Juvenile Justice and Juvenile

¶ … Juveniles in Court as Adults

Summary of Policy

Many states in the U.S. allowed the prosecution of juveniles in adult courts, in transfer laws, in an expansion program that ran through the 80s and 90s (Griffin, Addie, Adams & Firestine, 2011). Transfer laws for juveniles outline the direction for trying underage defendants as adults in criminal cases. Earlier on, the criminal justice system sought to separate adults from underage offenders. However, the laws were reviewed to allow such youthful suspects to be transferred and be tried in adult courts. The law review was triggered by the notable serious escalation of violent crime by youthful offenders (Burgess-Proctor, Holtrop & Villarruel, 2008). Many attempts were made between 1979 and 2003 to modify the transfer laws in many states. Some of the efforts were geared towards eliminating the minimum age for trial in a criminal court. There were attempts to also expand the offenses that would be included in such criminal prosecution. These efforts were varied. They either combined the mentioned intentions or focused on either.

The fundamental legal grounds facilitate the transfer of juvenile criminal offenses to adult criminal courts. The Judicial Waiver allows the judge of the juvenile court to determine whether to order such transfer at a waiver hearing of the juvenile case. Another ground is referred to as the prosecutorial transfer. In this case, the prosecuting attorney exercises discretion to file such a case in an adult criminal court in cases that fulfill certain criteria for offenders. Lastly, there is a law called the statutory exclusion. The law deters certain offenses from being tried in juvenile courts. Therefore, anyone charged with such crimes will be prosecuted in adult criminal courts (Burgess-Proctor et al., 2008).

The spirit of the transfer laws was meant to make it an extremely tough choice for juvenile offenders to engage in criminal acts. There remains high public support for the transfer laws; even though some states such as Indiana have gone slow on them in the recent past.

Stakeholders Who Support and Implement Policy

1990s marks the point from when most states enforced tough policy on juvenile crime. This move was a reaction to the increasing incidents of violent crime by youths and children. 2003 cups the peak when states enforced transfer laws that allowed or required child offenders to be tried in adult criminal courts. The laws were crafted by the state governments and dubbed Juvenile Waiver Laws. The laws are operational; once they are passed by the state legislature, with the implementers being the courts, and judges the actors. All the states in the U.S. have a clause that allows children as young as 14 years to be prosecuted in adult courts as adults under special circumstances. In fact, in states such as Vermont, Indiana and South Dakota, 10-year-old offenders can be tried in adult criminal courts (Champion, 2001).

The Ethical Dilemmas, Outcomes, Benefactors, Losers and Negative Consequences of the Transfer Policy

Subjecting children to trial in adult courts presents several ethical dilemmas. To begin with, the criminal courts established under the adult criminal system are intended to try adult offenders. This means that if it is decided that children should be tried in these courts, they are subjected to a clear disadvantage compared to their adult counterparts. Secondly, studies demonstrate that children lack the competency required to assist counsel in their trials. They are also limited in the scope of their understanding of their legal rights and privileges. These challenges have been associated with their immaturity and incapacity to follow the process of trial (Grisso, 1997).

A number of negative effects are also on record. It has been shown that child offenders under adult correctional centers are subjected to a high rate of physical and sexual abuse compared to their adult counterparts. It has also been shown that children committed to adult correctional facilities are 7.7% more likely to commit suicide than their counterparts in juvenile centers. They are also at the risk of being sexually abused by 5%age points. They are twice more likely to be assaulted by the staffs and more likely to be hit with a weapon by 50% (Forst, Fagan & Vivona, 1989).

Another point of concern is that there is a disproportionate figure of minority children who are prosecuted under adult's courts. Data from the Department of Justice shows that up to 67% of juveniles in adult courts are blacks. Up to 77% of children sent to prisons for adults are minorities. 15% of the latter percentage is Hispanics while 60% are blacks. 1% is of American Indian decent while the remainder represents Asians (Strom et al., 1998). Despite all these efforts and shenanigans, there is little empirical research to demonstrate the effectiveness of the policy change in allowing or requiring some children and some crimes to necessarily be tried in adult courts. Fagan (1996) conducted a research to compare 15 and 16-year-old robbery offenders with their adult court counterparts and discovered that 77% of those in adult facilities were rearrested compared to 67% of juveniles tried under juvenile courts. He further found that those taken through the adult criminal system were more likely to be re-incarcerated compared to the ones taken through the juvenile justice system. Although there is still insufficient evidence, it should not be construed to mean that the laws are bearing any positive results, thus, it can be argued that, the laws are benefitting no one. If anything, the little evidence available suggests that these policies are counterproductive. Based on the available evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that the policies are hurting child offenders; more so the minority child offenders who are more likely to be sent to the adult criminal justice system.