 ). One of the main reason that is clinically viable in Jake’s case is the antisocial behavior he exhibits at school. Therefore as a forensic psychologist, PCL-R is instrumental in measuring the core aspects that contribute to his behavior. Again, PCL-R is designed to include two critical parts, the interview, and review of records and history. For instance, criminal records and family history has been adversely mentioned in the risk factors, all of which can be supported or substantiated as a factor when the PCL-R test is admitted to the subject.
The second instrument is the VRAG. The instrument is predictive of future involvement in further crimes by already convicted offenders. Jake has been condemned of capital punishment, which may include a death sentence or life sentence. This tool is specifically applicable to juvenile offenders like Jake. Recidivism may occur both inside and outside a prison setting. Notably, in the case of Jake, he can commit more crimes while serving a life sentence as he already knows he will never be released out of prison. The public domain is cognizant of the atrocities death row inmates commit while in prisons.
The last instrument that is applicable in this case is SAVRY. SAVRY is an all-encompassing risk assessment tool that deals with three domains including individual risk factors, social or contextual risk factors, and historical risk factors ( Yang, Wong, & Coid, 2010 ). In-depth analysis of the three risk domains enhances informed decision on the criminal culpability of the subject.
Evaluation of Personal Biases
Based on the facts of the case and the events leading to actions of the subject Jake, my personal biases is predicated on the general feeling that the death sentence is appropriate for the convict. First-degree murder, like the one premeditated, planned, and executed by Jake requires capital punishment to deter other juveniles from committing the same crime. As such, the personal bias may affect how I communicate the results of forensic risk assessment.
Ethical Concerns
The “School Shooter’s” is a highly profiled case that interests the public domain considering the string of similar events that have occurred in the past. As such, the primary ethical concern is to maintain high standards of integrity (American Psychological Association, 2002). The results that are communicated to various stakeholders in the judicial system should be accurate, verifiable, and credible. In doing the assessments, some issues may emerge that are confidential; however, due to the nature of the case, their exposure may be inevitable. The ethical dilemma is another challenge that may arise in this case. Impartiality and fairness are the core pillars of forensic risk assessment (American Psychological Association, 2016c). However, at times, the urge to be unjust may be overwhelming, hence contradicting the integrity of the results.
Conclusion
The report has focused on the essential elements that affect the “School Shooter” case. First, the case involves a juvenile who commits a capital crime by murdering four people. The conviction of juveniles varies from state to state, and nations to nations. In this case, the crime has been committed in the State of Virginia. According to the Code of Virginia, the offender is criminally culpable to be tried in an adult court. Whereas the result of the outcome is capital punishment for the offender, analysis of risk factors, personal biases, and ethical concerns are critical in determining the role of a forensic psychologist.
References
American Psychological Association (2002). APA guidelines on multicultural education, training, research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/policy/multicultural-guideline.pdf
American Psychological Association. (2016c). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology . Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/forensic-psychology.aspx
Bartol, A. M., & Bartol, C. R. (2014). Criminal behavior: A psychological approach . Boston: Pearson, c2014. xxiii, 644 pages: illustrations; 24 cm.
Gillespie, L. K., Smith, M. D., Bjerregaard, B., & Fogel, S. J. (2014). Examining the impact of proximate culpability mitigation in capital punishment sentencing recommendations: The influence of mental health mitigators. American Journal of Criminal Justice , 39(4), 698–715. doi:10.1007/s12103-014-9255-5
Laureate Education (Producer). (2016). Nowhere to hide: School shooter podcast [Audio file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Nagin, D. (2014). Deterrence and the death penalty: Why the statistics should be ignored. Significance, 11(2), 9–13. doi:10.1111/j.1740-9713.2014.00733.x
Richards, T. N., & Smith, M. D. (2015). Current issues and controversies in capital punishment. American Journal of Criminal Justice , 40(1), 199–203. doi:10.1007/s12103-014-9254-6
Siegel, L. J., & Welsh, B. C. (2014). Juvenile delinquency: Theory, practice, and law . Cengage Learning.
Walsh, M. (2015). Death revisited: Will the Supreme Court ‘peck away at’ capital punishment? ABA Journal , 101(10), 19. Retrieved from http://www.abajournal.com/
Yang, M., Wong, S. C., & Coid, J. (2010). The efficacy of violence prediction: a meta-analytic comparison of nine risk assessment tools. Psychological bulletin , 136 (5), 740.
