The Changing Views on Juvenile Justice

Achieving Real Juvenile Justice in the United States Today

When young people commit especially heinous criminal acts, there is a natural temptation to treat them as “little adults” who deserve the same types of punishments that are meted out to adult offenders, and this has been the case far too often in the United States – even in recent years. Indeed, 19 states currently have laws on their books that allow for the execution of juveniles aged 16 and 17 years for capital offenses, and hundreds of juveniles have been sentenced to death since 1973. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the efficacy of adjudicating and punishing juveniles as adult offenders, as well as what methods have been most effective in addressing juvenile crime in the past. Finally, a discussion concerning optimal strategies for addressing juveniles who commit capital crimes is followed by a summary of the research and key findings concerning these issues in the paper’s conclusion.

Review and Analysis

1. Many states allow juvenile offenders to be tried and subsequently punished as adults. Do you believe that this is an appropriate and effective method of addressing juvenile offenses and offenders? Why or why not?

According to the definitions provided by Black’s Law Dictionary (1990), an adult is, “One who has attained the legal age of majority; generally, 18 years” (p. 51), while a juvenile is, “A young person who has not yet attained the age at which he or she should be treated as an adult for the purposes of criminal law; in some states, this age is 17 year” (p. 867). Therefore, the appropriateness of treating juvenile offenders as adults depends on the crime and circumstances, but this approach also depends on state-level laws for non-federal crimes. This type of situationally based approach to punishing juvenile offenders is consistent with the guidance provided by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) which points out, “As a society, we recognize that children, those under 18 years old, cannot and do not function as adults. That is why the law takes special steps to protect children from the consequences of their actions and often seeks to ameliorate the harm cause when children make wrong choices by giving them a second chance.

Notwithstanding these fundamental differences between juvenile and adult offenders, though, it is reasonable to suggest that nothing “magically transformational” occurs in individuals’ makeup during the 24-hour period between their 17 year and 364-day anniversary and their 18th birthday, meaning that the laws on the age of majority are strict demarcations for legal purposes only rather than as concrete guide to effecting real justice for juvenile offenders. On the one hand, this also means that juveniles who are near their 18th birthday will likely possess the same basic level of maturity that they will have when they reach their majority so treating these individuals as adult offenders just makes sense. On the other hand, though, adjudicating many youths as adults will invariably have lifelong negative implications for the juvenile offenders who could have been treated in a far more enlightened fashion (Ventrell, 2005). Taken together, it is clear that justice cannot be served by treating all juveniles as adults, even for the same criminal offenses, and that the unique circumstances of the youth and the crime must be taken into account.

2. What method is beneficial in addressing juvenile crime?

In reality, the search for the optimal strategy for addressing juvenile crime has been underway for more than a half-century, but the research to date confirms that past approaches are largely ineffective at achieving their intended outcomes. For instance, according to Clark (2009), “Effectiveness rates for working with offenders have not improved since the 1960s. During this span, all interventions have had one frame of reference—namely, the professional's point of view. Telling youth "why and how,"—why they should change and how to go about these alterations—has not brought the intended results” (p. 22). Clearly, simply telling youthful offenders to “straighten up and fly right” is not only disingenuous, it is a waste of scarce taxpayer resources because of this strategy’s demonstrated ineffectiveness in addressing juvenile crime.

In response to this lack of evidence-based effective methods for addressing juvenile crime, there has been a growing recognition of the need to apply more enlightened and informed approaches to dealing with juvenile offenders who are at a critical juncture during this developmental period in their lives. In this regard, Loeber and Farrington (2018) emphasize that:

The juvenile and criminal justice systems are returning to an emphasis on rehabilitation and evidence-based practices [and] there is considerable optimism that juveniles can be held accountable, while managing with services and sanctions the risks they pose to others, and provide them with ‘room to reform’ without extinguishing their lives. (p. 2)

Certainly, individualized, evidence-based interventions and effective rehabilitation programs are essential components of any juvenile justice strategy. For example, a study by Loeber and Farrington (2018) found that compared to confinement, court-ordered juvenile justice system services and supervision were effective in significantly reducing the involvement of juvenile offenders in antisocial activities.

It is important to point out, though, that the term “extinguishing their lives” as used above is meant to describe the lifelong negative implications of a criminal record and the adverse effects that invariably result from incarcerating young people in any type of correctional facility, the harsh reality of juvenile justice in America is that adolescents can actually be executed for capital offenses in many states and these issues are discussed below.

3. How would you address juveniles who commit capital crimes?

It would be wrong to characterize all juvenile offenders who have run afoul of the criminal justice system as simply young people who have temporarily lost their way. Indeed, it is reasonable to posit that like adult offenders, many 16- and 17-year-old offenders fully understood the gravity of their actions but proceeded to commit violent crimes – including heinous capital offenses – regardless of the outcome for themselves. As Loeber and Farrington (2018) point out, “Compared with adults, youths’ immature judgment reflects differences in appreciation of risk, appraisal of short- and long-term consequences, self-control, and susceptibility to negative peer influences” (p. 14). Moreover, a growing body of research also confirms that the death penalty, even when it is available, does not serve as a true deterrent to capital offenses.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has outlawed the execution of juveniles 15 years old and younger, 19 states allow for the execution of juveniles for capital offenses. The death penalty, though, is typically reserved for the “worst of the worst” for adult offenders so it is reasonable to suggest that this alternative is likewise used for only the most egregious juvenile offenders; in other words, the “real animals” who have hacked ten other people to death with an ax or shot a dozen bystanders dead at a local mall with their parents’ AK-47. Not surprisingly, the death penalty is rarely used for juvenile offenders. In this regard, the ACLU reports that, “Since 1973, 226 juvenile death sentences have been imposed. Twenty-two juvenile offenders have been executed and 82 remain on death row” (Juveniles and the death penalty, 2021, para. 4).

Even in these most extreme situations, however, juvenile offenders still differ from the adult counterparts in important ways that make the death penalty for capital offenses inappropriate. Some of these reasons include the following:

· The frontal and pre-frontal lobes of the brain, which regulate impulse control and judgment, are not fully developed in adolescents and development is not completed until somewhere between 18 and 22 years of age.

· Because of their immaturity, adolescent children are also more likely to be coerced by adults and are sometimes the pawns for more sophisticated criminals.

· They are also more likely to be taken advantage of during the investigation of a criminal case. Juveniles are often intimidated by adults and authority figures, and are therefore more likely to be the victims of coerced confessions, which are often false.

· Juveniles are less likely to invoke their Miranda Rights, including their right to legal representation.

· Finally, the goals of the death penalty do not apply to juveniles. Retribution aims to give the harshest punishment to the worst offender. Juveniles are the most likely to be capable of rehabilitation. Given their emotional immaturity and lessened culpability, they are not among the ‘worst of the worst’” (Juveniles and the death penalty, 2021, para. 6).