Source: (2007) Loyola University Chicago Law Journal. 39(1): 215-284.

If this incident had occurred two years earlier, the state's attorney would have had two options for prosecuting J.W.: (1) petition the juvenile court for a discretionary transfer to try J.W. in adult court, or (2) require J.W. to remain in juvenile court, which would lose jurisdiction over J.W. upon her twenty-first birthday. ... Illinois has joined the growing number of states that use a form of blended sentencing, called EJJ prosecutions, in which a juvenile receives both a juvenile sentence and an adult sentence. ... The juvenile court and the state's attorney practiced a system of concurrent jurisdiction in which the state's attorney prosecuted the children who committed serious crimes while on probation and/or who were first-time, violent offenders. ... After examining the legislative intent behind enacting the EJJ provision, this Part discusses some uncertainties surrounding the EJJ revocation procedure, including the process by which the juvenile loses the chance to remain in the juvenile system and the adult sentence is executed. ... Therefore, an EJJ designation means that the judge determined that the minor is amenable to the services in the juvenile system or that the adult system is otherwise inappropriate for the offender. ... Although the Illinois Supreme Court has yet to determine whether the EJJ revocation procedure is void for vagueness, subsequent cases are likely to raise the issue if an EJJ juvenile's adult sentence is executed. (Author's Abstract)