In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

167 Conclusion Kids Will Be Kids In late 2007, Judge Michael Corriero retired from the Supreme Court of New York. The work of the Manhattan Youth Part continues under the guidance of a new judge with new staff; another judge dedicated to the work of this specialized criminal court and, in his own unique way, to ideals of child-saving. In an interview a few months after his retirement, I asked Judge Corriero if he accomplished what he had set out to with the Manhattan Youth Part. He replied, “Yes, I think I did. I felt very good about what we were able to accomplish. But I recognize that it has a limitation and the limitation is the law, the legal structure. And that has to be changed. And there is no compromise on that—we have to adopt a transfer-up system.” Here the judge echoes one of Aaron Kupchik’s most salient points— that the mechanisms that court actors may use to “filter” transfer laws cannot fully reverse the legal impact of those laws.1 Regardless of how creative its case-processing mechanisms, or how many spaces within the law the court found to work within, the Youth Part could never fully nullify the impact of New York’s statutory exclusion law. The creative mechanisms designed by the court to work around the edges of harsh, counterintuitive , and counterproductive law must be seen only as an interim measure until repeal of the Juvenile Offender Law is possible. Now retired from the bench, Corriero advocates freely for that repeal and for extending the jurisdiction of the Family Court in New York. He proposes that all defendants under 18 years of age be processed initially in the Family Court, with Family Court judges having the right to transfer up to criminal court the cases of those serious offenders deemed not amenable to treatment within the juvenile courts. With the exception of the representative from the Manhattan District Attorney’s office—who thought the current system worked pretty well—all the folks involved with the Youth Part that I spoke with agreed with this proposal. Many legal experts also suggest this model. Laurence Steinberg and Elizabeth Scott argue for “the adoption of, or renewed commitment to, a categorical approach, under which most youths are dealt with in a separate justice system, in which rehabilitation is the central aim.”2 Criminal justice scholar Joseph Sanborn suggests a transfer policy that allows for criminal prosecution of seriously violent and repeat offenders but leaves 168 Conclusion the bulk of cases in the juvenile court systems.3 Under such a system, it would have been possible for Willie Bosket, in 1978, to have been transferred up to the criminal court, where he could have received a sentence more in line with his crimes and chronic offending history. At the same time, the less violent, less hardened, more rehabilitatable youths, like the vast majority of the kids I saw come through the Youth Part, could have their cases handled in the Family Court, and have the chance to avoid a lifetime felony record and all that comes with it. Such a system would be a serious alteration of how New York has done things historically. After my time in the part, it also seems like the only reasonable solution. So, while the work of the Manhattan Youth Part stands as a useful example of how court actors might best attempt to neutralize the impact of punitive transfer laws, it more importantly stands as a strong argument for the repeal of New York’s Juvenile Offender Law and for extending the age of Family Court jurisdiction. True success for the work of the Manhattan Youth Part would be passage of new state legislation that would simply render the court unnecessary. Reforming Transfer Laws The last twenty years have seen a marked reduction in youth crime. The predicted generational onslaught of young urban superpredators never materialized.4 A solid body of research indicates that prosecuting youths as adults does not reduce serious offending and may, in fact, increase it. Further evidence demonstrates that transfer laws have had a serious and consistently disproportionate effect on minority youth. The Supreme Court has reified the idea that youths are different from adults in ways that warrant their differential treatment under the law. Yet, retributive transfer legislation remains on the books in most states. These laws have not made us safer. What they have done is criminalize youth, particularly poor black and...

Share