THIS ARTICLE INTRODUCES THE STANDARDS FOR TRANSFER BETWEEN COURTS - THE PROCESS FOR ALLOCATING JURISDICTION OVER INDIVIDUALS BETWEEN THE JUVENILE AND THE CRIMINAL COURT - AND THEIR COMMENTARY AND EXPLAINS AND DEFENDS SEVERAL OF THE TRANSFER STANDARDS' POTENTIALLY CONTROVERSIAL PROVISIONS. THE FIRST SECTION OF THIS ARTICLE DESCRIBES THE TWO PARTS OF THE TRANSFER STANDARDS JUSTIFYING THE OSTENSIBLE ANOMALIES OF PART I OF THE STANDARDS WHILE IDENTIFYING THE ARGUABLE DEFICIENCY OF PART II. THE ARTICLE EXPLORES THIS POSSIBLE DEFICIENCY, THAT THE STANDARDS ADVOCATE TRANSFER BY THE JUVENILE COURT JUDGE WITHOUT ADEQUATELY CONSIDERING ALL THE OTHER METHODS - IN SECTIONS II, III, AND IV OF THE ARTICLE. SECTION II OF THE ARTICLE SETS FORTH THE FIVE GENERALLY ACCEPTED THEORETICAL METHODS FOR TRANSFER - TRANSFER BY THE JUVENILE COURT JUDGE, TRANSFER BY THE CRIMINAL COURT JUDGE, ALLOCATION BY THE PROSECUTOR, STATUTORY ALLOCATION AND NO TRANSFER - AND CONCLUDES THAT THE LAST TWO ARE NOT PRACTICAL. SECTION III OF THE ARTICLE DISCUSSES NONDISCRETIONARY ALLOCATION, ARGUING THAT SUCH A METHOD, EVEN IF ACHIEVABLE, IS UNDESIRABLE. FINALLY, SECTION IV OF THE ARTICLE EVALUATES THOSE TRANSFER METHODS THAT REALISTICALLY ARE AVAILABLE AND FINDS THAT TRANSFER BY THE JUVENILE COURT JUDGE IS THE SUPERIOR METHOD. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT)...ELW