Chapter 16 begins by very briefly revisiting the misinformation that dominates the transfer literature (see Chapters 6-11), and by briefly reaffirming the dimensions of transfer identified in Chapter 3. The Chapter then explains the three tasks associated with developing transfer policy: 1) choosing an option, such as no transfer, no transfer, but serious modifications to JC, selective transfer, or total transfer (abolition of JC); 2) selecting a transfer method, such prosecutorial transfer (PT) and/or judicial transfer (JT) (assuming transfer is the option chosen); and, 3) discussing implications associated with the available policies. The Chapter concludes by attempting to accomplish reconciliations in three contexts: whether there is a lack of fit between transfer and CC/CJ System outcomes; whether transfer should be backwards-looking (based on current offense and/or delinquent/treatment record) or forward-looking (based on future behavior forecasts, such as future dangerousness or desistance from crime); and, whether reverse transfer from CC should be available.
(T)he abolitionist reform preserves the traditionalist’s insistence that, all else being equal, juveniles are less culpable for the harm they cause than their adult counterparts, and so are deserving of less punishment; whereas, the transfer trend rejects this commitment to differential desert and punishment. From this perspective, the transfer’s trends reforms are much more radical than the abolitionist reforms. Because the abolitionist reforms do not threaten differential desert and punishment, they are less threatening to the traditional rationale for a separate juvenile court… (Brink, 2003-2004, p. 1580).
Abolition of JC does not guarantee a youth discount sentence, however; Brink admits that two pages later (Id., p. 1582). Discounts across-the-board have not happened to date, and arguably present problems of their own (see Zimring, 1998a). Transfer does not rely upon any particular CC sentencing model. Transfer only sometimes means a longer CC sentence, which often is not the goal of transfer.
The second task arises if the second or third policy choices are adopted and that task is to select the proper method(s) for transferring juvenile offenders to CC: judicial transfer (JT) and/or prosecutorial transfer (PT).
Finally, the third task involves discussing the implications of the four policy choices.