Juvenile Automatic Transfer Rule Deemed Retroactive 79
their loved ones will be facing substantial years of punishment. Additionally, the State is faced
with using resources to reassess cases that have already been decided.
The Juvenile Court Act is meant to ensure public safety as well as preventing victimization
of youths. It will be fascinating to see if the intent of the Juvenile Court Act is being upheld by
applying the automatic transfer age retroactively.
Sources
Bryant Jackson-Green, Changes to Transfer Policy Will Keep More Minors Under Juvenile Supervision, Where They
Belong, ILLINOIS POLICY, (Oct. 10, 2017) https://www.illinoispolicy.org/illinois-poised-to-update-juvenile-transfer-policy/.
Cheney v. United States Dis. Court For D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004).
COALITION FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act,
http://www.juvjustice.org/federal-policy/juvenile-justice-and-delinquency-prevention-act (last visited Oct. 20, 2017).
Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Will County Collector, 196, Ill. 2d 27, 38 (S. Ct. 2001).
Daniel E. Traver, The Wrong Answer to a Serious Problem: A Story of School Shootings, Politics and Automatic
Transder, 31 LOY. U. CHI. L.J. 281, 283 (2000).
Duaa Eldeib, Young Killers Who Stay in Juvenile Court Take Vastly Different Paths, CHI. TRIB. (Oct. 10, 2017),
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-illinois-juvenile-killers-met-20150611-story.html.
Ill. Const. art. VI, § 9.
5 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. § 70/4 (2017).
705 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. § 405/5-130 (2016).
Landgraf v. Usi Film Products. 511 U.S. 244, 264 (1994).
Mary E. Spring, Extended Jurisdiction Juvenile Prosecution: A New Approach to the Problem of Juvenile Delinquency
in Illinois, 31 J. MARSHALL L. REV. 1351, 1380 (1998).
People ex rel. Alvarez v. Howard, 72 N.E.3d 346, (Ill. S. Ct. 2016).
People v. Taylor, 2017 IL App (1st) 142540-U.
Rachel M. Fugett, Comment: Stop Presumptive Transfers: How Forcing Juveniles to Prove They Should Remain in
the Juvenile Justice System is Inconsistent with Roper v. Simmons & Graham v. Florida, 48 J. MARSHALL L. REV.
365, 367-69 (2014).
