Exposing the crumbling justification for absolute prosecutorial discretion in youth filing decisions

Abstract 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examines the broader national move away from “direct file” transfer authority, exposing the glaring persistence of outdated practices in D.C. It revisits the failed 2021 legislative reform effort before the D.C. Council to eliminate the U.S. Attorney’s “direct file” authority, and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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Family Court Review
Published
2025-06-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.70010
Primary Topic
Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Exposing the crumbling justification for absolute prosecutorial discretion in youth filing decisions

Chinh Q. Le, Nina A. Herth
Family Court Review
Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
article

Exposing the crumbling justification for absolute prosecutorial discretion in youth filing decisions

Chinh Q. Le, Nina A. Herth
article en

Abstract

Abstract 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.

Family Court ReviewVol. 63(3)
University of Virginia (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 79%
Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Exposing the crumbling justification for absolute prosecutorial discretion in youth filing decisions — Chinh Q. Le, Nina A. Herth · Family Court Review (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS