41) The factors Congress provided in the FJDA include:
FJDA Proceedings Distinct from Federal Criminal Proceedings
Important differences exist between a juvenile adjudicated under the FJDA and a juvenile charged as an adult in a federal criminal proceeding.
Courts have consistently held that the FJDA does not grant the right to a trial by jury because juvenile proceedings are not criminal in nature, thereby making the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a trial by jury inapplicable.
After the 1974 amendments to the FJDA that deleted the provision explicitly stating that juveniles would not have a right to trial by jury in juvenile proceedings, courts faced the argument that the deletion of the provision implies the Congressional intent of giving the right to trial by jury.
Another significant difference between federal juvenile proceedings under the FJDA and adult criminal prosecutions is that in the former the Attorney General can initiate a juvenile proceeding by information instead of by indictment.
68) Courts have interpreted "maximum term of imprisonment" to mean that a juvenile can receive a term of official detention as if the juvenile were tried as an adult and sentenced according to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, even though they do not directly apply in FJDA proceedings.
82) She relied on a Ninth Circuit decision that established a standard in which the FJDA requires that juveniles "'be confined in the least-restrictive environment that will support their continued rehabilitation.
99) marks a significant turn in juvenile delinquency adjudications under the FJDA (100) because the Eighth Circuit focuses on punishment rather than rehabilitation.
Throughout the procedural stages under the FJDA, the district court is given considerable discretion, including the ability to determine whether a juvenile should be transferred to an adult criminal proceeding, the court's balancing of six vague factors to determine if juvenile adjudication is appropriate, with the controlling weight of each factor to be decided by the judge, and discretion in the ultimate disposition.
Although the FJDA enumerates six specific categories of information which the court must investigate, include in the record, and then balance to determine whether a rehabilitative disposition is in the interest of justice, these factors are rather ambiguous.