Should Juveniles be Tried as Adults - Research Paper Example

? Juveniles Should Be Tried As Adults When Committing Major Felony Crimes College Trying juveniles as adults is the subject of persisting debate. Opposition to this process asserts that the different psychosocial characteristics of juveniles, which create different circumstances of juvenile delinquency, should lead to an intervention and adjudication system distinct from the criminal justice system for adults. The paper contends that juveniles should be tried as adults when committing major felony crimes within a system of legal protocols and governing standards. The rate at which juveniles commit major felony crimes and the violence involved in these crimes place these offenses in a distinct category from other delinquent acts. Trying juvenile delinquents as adults for major felony offenses is a response to this distinct category of juvenile offenses. As a sound solution, trying juveniles as adults is a process with legal basis. Moreover, the juvenile justice system is not equipped to handle cases of juvenile felony crimes. In addition, protocols and standards of practice in place ensure the proper handling of juvenile delinquency cases transferred to the criminal justice system by considering the distinct psychosocial characteristics of juveniles. Keywords: waiver, transfer, major felony crimes, juvenile delinquency, juvenile court, criminal court, psychosocial characteristics Juveniles Should Be Tried As Adults When Committing Major Felony Crimes Debate over trying juveniles as adults for committing major felony crimes persists. Those who oppose the treatment of juvenile felony offenders as adults assert the differences in the psychosocial characteristics of juveniles and adults as a justification for treating juvenile offenders distinctly from adults as well as the harshness of imposing penalties on juveniles similar to those imposed on adults. Proponents of treating juvenile felony offenders as adults cite the need to firmly address the alarming statistics on serious crimes committed by juveniles and the graveness of the violence involved in these crimes through legal protocols and standards. Both sides offer valid arguments. However, there are valid reasons that justified the enactment of laws and development of policies allowing for the treatment of juvenile felony offenders as adults. Violent crimes committed by juveniles made way for the wider adoption of processes allowing juvenile felony offenders to be tried as adults (Griffin et al., 2011). Moreover, protocols are also in place to ensure that the criminal justice system properly handles the cases of juvenile felony offenders (Nunez et al., 2007). Standards of practice also continuously evolve with developments in laws and jurisprudence that govern the process of transferring delinquency cases to the criminal courts (Keller, 2012). With these in mind, juveniles should be tried as adults when committing major felony crimes within a system of legal protocols and governing standards. Supporting the treatment of juvenile felony offenders as adults is not akin to saying that the system is the absolute solution to juvenile delinquency. Despite developments in recent years, the process of trying juvenile felony offenders as adults remains imperfect. However, it is a developing system. Future developments in legislation, jurisprudence and best practices are likely to enhance the role of this system in addressing juvenile delinquency. Juveniles should not be Tried as Adults Opposition to the practice of trying juveniles as adults when they commit major felony crimes revolve around the assertion that juveniles are different from adults so juveniles should not be adjudicated in the criminal justice system meant for adults. In a study, the psychological maturity of juveniles who just reached 18 was compared with that of adults aged 25 in terms of their assumption of responsibility and foresight of the consequence of their actions. The results showed that those who just reached 18 years old are considerably less responsible in their actions than those who are already 25 years old. Those who belong to the younger group are more prone to risky and delinquent behavior than those in the older age group. At the same time, those in the older age group showed significantly greater awareness and realization of the consequences of their actions before they commit them when compared to those in the younger group. (Bryan-Hancock & Casey, 2010) In making decisions, young people use the amygdala more, which is the side of the brain attributed with impulsive and aggressive behavior; while adults decide using the prefrontal cortex more, which fosters rational behavior (Safran, 2012). As such, there is a difference in the psychosocial characteristics of juveniles and adults. By establishing the difference between juveniles and adults, a separate system for adjudicating juvenile delinquency has been established. Criminal law recognizes the diminished responsibility of minors over their actions (Cole & Smith, 2008; Safran, 2012). The juvenile justice system, which was established to address juvenile delinquency, is more equipped to handle the socio-emotional issues of juvenile offenders (Cole & Smith, 2008). A feature of the juvenile justice system that is not present in the adult criminal law system is the right to treatment, which offers juvenile offenders with the opportunity for counseling and rehabilitation (Cole & Smith, 2008). By taking this right away, in waiving juvenile cases to the criminal court, the psychological maturity of juveniles becomes at risk (Bryan-Hancock & Casey, 2010). As such, the long-term solution to juvenile delinquency is not punishment in adult prisons but by providing a better environment for children to develop and grow (Cole & Smith, 2008). Juveniles should be Tried as Adults Advocates of the system of trying juveniles as adults when they commit major felony crimes also recognize the difference in the psychosocial characteristics of young people when compared to adults. However, the severity of the offenses committed by juveniles requires that in achieving justice, these actions should “be dealt with to the full extent the law provides” (Cole & Smith, 2008, p. 398). In recognition of the distinct stature of juvenile offenders, protocols are in place to ensure that their cases are handled in the criminal court with due care. Juvenile Felony Crimes is a Category Apart from Other Juvenile Delinquency Cases The rate at which juveniles commit major felony crimes is alarming. Based on juvenile court statistics from 1985 to 2009, the number of juvenile delinquency cases filed each year is 1.2 million at the least and 1.8 million at the most. Around half of the cases pertain to property-related infractions, a quarter relates to crimes against person, and the remaining quarter comprises of offenses related to drugs and public order. More than three thousand cases are being handled by the juvenile courts every day. In terms of the severity of offenses, around thirty percent of the cases are filed and adjudicated. Around two percent of the cases are waived for transfer to the criminal courts. (National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2012) The cases transferred to the criminal courts pertain to major felony crimes. Although the number of waived cases may be small, when compared to the total number of juvenile delinquency cases filed each year, at least three thousand cases of major felony crimes committed by juveniles per year is a social problem that has to be stringently addressed. Trying juvenile delinquents as adults for major felony offenses is a response to trends in juvenile felony crimes. The growing problem of juvenile felony offenses spurred the enactment of laws facilitating the treatment of juveniles committing major felony offenders as adults. Violent crimes committed by juveniles rapidly increased in 1987 with the number reaching its highest in 1994. In response, state legislatures revised laws to widen the crimes covered by the transfer rule, empower prosecutors to decide on waiver, and establish mechanisms for automatic or discretionary transfer. In Pennsylvania, the state had a transfer law in operation since 1933 but this only covered murder committed by juveniles. In 1996, in response to the rise in violent crimes committed by juveniles, the state broadened the violent crimes covered by the rules on transfer to include rape and robbery. (Griffin et al., 2011) By 2000, the number of serious felonies committed by juveniles has not significantly gone up or down, when considering the increase in the population of the juvenile age group. Since then, little has changed in transfer laws. Use of judicial waiver has decreased. In comparing judicial waivers in 1994 and 2007, the number has decreased from 13,100 to 8,500 respectively. Two reasons accounted for the decline in judicial waivers. One, the number of cases of juvenile violent offenses has leveled. The other is the shift in new processes of transfer, such as automatic waiver for violent offenses or waiver via the discretion of prosecutors. While the number of violent crimes committed by juveniles seemed more under control, when compared to the peak number in 1994, arrests of juveniles for serious crimes still ranged from 90,000 to 100,000 a year since 2000. As such, the number of judicial waivers still ranges from 2,000 to 3,000. (Griffin et al., 2011) Laws providing for waiver and transfer were meant for cases of major felony offenses. In 26 states, certain violent crimes such as murder, rape, and armed robbery are automatically excluded from the jurisdiction of the juvenile courts. In these states, juveniles committing these forms of violent crimes will be prosecuted in the criminal courts. In 13 states, prosecutors have the authority to directly file a case against a juvenile in the criminal courts for violation of these serious crimes. In the rest of the states, the transfer of jurisdiction from the juvenile to the criminal court depends on the decision of the judge in a waiver hearing. The severity of the crime and previous offenses are strong considerations in deciding whether to allow a juvenile to be tried as an adult. Two-thirds of juveniles tried in criminal courts faced charges of violent crimes compared with one-quarter of adults. (Cole & Smith, 2008) The rate of juvenile major felony offenses and the violence involved in these crimes support the adjudication of these cases in criminal courts and not in juvenile courts, as the other categories of juvenile delinquency. Trying Juveniles as Adults is a Sound Response to Juvenile Felony Crimes Trying juveniles as adults has a legal basis. Trying juveniles as adults is a legal process covered by provisions on waiver and transfer in federal and state law as well as reinforced by case law. Under federal law, two types of transfers are used. A mandatory transfer happens in cases involving violent crimes such as drug trafficking, drug smuggling or arson that is allegedly done by a juvenile who is 16 years of age or older and has a previous record of committing a similar or comparable misconduct. A discretionary transfer may be based on the same violent crimes committed by a juvenile who is 15 years old or older regardless of having a prior record or not. Discretionary transfers may also be done in cases involving juvenile offenders aged 13 or older for offenses such as homicide, assault and robbery. Prior to a transfer hearing, the court is provided with the juvenile delinquency record of an offender, if there is any. (Doyle, 2003) State laws provide for varying processes of transfer. Most states apply multiple modes of transfer. Transfer laws in different states can be categorized under judicial waiver, prosecutor discretion or concurrent jurisdiction, or statutory exclusion. Laws on judicial waiver place the responsibility of deciding on the transfer to the juvenile courts. Legal provisions allowing prosecutor discretion or a combination place the concurrent responsibility in allowing transfer to the prosecutor or to the prosecutor together with the juvenile courts. Statutory exclusion provides criminal courts with automatic extended jurisdiction over juvenile delinquents committing violent crimes. (Griffin et al., 2011) Although state laws vary in the form of transfer process allowed, the states share the common characteristic of having laws allowing juvenile felony offenders to be tried as adults. Several Supreme Court cases support the trying of juvenile felony offenders as adults. In Kent v. United States (1966), transfer of juveniles to the adult criminal court was recognized with the courts expected to comply with due process in these cases. Breed v. Jones (1975) also recognized the waiver of juvenile delinquency cases to the criminal courts but there should be not prior adjudication of the case in the delinquency court to prevent double jeopardy. (Cole & Smith, 2008) In Miller v. Alabama (2012) and Jackson v. Hobbs (2012) provide that death penalty and mandatory life sentence without parole are both excessive punishments for juvenile offenders (Keller, 2012). These cases have been cited in support of the opposition to trying juvenile felony offenders as adults. However, these cases do not argue against trying juvenile felony offenders as adults but provide limits to the severity of the penalty for juvenile felony offenders tried in criminal courts. The juvenile justice system is not equipped to handle cases of major felony crimes committed by juveniles. The jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system rests on two factors. One is age of the delinquent. The maximum age of a delinquent to fall under the jurisdiction of the juvenile system is 16 to 18. In 38 states and D.C., the maximum age is 18. In 8 states, the maximum is 17. In 3 states the maximum age is 16. Even so, judged have the authority to transfer juveniles to the adult court through a waiver hearing. (Cole & Smith, 2008) The other one is the categories of cases falling under its exclusive jurisdiction. The first category is delinquent cases involving juveniles who committed actions that would constitute crime when committed by adults, such as misdemeanors and felonies. The second category is status offender cases involving juveniles who committed actions that do not constitute crimes if committed by adults. The third category is dependence and neglect cases involving actions of juveniles attributed to lack of adult supervision and need for adult support. (Cole &Smith, 2008) Juvenile courts deal with at most 1.8 million delinquency cases a year (Cole & Smith, 2008). With rehabilitation as a priority and detention as the last resort, juvenile offenders committing major felony crimes are committed and re-committed to juvenile institutions. Recidivism in juvenile major felony crimes may require more stringent action. Some cases of may have become poor candidates for treatment to require punishment for repeated commission of violent crimes. The juvenile justice system is not equipped to provide such punishment. Protocols and standards of practice are in place to ensure the proper handling of juvenile delinquency cases transferred to the criminal justice system. The evaluation of cases for transfer considers a number of factors pertaining to psychosocial characteristics, which include “prior record, severity of offense, age, use of a weapon, psychological maturity, intellectual development, and jurisdiction” (p.128) as the most compelling factors in waiver hearings (Urbina & White, 2009). As a factor, age can determine whether a case will remain in the juvenile court or transferred to the criminal court. Based on decisions on waiver cases, older juvenile offenders are more likely to be transferred to the criminal court than younger juvenile offenders who commit similar offenses. Apart from age, a history of child abuse, gender and relationship to the victim are also mitigating factors considered in waiver proceedings that could retain the case in the juvenile court. (Nunez et al., 2007) Moreover, “the potential for rehabilitation, possession or distribution of drugs, lethality of the offense, and potential treatment” (p. 127) are also influential factors (Urbina & White, 2009). Consideration of these factors in the waiver hearing recognizes the difference in the psychosocial state of juveniles and adults. This is the reason for a thorough evaluation prior to and during the waiver hearing. Although tried in the same way as adults, juvenile felony offenders who are transferred to the criminal courts would never receive the same penalty as adults. Status as a juvenile is a mitigating circumstance in determining the punishment for juvenile offenders tried in criminal courts. In Miller v. Alabama (2012), the Supreme Court declared the death penalty for juvenile offenders as a violation of the eighth amendment, which condemns excessive, cruel and unusual punishment (Keller, 2012). In effect, the case recognized the difference of juveniles tried in the criminal courts from adult offenders. It is excessive to impose the death penalty on juveniles even if this may be acceptable in the case of adults for committing similar crimes. With this limitation in place, the most severe punishment became life imprisonment without parole. This led to the Jackson v. Hobbs (2012), with the Supreme Court stating that life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for juvenile felony offenders is also a violation of the eighth amendment (Cole & Smith, 2008). Again, the case recognized the different status of juveniles from adults in cases tried in the criminal courts. By recognizing the difference in the status of juvenile from adult felony offenders, the Supreme Court was able to establish the limit of the punishment that can be imposed on juveniles who commit major felony crimes. This negates the opposition of waivers and transfers on the ground that these do not recognize the different stature of juveniles. Jurors use a set of criteria in considering cases of juvenile felony crimes transferred to the criminal courts. In an experiment, the perceptions of jurors towards intellectual disability, history of child abuse and confessions in considering cases of juvenile delinquents were observed. Many juvenile delinquents are diagnosed with some form of intellectual disability. Having a history of child abuse could influence the propensity towards delinquency and the forms of delinquent actions committed, to serve a mitigating purpose. Juveniles are at greater risk of falsely assuming responsibility for crimes other than what they actually committed because of poor understanding of criminal laws and processes. Observations of juror behavior in mock trials showed that intellectual disability is considered as a mitigating factor. History of child abuse is considered as a mitigating factor when the actions of the juvenile were intended to defend himself/herself from an attacker. Confessions claimed to have been falsely made are disregarded if the juvenile is deemed to exhibit intellectual disability. (Najdowski, Bottoms, & Vargas, 2009) The study is an indication that juveniles tried in criminal courts are accorded by jurors with considerations that fit their circumstance as juveniles. Public sentiment towards trying juveniles as adults is accepting when the process is used with caution. Public opinion influences the decisions and actions of policymakers, legislators, law enforcement officers and judges. A statewide survey on public perception towards transfers focused on the offense and characteristics of juvenile felony offenders, the juvenile justice system, the psychosocial characteristics of juveniles, and expected effects of waivers and transfers. The results indicated that transfers are acceptable especially when used selectively based on the offense, state of the offender, and similar considerations. Belief in the ability of the criminal justice system in rehabilitating and punishing juvenile violent crime offenders had a strong impact on public perception. (Applegate, Davis, & Cullen, 2009) The public is open to trying juveniles as adults and people use standards based on juvenile stature in assessing and supporting transfers. Conclusion Juveniles should be tried as adults when committing major felony crimes within a system of legal protocols and governing standards. The rate at which juveniles commit major felony crimes and the violence involved in these crimes placed these offenses into a distinct category from other delinquent acts. Trying juvenile delinquents as adults for major felony offenses is a response to this distinct category of juvenile offenses. Laws providing for waiver and transfer were meant for cases of major felony offenses committed by juveniles. As a sound solution, trying juveniles as adults is a process with legal basis. Moreover, the juvenile justice system is not equipped to handle cases of juvenile felony crimes. In addition, protocols and standards of practice in place ensure the proper handling of juvenile delinquency cases transferred to the criminal justice system by considering the distinct psychosocial characteristics of juveniles. Policymakers, legislators and judges should focus on further refining the protocols and standards governing the process of trying juveniles as adults. By considering their distinct characteristics as juvenile felony offenders, the process of adjudication of these juvenile cases in criminal courts should be able to align with the interest of justice. References Applegate, B., Davis, R. K., & Cullen, F. (2009). Reconsidering child saving: The extent and correlates of public support for excluding youths from the juvenile court. Crime & Delinquency, 55(1), 51-77. Brian-Hancock, C., & Casey, S. (2010). Psychological maturity of at-risk juveniles, young adults, and adults: Implications for the justice system. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 17(1), 57-69. Cole, G., & Smith, C. (2008). Criminal justice in America (5th ed). Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education. Doyle, C. (2003). Juvenile delinquents and federal criminal law: The Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act and related matters. In L. Moore (Ed.), Juvenile crime: Current issues and background (pp. 1-26). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc. Griffin, P., Addie, S., Adams, B., & Firestine, K. (2011). Trying juveniles as adults: An analysis of state transfer laws and reporting. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Keller, E. (2012). Constitutional sentences for juveniles convicted of felony murder in the wake of Roper, Graham & J.D.B. Connecticut Public Interest Law Review, 11(2), 297-326. Najdowski, C., Bottoms, B., & Vargas, M. (2009). Juror’s perceptions of juvenile defendants: The influence of intellectual disability, abuse history, and confession evidence. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 27(3), 401-430. National Center for Juvenile Justice. (2012). National juvenile court data archive: Juvenile court case records 1985-2009 [Data file]. Retrieved from http://ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezajcs/asp/display.asp Nunez, N., Dahl, M., Tang, C., & Jensen, B. (2007). Trial venue decisions in juvenile cases: Mitigating and extralegal factors matter. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 12(1), 21-39. Safran, B. (2012). Juvenile justice policy from the perspective of international human rights. Cardozo Law Review De Novo. Retrieved from http://www.cardozolawreview.com/content/denovo/safran_2012_304.pdf Urbina, M. G., & White, W. S. (2009). Waiving juveniles to criminal court: Court officials express their thoughts. Social Justice, 36(1), 122-139. Thesis Statement Juveniles should be tried as adults, when committing major felony crimes, within a system of legal protocols and governing standards. Outline Introduction Juveniles should not be Tried as Adults Juveniles should be Tried as Adults Juvenile Felony Crimes is a Category Apart from Other Juvenile Delinquency Cases The rate at which juveniles commit major felony crimes is alarming. Trying juvenile delinquents as adults for major felony offenses is a response to trends in juvenile felony crimes. Trying Juveniles as Adults is a Sound Response to Juvenile Felony Crimes Trying juveniles as adults has a legal basis. The juvenile justice system is not equipped to handle cases of major felony crimes committed by juveniles. Protocols and standards of practice are in place to ensure the proper handling of juvenile delinquency cases transferred to the criminal justice system. Conclusion Read More