The Transfer of Juveniles to Adult Court in Canada and the United States: Confused Agendas and Compromised Assessment Procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article traces the evolution of the youth justice system in Canada and the United States and examines the practice of transferring juveniles to criminal court. Experts disagree about whether the goals of rehabilitation and retribution can be satisfactorily reconciled within the bounds of the juvenile system, and whether juvenile transfer significantly deters youth crime. Equally controversial is the appropriateness of exposing youth – who are in the midst of development – to the criminal system and to the possibility of receiving a lengthy adult sanction. We argue that it is neither efficacious nor ethical to transfer youth to adult court and deny them the protections afforded by the juvenile system. Concepts from developmental psychology, risk assessment, and juvenile psychopathy are integrated into this argument. Recommendations for policy and future research are noted, including a need to develop systematic guidelines that bridge legal and psychosocial constructs in the assessment of risk, amenability to treatment, and maturity of character in youth.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".