Trying Juvenile Offenders as Adults: Arguments Examined

Overview of Juvenile Transfer to Adult Court

Traditionally, anyone under the age of 18 who commits a crime is tried in the juvenile court system; however, under certain circumstances juveniles can be tried in criminal courts as adults. The designation of the age at which a defendant is considered a juvenile—and thus eligible to be tried as an adult—is determined by state law and varies from state to state. A study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) drew on data from over 40 major urban counties in the United States and found that prosecuting juveniles in criminal court as adults was generally reserved for serious crimes such as murder, robbery, or aggravated assault (BJS, 2014). An interesting associated finding of that study, which was originally conducted in 1998, was that in the 40 counties studied, juveniles were more likely than adults to be charged with violent felonies.

There are several different mechanisms by which a defendant may be transferred from juvenile court to adult criminal court. These include (Modecki, 2008):

Juvenile Waiver. Several states allow judges in the juvenile courts the power to have a case tried in adult criminal court.

Direct File. Some states give prosecutors the discretion to decide whether a juvenile should be tried as an adult. This is also sometimes called "prosecutorial discretion."

Statutory Exclusion. In some states, laws automatically require that a juvenile case be tried in adult court. The criteria for transfer are most often based on the person's age, the type of crime, and/or the prior record of the juvenile defendant.

Reverse Waiver. In some states, for certain crimes such as violent rape or murder, there is a presumption that the juvenile charged should be tried as an adult unless the court makes a formal ruling sending the case back to juvenile court.

In some states, if a juvenile was previously tried as an adult, he or she will be tried as an adult in all subsequent cases. This is sometimes termed the "Once an Adult, Always an Adult" provision.

Most states follow more than one of these provisions. Based on a review of the literature, 23 states do not have a minimum age requirement for at least one judicial waiver or statutory exclusion provision. In those states where a minimum age is specified, the most common minimum age at which transfer can occur is 14, although some states use age 10 (Brink, 2004).

Should juvenile offenders be tried as adults in certain cases? This paper first examines the reasoning and evidence against trying juveniles as adults, then the arguments in favor of trying violent juvenile offenders as adults, and concludes with an assessment of the relative strength of each position.

Arguments Against Trying Juveniles as Adults

Those opposed to treating juveniles as adults in the legal system typically invoke several arguments. They identify two major assumptions underlying the practice of trying juvenile offenders as adults. The first assumption is that the threat of harsher penalties will deter juvenile crime. The second is that juvenile offenders who commit very serious crimes should receive punishments strictly proportional to those crimes—punishments far stricter than what the juvenile system would impose.

Regarding deterrence, opponents argue that an examination of juvenile crime rates shows that the threat of being tried as an adult and receiving harsher sentences does not deter violent crime among juveniles—and, further, that the notion that stiffer penalties deter crime is broadly mistaken. Empirical evidence indicates that people generally have no accurate knowledge of the specific penalties for most crimes, particularly juveniles and the conditions under which they can be tried in criminal court (Robinson & Darley, 2004). Moreover, people tend not to respond to legal penalties as written; instead, when asked about consequences for a given crime, individuals typically report what they believe the penalty ought to be rather than what the law actually prescribes. Robinson and Darley (2004) also report that the violent crimes most often committed by juveniles who are tried as adults arise from rage, fear, risk-taking, or other psychological dynamics that preclude rational consideration of legal penalties. Furthermore, because a very small percentage of committed crimes actually result in conviction, the prospect of a stiffer sentence does little to deter criminal behavior (Robinson & Darley, 2004). On this view, the assumption that stiffer penalties deter crime is comparable to the assumption that the death penalty deters murder—an assertion not supported by the evidence.

The second major assumption—that juveniles who commit serious crimes will receive sentences proportional to those crimes when tried as adults—is also questioned by critics. Empirical evidence indicates that juveniles sentenced in criminal courts often receive significantly harsher sentences than adults convicted of similar offenses (Ward & Kupchik, 2009). Thus, the sentences juveniles actually receive in adult court are not proportional to the offense in any balanced sense.

Critics further argue that the existence of separate juvenile and adult courts reflects a sound principle: minors are not fully mature and should not be held to the same standards of accountability as adults. Research from developmental neuroscience and well-established principles in cognitive psychology indicates that adolescent brains are not developed to the same extent as adult brains and are therefore less capable of comprehending and weighing the kinds of abstract, consequential decisions that adults can (Kleibeuker et al., 2013; Piaget, 1954).

Since the purpose of the juvenile court is to treat offenders rather than simply to punish them, opponents argue that juveniles should not be forwarded into adult courts. Juvenile courts attempt to change the social environment in which the child lives as a means of reducing violent juvenile crime, rather than simply removing the juvenile from society. These rehabilitative goals cannot be accomplished if juveniles are sentenced in adult courts and sent to prisons where they are housed with violent adult offenders, potentially abused, and exposed to influences that may make them more—rather than less—likely to commit future crimes. Juvenile offenders sentenced to adult prisons often arrive with high rates of psychiatric disorders and substance abuse, and the experience of adult incarceration tends to exacerbate rather than address these underlying issues (Ruddell, Mays, & Giever, 1998).

Empirical research has shown that juveniles committed to adult correctional facilities are nearly six times more likely to be sexually assaulted than those sentenced to juvenile detention facilities, nearly eight times more likely to commit suicide, and more than twice as likely to be beaten or abused by prison staff (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006; Washburn et al., 2008). This treatment results in juveniles convicted in adult courts being far more likely to reoffend sooner than comparable juveniles tried and sentenced in juvenile court.

In summary, those opposed to trying juveniles in adult criminal court contend that the empirical evidence does not support the deterrence rationale, that adolescents lack the cognitive maturity to be held fully accountable as adults, and that the juvenile court system already addresses violent juvenile crime more appropriately and effectively than the adult system.

References

Brink, D. O. (2004). Immaturity, normative competence, and juvenile transfer: How (not) to punish minors for major crimes. Bepress Legal Series, 120.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2014). Juvenile defendants. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=236

Fagan, J. (1996). The comparative advantage of juvenile vs. criminal court sanctions on recidivism among adolescent felony offenders. Law & Policy, 18(1–2), 77–114.

Fagan, A. A., & Mazerolle, P. (2011). Repeat offending and repeat victimization: Assessing similarities and differences in psychosocial risk factors. Crime & Delinquency, 57(5), 732–755.

Fazel, S., & Seewald, K. (2012). Severe mental illness in 33,588 prisoners worldwide: Systematic review and meta-regression analysis. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 200(5), 364–373.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2011). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Gottschalk, M. (2011). The past, present, and future of mass incarceration in the United States. Criminology & Public Policy, 10(3), 483–504.

Kleibeuker, S. W., Koolschijn, P., Jolles, D. D., Schel, M. A., De Dreu, C. K., & Crone, E. A. (2013). Prefrontal cortex involvement in creative problem solving in middle adolescence and adulthood. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 197–206.

Maroney, T. A. (2009). The false promise of adolescent brain science in juvenile justice. Notre Dame Law Review, 85, 89–145.

Modecki, K. L. (2008). Addressing gaps in the maturity of judgment literature: Age differences and delinquency. Law and Human Behavior, 32(1), 78–91.

Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books.

Robinson, P. H., & Darley, J. M. (2004). Does criminal law deter? A behavioural science investigation. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 24(2), 173–205.

Ruddell, R., Mays, G. L., & Giever, D. M. (1998). Transferring juveniles to adult courts: Recent trends and issues in Canada and the United States. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 49(3), 1–12.

Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 national report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

United States Department of Justice. (2013). Juvenile arrests 2013. Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/244476.pdf

Vereijken, B. (2010). The complexity of childhood development: Variability in perspective. Physical Therapy, 90(12), 1850–1859.

Ward, G., & Kupchik, A. (2009). Accountable to what? Professional orientations towards accountability-based juvenile justice. Punishment & Society, 11(1), 85–109.

Washburn, J. J., Teplin, L. A., Voss, L. S., Abram, K. M., & McClelland, G. M. (2008). Psychiatric disorders among detained youths: A comparison of youths processed in juvenile court and criminal court. Psychiatric Services, 59(9), 965–973.