{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012539184952978056, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004528039010797631, 'mean_word_length': 5.617511520737327, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Juvenile Transfer to Adult Criminal Court: Why Transfer is Not the Best Method in Addressing Juvenile Delinquency

Introduction Juvenile delinquency is a particularly important issue because juveniles make up the next generation in both positive and negative respects; in a negative respect, juvenile offenders today can potentially become the next generation of adult criminals if the current juvenile justice system fails to divert their delinquent behavior. In a positive respect, juveniles make up the next generation of contributing members of society. Therefore, effective juvenile delinquency intervention is important in preventing juveniles from further developing permanent criminal behavior, and instead assisting them to become responsible and effective contributing adults that make socially acceptable decisions. The first juvenile courts were established by the Illinois legislature in 1899, initially adopting the principle of parens patriae, which recognizes that " the State as parent " has the authority and responsibility for intervening on the child's behalf when a child's biological parents failed to provide adequate care and supervision. 1 By creating a separate juvenile court from the adult court, legislators recognized that juvenile offenders were different from adult offenders and thus should be treated differently and held to different standards in determining guilt and punishment. More importantly, early juvenile courts believed that juvenile delinquency could be cured using a completely individualized approach that only considers the individual offender and his/her needs rather than looking at the committed offense. Consequently, this rehabilitative approach resulted in a considerable amount of unequal treatment and unproportionality because juvenile court judges mainly considered factors pertaining to the individual offender rather than the severity of his/her offense. As a result, a poor black male from a single-parent household may receive harsher punishment for committing burglary than a middle-class white male from a stable home that commits the same offense because the black male would be deemed more at risk and in need of juvenile court intervention. Then the 1980s and 1990s saw a significant increase in juvenile arrest rates and juvenile violent crime rates thereby creating increased concern from the general public. As a result, the public began to believe that the current juvenile justice system was too lenient on juveniles, and state legislators were prompted to implement stricter juvenile justice laws that created harsher penalties for serious crimes committed by juveniles. Legislators responded to the public's outcry for harsher penalties by broadening the offenses and lowering the age at which a juvenile can be transferred to adult criminal court and tried as an adult. Additionally, juveniles …