This paper examines the debate over whether juveniles should be tried as adults in the United States judicial system. It reviews three transfer mechanisms — judicial waiver, direct file, and statutory exclusion — that allow juveniles to enter adult criminal court. The paper analyzes the concept of mental competency and culpability as they apply to young offenders across different age groups, contrasts the rehabilitative goals of the juvenile system with the punitive nature of the adult system, and considers arguments from both sides regarding victim benefit and public safety. It concludes that education and rehabilitation should be prioritized over incarceration.
The United States judicial system has long honored the policy that children and adults do not share the same psychological and emotional capacities, and should therefore be treated differently when tried for a crime. With the exception of extremely malicious acts, the court system has historically separated juveniles from adults in criminal proceedings. Recently, however, mechanisms allowing juveniles to be tried as adults have become more widely used across the country.
Three primary legal mechanisms govern the transfer of juveniles to adult criminal court. Judicial waiver involves a juvenile court judge transferring an adolescent to criminal court based on, among other things, the seriousness of the crime, the offender's history, and the likelihood of reoffending. Direct file policies allow the prosecutor to decide whether to file charges against a juvenile offender in criminal or juvenile court. Finally, under statutory exclusion, certain categories of juveniles are automatically tried in adult criminal court — a determination typically based on the individual's age and the seriousness of the offense.
Many argue that juveniles of a very young age lack the mental capacity to be charged as adults and should therefore retain juvenile status. It is important to examine what it means to be mentally competent. To be deemed mentally competent, an individual must be able to assist counsel, demonstrate an understanding of which rights are maintained and which are waived, know how to enter a plea, and perform similar functions. While some young people do meet this standard, most juveniles under the age of twelve do not. Most individuals do possess these capabilities once they are older than sixteen. Juveniles between the ages of twelve and sixteen would need to be assessed individually to determine their level of competence.
In order to determine the proper course for a youth's judicial proceedings, it is also imperative to consider culpability — a combination of an individual's responsibility, accountability, blameworthiness, and punishability. In the adult judicial system, offenders are presumed responsible for the crimes they have committed and are expected to be punished accordingly. While most children develop a basic sense of right and wrong by age nine, most children younger than thirteen lack the mental and social capacities necessary to be held fully accountable for their actions. By the age of seventeen, most individuals can exercise sound judgment and are reasonably expected to be held responsible for their behavior.
Based on these considerations, individuals younger than thirteen should always be considered juveniles, regardless of the crime. Individuals older than sixteen should be treated similarly to adults for serious or atrocious crimes. Those falling between these ages should be individually assessed to determine which judicial procedures are most appropriate.
"Rehabilitative goals and procedural differences of juvenile court"
"Victim benefit, deterrence, and prison-versus-school debate"
"Case for juvenile rights, education, and rehabilitation over incarceration"
You’re 43% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.