Juvenile Justice in Indiana: Trying Juveniles as Adults

Introduction: The Question of Juvenile Waiver

One of the most controversial issues in juvenile justice is the question of when a juvenile can and should be tried as an adult. In the state of Indiana, children as young as age ten can be tried in adult court. "That's younger than many states, but then some states have no age limit" (King, 2012). The question of where to draw the line regarding juveniles convicted of serious crimes such as murder is not clear-cut. Although most people would agree that trying a seventeen-year-old accused of such a crime in adult court is acceptable, the calculus becomes far less certain for a sixteen-year-old or a fifteen-year-old.

Given the age-based limits on other civic rights — such as the right to vote, drive, or consume alcohol — there is a clear presumption in our society that children below a certain age lack the full adult capacity to evaluate their actions in a reasonable and rational manner. However, victims' rights advocates would counter that someone who has been harmed by a crime does not care whether the offender is a child or an adult: what matters is the victim's suffering. In juvenile justice, the focus is upon rehabilitating the offender, an emphasis that has itself attracted significant criticism for prioritizing the perpetrator over the victim. For crimes as serious as murder, this focus can seem particularly unjust in the eyes of victims' rights proponents.

The Paul Henry Gingerich Case

One of the most controversial recent examples of juvenile waiver in Indiana is the case of Paul Henry Gingerich, who was convicted of murder when he was only twelve years old. Paul "pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit murder after he and a friend fired four bullets into the friend's stepfather. Each boy received 25 years, with the possibility that, for good behavior, they could get out in about half that time. They would still be young men, but young men who had grown up in prison" (King, 2012).

When Paul was convicted, he had no prior criminal record. A psychiatrist who evaluated the boy concluded that he "lacked a basic understanding of the court proceedings, and wasn't competent to stand trial as an adult" (King, 2012). Despite this assessment, the presiding judge remanded Paul to adult court, reasoning that a man had died as a direct result of the boy's actions. That rationale reflects the tension at the heart of juvenile waiver decisions: the severity of the offense weighed against the developmental capacity of the offender.

Indiana's Waiver Laws and Statutory Framework

According to Indiana law, the "statutory basis for waiver of juvenile court jurisdiction is IC 31-30-3. Presumptive Waiver arises under IC 31-30-3-4 when a child ten (10) years old or older [but less than age 16] is charged with an act which would be murder if committed by an adult. NOTE: If the child, who is sixteen (16) years of age or over and is charged with murder, the juvenile court does not have jurisdiction" (Burnham, 1999). The waiver of juvenile court jurisdiction is therefore both age-sensitive and offense-specific under Indiana's statutory scheme.

Additionally, "once a child has been waived to adult court and has been convicted of a felony or a non-traffic misdemeanor, the child will be waived to adult court for all future criminal acts" (Burnham, 1999). This provision underscores the lasting consequences of a juvenile waiver decision: a single adult-court conviction permanently removes the child from juvenile court jurisdiction for any subsequent offenses, regardless of the child's age or circumstances at the time of those future acts.