{"id":1672,"date":"2025-11-16T00:10:20","date_gmt":"2025-11-16T05:10:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/legal-ethics-journal\/?page_id=1672"},"modified":"2025-11-16T00:10:20","modified_gmt":"2025-11-16T05:10:20","slug":"race-recidivism-and-prosecutorial-discretion-in-juvenile-transfer-cases-in-virginia","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/legal-ethics-journal\/in-print\/volume-38-issue-1-winter-2025\/race-recidivism-and-prosecutorial-discretion-in-juvenile-transfer-cases-in-virginia\/","title":{"rendered":"Race, Recidivism, and Prosecutorial Discretion in  Juvenile Transfer Cases in Virginia"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Juvenile transfer laws\u2014laws allowing the transfer of juvenile offenders from<br \/>\njuvenile to adult criminal courts\u2014were established during the \u201ctough on crime\u201d<br \/>\nera amidst fears of juvenile \u201csuperpredators\u201d with the purported goal of improv<br \/>\ning public safety by reducing recidivism rates. However, the practice of juvenile<br \/>\ntransfer has been shown to not only increase, rather than decrease, recidivism<br \/>\nrates, but also to result in a disproportionate number of children of color being<br \/>\nplaced in adult carceral institutions. This article examines juvenile transfer<br \/>\npractices in Virginia in light of recent amendments to relevant laws seeking<br \/>\nto address these problems. In Virginia, like many other jurisdictions, trans<br \/>\nferred juvenile defendants tend to remain in the criminal justice system longer<br \/>\nand have higher recidivism rates. Moreover, Black children have been trans<br \/>\nferred to adult criminal courts and carceral facilities at disproportionately<br \/>\nhigh rates in the state. 2020 amendments to Virginia\u2019s juvenile transfer laws<br \/>\nwere intended to address these issues and racial disparities, most notably by<br \/>\nincreasing the minimum age a juvenile could be tried as an adult from fourteen<br \/>\nto sixteen and thereby reducing the zone of discretionary decision-making among<br \/>\nprosecutors and judges. Through an examination of the history of juvenile trans<br \/>\nfer laws in Virginia, current juvenile transfer processes, and the problems such<br \/>\nprocesses pose, this article argues that recent amendments to laws governing<br \/>\nVirginia\u2019s juvenile transfer process do not go far enough to protect children,<br \/>\nespecially children of color. More specifically, it argues that these amendments<br \/>\ncontinue to provide prosecutors with excessive discretion in determining which<br \/>\nchildren to prosecute as adults. Among other things, this continuing high degree<br \/>\nof discretion risks perpetuating the racially disproportionate nature of Virginia\u2019s<br \/>\njuvenile transfer system to the detriment of children of color, especially Black<br \/>\nchildren. While abolition of juvenile transfer laws represents the most direct way<br \/>\nof dealing with these issues, it is unlikely that there will be necessary political<br \/>\nsupport to abolish all juvenile transfers in the near-term. In light of these real<br \/>\nities, this article identifies additional changes that could improve Virginia\u2019s<br \/>\njuvenile criminal justice practices in the near term.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/legal-ethics-journal\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/24\/2025\/11\/GT-GJLE250019.pdf\">Keep Reading<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Juvenile transfer laws\u2014laws allowing the transfer of juvenile offenders from juvenile to adult criminal courts\u2014were established during the \u201ctough on crime\u201d era amidst fears of juvenile \u201csuperpredators\u201d with the purported goal of improv ing public safety by reducing recidivism rates. However, the practice of juvenile transfer has been shown to not only increase, rather than [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":14207,"featured_media":0,"parent":1667,"menu_order":1,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"abstract.php","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-1672","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/legal-ethics-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1672","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/legal-ethics-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/legal-ethics-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/legal-ethics-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/14207"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/legal-ethics-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1672"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/legal-ethics-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1672\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1674,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/legal-ethics-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1672\/revisions\/1674"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/legal-ethics-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1667"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/legal-ethics-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1672"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}