Loading the library…
recidivism, rehabilitation & desistance
The operative claimTransferring juveniles to adult criminal court does not achieve specific deterrence and, in the most credible studies, tends to increase rather than reduce recidivism relative to retention in the juvenile system; pooled effects are heterogeneous and some rigorous analyses find null or offense-specific effects, but no body of evidence supports transfer as a means of reducing reoffending.
Established that transfer does not deter and tends to increase recidivism; no body of evidence supports it as a means of reducing reoffending.
A meta-analysis found no significant specific-deterrent effect and high heterogeneity (Zane et al., 2016); influential reviews conclude transfer increases recidivism and racial disparity without deterrence (Bishop, 2000; Redding, 2008); and a selection-controlled study found heightened recidivism among waived youths (Myers, 2003). A propensity-matched study of serious offenders found an overall null effect with differential effects by history, cautioning against pooling (Loughran et al., 2010).
Zane, S. N., Welsh, B. C., & Mears, D. P (2016). Juvenile Transfer and the Specific Deterrence Hypothesis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Criminology & Public Policy.
Meta-analysis
Pooled analysis found juvenile transfer had no statistically significant specific-deterrent effect on recidivism; effects were highly heterogeneous, suggesting transfer may decrease recidivism in some instances and increase it in others.
Bearing on this claim: Meta (9 samples): no significant specific-deterrent effect; highly heterogeneous.
doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12222Bishop, D. M (2000). Juvenile Offenders in the Adult Criminal Justice System. Crime and Justice.
Review
Transfer achieves neither general nor specific deterrence; there is credible evidence that prosecution and punishment in the adult system increase the likelihood of recidivism, offsetting incapacitative gains, and that expansive transfer exacerbates racial disparities.
Bearing on this claim: Review: no deterrence; adult-system processing increases recidivism and racial disparity.
doi.org/10.1086/652199Redding, R. E (2008). Juvenile Transfer Laws: An Effective Deterrent to Delinquency?. OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin.
Review
Reviews the general and specific deterrence research and concludes that transferring juveniles to criminal court does not deter and tends to increase recidivism relative to retention in the juvenile system.
Bearing on this claim: OJJDP review: transfer does not deter; tends to increase recidivism vs. juvenile retention.
doi.org/10.1037/e479412008-001Myers, D. L (2003). The Recidivism of Violent Youths in Juvenile and Adult Court. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice.
Observational
Even after a statistical control for selection bias, youths waived to adult court showed heightened recidivism (likelihood, seriousness, and faster timing) compared with similar youths retained in juvenile court.
Bearing on this claim: Selection-controlled: waived youths show heightened, faster, more serious recidivism.
doi.org/10.1177/1541204002238365Counter-authority (1). Studies an adversary may cite — surfaced deliberately so the grade is honest about its limits.
Loughran, T. A., Mulvey, E. P., Schubert, C. A., et al (2010). Differential Effects of Adult Court Transfer on Juvenile Offender Recidivism. Law and Human Behavior.
Observational
Found an overall NULL effect of transfer on re-arrest, with differential effects by offending history — cautioning that pooling all transferred adolescents can produce misleading policy conclusions.
Bearing on this claim: Propensity-matched serious offenders: overall null with differential effects — pooling misleads.
doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9210-z4 supporting · 1 counter verified sources
Studies are observational with selection controls, not randomized; effects vary by offense type and history, so pooling can mislead; and the finding concerns post-release recidivism, not incapacitation or retribution.
Last reviewed June 28, 2026