{"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 [&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,"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"0","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":"","_tec_slr_enabled":"","_tec_slr_layout":""},"class_list":["post-1672","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"ticketed":false,"_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}]}}