The Role of Transfer Criteria in Judicial Decision Making

Discretionary decline is one of three mechanisms used in Washington State to transfer jurisdiction from juvenile court to adult court. This function grants juvenile court judges the discretionary authority to analyze a juvenile case in the context of criteria decided by Kent v. United States (1966) and decide whether the case warrants a waiver to adult court. Previous empirical research has focused on quantitative methods to understand predictors of waiver, revealing how national samples of judges clarify the constructs guiding transfer. However, literature is limited regarding qualitative methods which could contribute to a better understanding of judicial decision-making. The present study aims to explore this gap by revealing how juvenile court judges weigh and consider the eight Kent factors. I employ interviews with juvenile court judges in Washington State, analyzing their rationale with regard to the decision to transfer or retain jurisdiction. The data is analyzed using techniques of thematic analysis focusing on the counterfactual revealed in the comparison of transferred and retained cases. Results indicated that despite the significance that judges place on weighing every factor during decline hearings, judges rarely analyze cases using the language articulated by Kent v. United States (1966). Rather they consider transfer through the lens of environmental factors, community protection, and resource availability in juvenile and adult courts. Judges also appear to rely on expert evaluations to support their decision-making, yet report difficulty with accessing these materials.