On March 29, Louisianians will vote on a state constitutional amendment that would change the circumstances under which a juvenile may be tried as an adult. Collectively, these legal provisions are called “transfer laws” as they refer to the “transfer” of an individual’s case from juvenile court to adult criminal court for prosecution.
Nearly a year ago, the state legislature passed a law that would automatically prosecute 17-year-olds in adult court for any crime, when prior to that the justice system did not mandatorily treat individuals as adults until age 18. This new amendment on the March 29 ballot expands the constitution’s language to allow a juvenile, even those under the age of 17, to be charged as an adult for “any crime,” giving state lawmakers the ability to pass new transfer laws.
Currently, only 12 crimes are listed in the constitution, including murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, rape, armed robbery, aggravated burglary, aggravated kidnapping, and second or subsequent felony-grade violations of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law. Under the amendment, this list would be removed, and instead the legislature would be authorized to freely determine which crimes can result in trying as an adult.
The question, then, are transfer laws effective? The now debunked myth of “superpredators” started in the 1990s, inciting fear of violent, remorseless, impulsive, beyond-rehabilitation juvenile offenders. While the term and its harmful rhetoric have been admonished as racially charged, “tough-on-crime” policies of the era, including those around transfer laws, remain part of crime prevention conversations. Politicians, law enforcement, child psychologists, neuroscientists, juvenile justice advocates, and the Supreme Court continue to consider and debate transfer laws.
As such, extensive and expansive research has examined the effectiveness and impact of treating juvenile offenders as adults, and much of it has demonstrated transfer laws and their accompanying harsher punishments do little to nothing to act as a deterrent, reduce recidivism, and improve public safety. More generally, youth incarceration can be detrimental to young people, damaging young people’s physical and mental health, negating their rehabilitation potential, impeding education and career advancement, and exposing youth to abuse.
The largest debate around transfer laws is related to recidivism, which is the tendency of an individual to continue criminal behavior after being incarcerated. Research shows that adolescent offenders transferred to adult court have higher recidivism rates than those retained in the juvenile system. Overall, formerly incarcerated youth experience high rates of rearrest, new adjudications in juvenile court or convictions in adult court, and reincarcerations.
Studies on recidivism rates list the following reasons
- Detention and incarceration interrupt educational progress.
- Adult prisons may not provide age-appropriate rehabilitation opportunities.
- The stigmatization of having been incarcerated reduces employment and housing opportunities.
- Formerly incarcerated individuals often experience loss of their civil rights.
- Youth in adult incarceration may increase their knowledge of criminal behavior, and the prison environment may make criminal conduct more acceptable.
- Incarcerated individuals may be “hardened” by being devalued, mistreated, and further exposed to violence.
By acknowledging that adolescents are still developing as human beings, systems should intervene in age-appropriate ways to address the circumstances and behavior that lead them to commit crimes. While imperfect, juvenile diversion and detention that prioritize the needs and development of young people can offer more effective tangible and emotional supports that prevent them from reengaging in activities and behavior that threaten public safety.
Public Safety & Violence Prevention
Amending transfer laws to prosecute and incarcerate more juveniles as adults may not provide the desired public safety and violence prevention benefits. While overall research on the deterrent effect of transfer laws is inconclusive, those studies that specifically interviewed juveniles to understand their knowledge and perceptions of transfer laws found that they were unaware or did not believe it would apply to them. Not functioning as a deterrent to committing crime undermines the public safety benefits of transfer laws.
Additionally, reducing juvenile incarceration has long been promoted as violence prevention. Anyone who is incarcerated has a high risk of exposure to violence, including sexual abuse, physical assault, and suicide. A juvenile sentenced to adult incarceration would be at higher risk. According to the Equal Justice Initiative, the risk of assault is five times higher for a juvenile in an adult correctional facility, and suicide risk is 36 times higher. Experiencing violence has lasting mental, emotional, and physical effects that increase the likelihood of being a victim or perpetrator in the future, including upon release thus negating any gains in public safety through incarceration.
Brain Development & Risk Taking
Because biologically their brains are not fully developed, young people may not always know or understand the consequences of their actions. They have less cognitive ability and have not had enough experience in society to understand their place within it.
Advances in neuroscience have significantly increased what we know about brain development. The frontal lobe, which is responsible for decision making, does not fully develop until age 25. This psychological immaturity means risky behavior is more common among adolescents. They also
- Lack impulse control
- Are susceptible to peer pressure
- Are reward-seeking
- Lack self-regulation
The combined research of neuroscience, psychology, medicine, sociology, social work, and public health has found that exposure to childhood trauma and adverse childhood experiences affect brain development, cognitive ability, and behavior. Juvenile offenders are more likely to have trauma histories, which means that incarceration as an adult may perpetuate harm, making young people less likely to rehabilitate. This is particularly true for women. A Human Rights for Kids study found that nearly 91% of women incarcerated as children experienced over 4 ACEs, meaning they were victims before they were offenders and in need of mental health care instead of incarceration.
Outside of neuroscience and psychology, young people may not know or care about the potential of being tried as an adult. In addition to being aware of transfer laws, they must also believe they will be caught, convicted, and sentenced in order to calculate the risk of a severe penalty and lengthy incarceration. While research found that some juveniles saw being tried as an adult as a “wake-up call,” that knowledge came too late. Their lives had already been negatively affected.
Because their brains are still developing, adolescents are actually more capable of rehabilitation than adults, but trying and sentencing them in adult court negates that opportunity. Incarcerating youth interrupts their education and employment path. Increasing restorative justice and diversion activities in juvenile systems would increase educational attainment rates and economic stability.
A 2023 Human Rights for Kids report reveals that the U.S. has more people in prison for crimes committed as children than as adults in nearly 80% of countries. One-third of these children will serve 40+ years, not being released until their 50s, while others will spend over a decade in prison. Most are racial minorities.
Louisiana leads the nation in applying transfer laws, with 7.2% of its prison population incarcerated as children, serving an average sentence of nearly 20 years. The state incarcerates children at a rate of 49 per 100,000, the highest in the U.S., and has the fourth-highest number of individuals serving life sentences given as children.
For the last 15 years, all 17-year-olds, including those who committed violent offenses entered the juvenile system. This was a success for children’s rights advocates to ensure juvenile offenders were placed in age-appropriate settings. The state legislature reversed the “Raise the Age” reform early in 2024 to automatically prosecute 17-year-olds in adult court for “any crime.” Research released in late October 2024 on the first five months of the new legislation revealed that 69% of the 17-year-olds booked in three of the state’s largest parishes have not been accused of violent crimes. That means that they are being prosecuted and sentenced as adults, despite their potential for rehabilitation.
Preventing youth crime and violence must extend beyond harsher penalties and harmful transfer laws. Decades of research across a variety of fields, including psychology, public health, law, pediatrics, social work, and education have identified protective factors children, teens, and their families, and implemented intervention approaches that have helped young people change the course of their lives toward education, employment, social connection, and opportunity.
Other solutions:
- Early intervention and prevention programs that include education, employment, skill-building, mentoring, social-emotional learning, conflict-resolution, and restorative justice.
- Behavioral health interventions and substance abuse treatment
- Treatment of trauma for those exposed to violence
- Diversion programs that provide counseling, education, or community service as alternatives to incarceration
- Community-based treatment and family engagement
- Increased family supports that improve housing, food security, and economic stability
Applegate, B. K., Bolin, R. M., & Ouellette, H. M. (2023). Extending the long arm of the law: punishment and rehabilitation as motives of public support for handling violent juvenile offenders as adults. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 19(4), 1001–1019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-022-09518-w
Center for Law, Brain & Behavior. (n.d.). Juvenile justice. Massachusetts General Hospital. https://clbb.mgh.harvard.edu/juvenilejustice/
Equal Justice Initiative. (n.d.). Children in prison. Equal Justice Initiative. https://eji.org/issues/children-in-prison/
Hahn, R., McGowan, A., Liberman, A., Crosby, A., Fullilove, M., Johnson, R., Moscicki, E., Price, L., Snyder, S., Tuma, F., Lowy, J., Briss, P., Cory, S., & Stone, G. (2007). Effects on Violence of Laws and Policies Facilitating the Transfer of Youth from the Juvenile to the Adult Justice System: A Report on Recommendations of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services. MMWR. Recommendations and Reports, 56(9), 1–11. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18046302/
Human Impact Partners. (n.d.). Juvenile injustice: Charging youth as adults is ineffective, biased, and harmful. Human Impact Partners. https://humanimpact.org/hipprojects/juvenile-injustice-charging-youth-a…
Human Rights for Kids. (2023). Unheard: The epidemic of severe childhood trauma among girls tried as adults. Human Rights for Kids. https://humanrightsforkids.org/publication/unheard-the-epidemic-of-seve…
Human Rights for Kids. (2022). Crimes against humanity: The mass incarceration of children in the United States. Human Rights for Kids. https://humanrightsforkids.org/publication/crimes-against-humanity-the-…
Human Rights for Kids. (2021). Raise the age: Ensuring all kids have access to the juvenile justice system. Human Rights for Kids. https://humanrightsforkids.org/publication/raise-the-age-ensuring-all-k…
Johnson, M. E. (2014). A call for reform: The (in) effectiveness of juvenile transfer laws (Vol. 53, Number 6). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.
Loughran, T. A., Mulvey, E. P., Schubert, C. A., Chassin, L. A., Steinberg, L., Piquero, A. R., Fagan, J., Cota-Robles, S., Cauffman, E., & Losoya, S. (2010). Differential Effects of Adult Court Transfer on Juvenile Offender Recidivism. Law and Human Behavior, 34(6), 476–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9210-z
McGowan, A., Hahn, R., Liberman, A., Crosby, A., Fullilove, M., Johnson, R., Moscicki, E., Price, L., Snyder, S., Tuma, F., Lowy, J., Briss, P., Cory, S., & Stone, G. (2007). Effects on Violence of Laws and Policies Facilitating the Transfer of Juveniles from the Juvenile Justice System to the Adult Justice System. A Systematic Review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32(4), 7–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2006.12.003
Puzone, K. I. (2023). Juvenile Court Exists for a Reason: An Argument in Support of Recognizing a Constitutional Right for Those Under the Age of Majority to be Tried in Juvenile Court. Stanford Journal of Civil Rights & Civil Liberties, 19(2), 157–188. https://law.stanford.edu/publications/juvenile-court-exists-for-a-reaso…
Ramaswamy, S., Seshadri, S., Bunders-Aelen, J., & Okpaku, S. O. (2021). Navigating Juvenile Transfer Laws: The Application of Vulnerability, Mental Health, and Rights Frameworks in Psycholegal Assessments of Children in Conflict with the Law. In Innovations in Global Mental Health (Vol. 2, pp. 941–970). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57296-9_142
Redding, R. E., & United States. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2008). Juvenile transfer laws an effective deterrent to delinquency? U.S. Dept of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/220595.pdf
Simerman, J. (2024, February 22). Louisiana prosecutors are charging more teens as adults, undoing “raise the age” reform. ProPublica. https://www.propublica.org/article/louisiana-teens-prosecution-reverse-…
The Sentencing Project. (2024). Why youth incarceration fails: An updated review of the evidence. The Sentencing Project. https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/why-youth-incarceration-fails…;
