Children differ from adults in their biological brain development, rehabilitation capacity, and moral culpability, yet the United States’ criminal justice system frequently disregards these distinctions by mandating the transfer of juvenile offenders to the adult criminal system. Despite the juvenile system’s stated commitment to acting in the best interests of the child, mandatory transfer provisions subject juveniles to adult punishment schemes without individualized consideration of culpability, rehabilitative potential, or the detrimental effects adult punishment will have.
In trying to answer the questions, “why do we punish?” and “what should that punishment be?” criminal law has come to recognize four goals of punishment: retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, and rehabilitation. This Note argues that using mandatory waiver provisions to transfer juveniles to the adult criminal system is unjustified under each of these goals.
Drawing on developmental science and moral theory, it demonstrates that juveniles subject to mandatory transfers possess diminished moral reasoning and incomplete brain development, will suffer harsher effects from the adult criminal system, and their heightened capacity for rehabilitation is ignored, rendering adult criminal punishment disproportionate and ineffective.
After tracing the historical and philosophical foundations of the American juvenile justice system, this Note examines contemporary transfer mechanisms, distinguishing between mandatory and discretionary transfer provisions. It then compares the current transfer frameworks of Mississippi, Oregon, Connecticut, and Michigan to illustrate ways in which mandatory transfer policies are used in jurisdictions.
Ultimately, this Note argues that mandatory juvenile transfer statutes should be abolished nationwide. It further argues that discretionary transfers should be narrowly limited to exceptional circumstances and conditioned on a mandatory psychological evaluation to ensure that transfer decisions reflect the critical differences between juveniles and adults.
* J.D. Candidate, 2026, University of Illinois College of Law; B.A., 2023, Wayne State University. Thank you to Professor Eric Johnson for sharing his knowledge and guidance throughout the writing process, and to the University of Illinois Law Review staff, for their commitment and hard work. I dedicate this Note to my parents and sister. For all the long hours and late nights spent helping and supporting me through it all, I am forever grateful.
The full text of this Note is available to download as a PDF.