揭露了在青少年立案决定中绝对的检察官自由裁量权的摇摇欲坠的理由

IF 0.6 Q4 FAMILY STUDIES
Nina A. Herth, Chinh Q. Le
{"title":"揭露了在青少年立案决定中绝对的检察官自由裁量权的摇摇欲坠的理由","authors":"Nina A. Herth,&nbsp;Chinh Q. Le","doi":"10.1111/fcre.70010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Can absolute prosecutorial discretion in youth charging decisions—like that allowed under Title 16 in the District of Columbia—continue to withstand legal, scientific, and policy-based scrutiny? The recently-approved Restatement of Children and the Law adds to the weight of authorities casting further doubt on the wisdom of such discretion. Most jurisdictions do not permit prosecutors to charge children in adult court unilaterally, requiring a transfer hearing and constitutional safeguards. Among the few that allow “direct file” transfers, nearly all provide some form of judicial review, generally through reverse waiver provisions. D.C., however, stands alone in giving unelected federal prosecutors at the United States Attorney’s Office unchecked authority to charge 16- and 17-year-olds as adults, without any opportunity for judicial review. This approach is at odds with current research on adolescent brain development and the constitutional protections for youth that have evolved alongside it.</p><p>Drawing on the Restatement, this article examines the broader national move away from “direct file” transfer authority, exposing the glaring persistence of outdated practices in D.C. It revisits the failed 2021 legislative reform effort before the D.C. Council to eliminate the U.S. Attorney’s “direct file” authority, and argues that, in the absence of legislative change, legal advocates may need to pursue reform through the courts—particularly given Title 16’s potential vulnerability under the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Ultimately, the article contends that the Restatement, through its “child wellbeing” framework, offers not only a clear articulation of where transfer laws currently stand and how D.C.’s practice diverges but also suggests where the law might ought to be going and provides materials from which law reform advocates can construct futures legal challenges to laws like Title 16.</p>","PeriodicalId":51627,"journal":{"name":"Family Court Review","volume":"63 3","pages":"401-414"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/fcre.70010","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exposing the crumbling justification for absolute prosecutorial discretion in youth filing decisions\",\"authors\":\"Nina A. Herth,&nbsp;Chinh Q. Le\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/fcre.70010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Can absolute prosecutorial discretion in youth charging decisions—like that allowed under Title 16 in the District of Columbia—continue to withstand legal, scientific, and policy-based scrutiny? The recently-approved Restatement of Children and the Law adds to the weight of authorities casting further doubt on the wisdom of such discretion. Most jurisdictions do not permit prosecutors to charge children in adult court unilaterally, requiring a transfer hearing and constitutional safeguards. Among the few that allow “direct file” transfers, nearly all provide some form of judicial review, generally through reverse waiver provisions. D.C., however, stands alone in giving unelected federal prosecutors at the United States Attorney’s Office unchecked authority to charge 16- and 17-year-olds as adults, without any opportunity for judicial review. This approach is at odds with current research on adolescent brain development and the constitutional protections for youth that have evolved alongside it.</p><p>Drawing on the Restatement, this article examines the broader national move away from “direct file” transfer authority, exposing the glaring persistence of outdated practices in D.C. It revisits the failed 2021 legislative reform effort before the D.C. Council to eliminate the U.S. Attorney’s “direct file” authority, and argues that, in the absence of legislative change, legal advocates may need to pursue reform through the courts—particularly given Title 16’s potential vulnerability under the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Ultimately, the article contends that the Restatement, through its “child wellbeing” framework, offers not only a clear articulation of where transfer laws currently stand and how D.C.’s practice diverges but also suggests where the law might ought to be going and provides materials from which law reform advocates can construct futures legal challenges to laws like Title 16.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51627,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Family Court Review\",\"volume\":\"63 3\",\"pages\":\"401-414\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/fcre.70010\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Family Court Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fcre.70010\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"FAMILY STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family Court Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fcre.70010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在青少年指控决定中,检察官的绝对自由裁量权——就像哥伦比亚特区第16条所允许的那样——能否继续经受住法律、科学和基于政策的审查?最近通过的《儿童与法律重述》增加了当局的分量,使人们进一步怀疑这种谨慎是否明智。大多数司法管辖区不允许检察官在成人法庭单方面起诉儿童,这需要移送听证会和宪法保障。在少数允许“直接档案”转移的州中,几乎所有州都提供某种形式的司法审查,通常是通过反向豁免条款。然而,华盛顿特区是唯一一个给予联邦检察官办公室未经选举的联邦检察官不受制约的权力,将16岁和17岁的青少年当作成年人起诉,而没有任何司法审查的机会的地方。这种方法与目前对青少年大脑发育的研究以及与之相伴而来的对青少年的宪法保护不一致。根据《重述》,本文考察了更广泛的全国范围内远离“直接档案”转移权的行动,暴露了华盛顿特区过时做法的明显持续存在。它回顾了2021年在华盛顿特区议会取消美国检察官“直接档案”权力之前失败的立法改革努力,并认为,在没有立法变革的情况下,法律倡导者可能需要通过法院进行改革——特别是考虑到第16条在第八修正案禁止残酷和不寻常惩罚下的潜在脆弱性。最后,文章认为,重述,通过其“儿童福利”框架,不仅提供了一个清晰的表述,目前转让法律的立场和d.c.的做法是如何分歧的,而且还提出了法律可能应该走向何方,并提供了材料,法律改革倡导者可以构建未来的法律挑战,如标题16。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Exposing the crumbling justification for absolute prosecutorial discretion in youth filing decisions

Can absolute prosecutorial discretion in youth charging decisions—like that allowed under Title 16 in the District of Columbia—continue to withstand legal, scientific, and policy-based scrutiny? The recently-approved Restatement of Children and the Law adds to the weight of authorities casting further doubt on the wisdom of such discretion. Most jurisdictions do not permit prosecutors to charge children in adult court unilaterally, requiring a transfer hearing and constitutional safeguards. Among the few that allow “direct file” transfers, nearly all provide some form of judicial review, generally through reverse waiver provisions. D.C., however, stands alone in giving unelected federal prosecutors at the United States Attorney’s Office unchecked authority to charge 16- and 17-year-olds as adults, without any opportunity for judicial review. This approach is at odds with current research on adolescent brain development and the constitutional protections for youth that have evolved alongside it.

Drawing on the Restatement, this article examines the broader national move away from “direct file” transfer authority, exposing the glaring persistence of outdated practices in D.C. It revisits the failed 2021 legislative reform effort before the D.C. Council to eliminate the U.S. Attorney’s “direct file” authority, and argues that, in the absence of legislative change, legal advocates may need to pursue reform through the courts—particularly given Title 16’s potential vulnerability under the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Ultimately, the article contends that the Restatement, through its “child wellbeing” framework, offers not only a clear articulation of where transfer laws currently stand and how D.C.’s practice diverges but also suggests where the law might ought to be going and provides materials from which law reform advocates can construct futures legal challenges to laws like Title 16.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
57
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信