Youths are not generally tried in adult court for the crimes that they commit. This is because most of the crimes committed by youths are not serious enough to justify incarcerating them alongside adult offenders. Most youths are tried in juvenile court and are sentenced to serve time in juvenile detention facilities if convicted. However, this does not apply to youths who are convicted of more serious crimes, such as murder. The age at which a person can be tried in adult versus juvenile court differs between states. In forty-one states the maximum age of a juvenile before being charged as an adult is 17, while it is 16 in 7 states and 15 in two states. However, these numbers are not concrete, as youths younger then the age of 15 can be charged as adults in all states if the severity of the crime warrants it (National Conference of State Legislatures, n.d.). This paper will look at the reasons that a juvenile case may be transferred to adult court, the mitigating factors involved in the transfer, such as poverty and at what age should a child be considered responsible for their actions and to what level of consequence.
When a crime committed by a youth is deemed serious enough that the courts decide to charge them as adults, they are then transferred to adult court under one of four transfer laws. The four transfer laws are as follows: Judicially Controlled Transfer-This is where cases against youths must begin in juvenile court before being transferred to adult court. “Once an adult, always an adult” Transfer, is where a youth who was tried for a crime in the past must be tried as an adult in their offense. Prosecutorial Discretion Transfer is where a case can be tried in either adult or juvenile court as both have jurisdiction. Therefore, it is up to the prosecutor to decide which court they would be more likely to get an adequate conviction. Finally, there is Statutory Exclusion, which is where the laws of the state prohibit certain juvenile cases from ever entering juvenile court. These cases usually involve murder and violent crimes (National Conference of State Legislatures. n.d.)
In the 1980’s many states began to pass laws that made it possible for juvenile cases to be more easily transferred to criminal courts. This was achieved by increasing the offenses that a juvenile could be tried as an adult for. The age of transfer was also lowered. This resulted in a high number of juveniles being tried as adults (Slowikowski, 2010). Therefore, there has also been an increase in the number of juveniles that are being housed in correctional facilities alongside adults. In 1999 there were 4,100 juveniles in adult prisons and 61 percent of them had been convicted of crimes against a person. These crimes included damage to property, drug offenses, and things such as possessing a weapon (Slowikowski, 2010). The juveniles sentenced by criminal court often receive longer sentences than those convicted by juvenile court for the same crime. (Slowikowski, 2010).
One of the biggest questions in society is how young is too young to try a kid as an adult. This question has caused a number of debates between scholars, law makers, psychiatrists and laypeople. When the juvenile justice system was created over a hundred years ago, it was because the lawmakers at the time decided that children should not be tried as adults because their lack of maturity meant that they should not be held to the same standards as adults (The National Academies Press, n.d.). This meant that children under the age of 12 were unlikely to be charged with a crime as they were seen not to be accountable for their actions. However, as the number of crimes that juveniles were committing along with their severity increased, it became necessary for the courts and lawmakers to institute stricter punishments for juvenile offenders. The problem with sentencing children as adults is that they will not be rehabilitated. This is because most prisons do not focus on rehabilitation, but punishment. Many child advocacy groups believe that despite the child’s violent actions, they can learn to become a productive member of society once they are released.
One question is when does a child develop a sense of morality and when are they responsible for their own judgement and actions. The author of the article Carey Quan Gelernter interviewed “Dr. James Farrow, who was the associate professor of medicine and pediatrics at the University of Washington’s School of Medicine, along with Dr. William Womack, child psychiatrist at Children's Hospital and consultant at Echo Glen Children's Center, and Dr. Jim Owens who was the medical director for the Department of Juvenile Rehabilitation” (Gelernter, 1994)
All three agreed the chronological age had no bearing on whether a child had the moral capacity to know right from wrong or rather they were responsible for their actions (Gelernter, 1994). This was because various environmental factors could hinder the development of one’s moral judgement and actions. Therefore, children do not all grow a conscience at the same time (Gelernter, 1994)
In 2002 the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act was reauthorized and the lowest age given to those who could be charged for a juvenile crime which did not have a standard age was seven, the lowest age provided by a state was six. In 2012 the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to give a child the sentence of life without parole (Office of Justice Programs, n.d.). This only applied to those who had committed murder under the age of eighteen. These individuals could still be sentenced to life with parole. These sentences usually happen in cases that were sent to adult court on the referral of a juvenile court judge in what is known as a judicial waiver. This means that the judge in waiving the right for the trial to be conducted in the juvenile court and wants it to be done in criminal court (Office of Justice Programs, n.d.).
The need for children who commit violent crimes under the age of fourteen is not to lock them away from society in a prison full of violent adult offenders, but to reeducate them and enable them to return to society after their sentence is served as productive members of society. However, this reeducation is easier to achieve when it comes to younger children who are under the age of 12. The older a child is the harder it becomes to rehabilitate them back into society. Womack does admit that once a child commits murder they become much harder to rehabilitate because of the psychological harm that the murder has done to the child. This is mostly because the personality flaws that would allow a child to commit murder indicate that the child does not possess the ability to empathize with others. This lack of empathy makes it difficult to support the child’s return to society. (Gelernter, 1994)
There are several aggravated and mitigated factors that are used by the courts to determine how and where a child will be tried for a crime. Aggravating factors are offered by prosecutors to gain a harsher sentence during the trial. The prosecutor will focus on a single reason that the crime deserves the toughest sentence that the law permits. This can be the use of a weapon, the type of weapon or the severity of the crime. Other reasons that a person may be sentenced more harshly is they are a repeat offender; the victim is considered vulnerable (this usually applies to crimes against the elderly or children), the crime has been identified as a hate crime, and/or the person took a leadership role in committing the crime (Justia, n.d.).
Mitigating factors are those that are put forth by the defense to explain why their client should not be sentenced too severely. These include, having played a minor role in the crime, a lack of a criminal record, their upbringing or past circumstances, the role that the victim themselves had in the crime, the situation that the person was under at the time that they committed the crime (stress, emotional issues, provocation), remorse and mental illness (Justia, n.d.).
In conclusion, it has been found that transferring juveniles to criminal courts for non-violent offences do not deter them from committing future crimes, nor does it lower crime rates amongst the juvenile population (Slowikowski, 2010). It was discovered that the states which did not participate in the transfer of juveniles to adult courts had lower reports in regards to their juvenile violet crime rates (Slowikowski, 2010). This was mostly because they were not sentencing children to adult prisons for non-violent crimes, and the percentage of juveniles that were committing violent crimes was low enough that the overall juvenile violent crime rate was relatively low between 1982-1986 (Slowikowski, 2010). Other studies have shown that trying juveniles as adults has a moderate effect on keeping juveniles from engaging in activities that would cause them to be incarcerated. (Slowikowski, 2010). This does not seem to apply to youths that had already been convicted and who had spent time in an adult correctional facility. In many cases the recidivism rates for these individuals were relatively high. The numbers are as follows: 49 percent of all youths who were transferred reoffended, 24 percent of those who had engaged in violent crime reoffended, and 11 percent of those convicted for drug offenses reoffended (Slowikowski, 2010).
The main cause for the high recidivism rates of those who were transferred and convicted by adult court is that the juveniles are not receiving the tools that they need to better themselves and to be rehabilitated and reeducated to rejoin society. This is doubly impacted by the fact that potential employers have the right to question an applicant’s criminal background and can deny them employment for non-violent and petty offenses. This makes it difficult for them to find jobs, so they return to their previous lives of crime.
References
Gelernter, C. Q. (1994, October 25). Right from Wrong -- At What Age Do Children Develop a Moral Sense, And Understand What It Means To Commit A Crime? The Seattle Times [Seattle].
Justia. (n.d.). Aggravating and Mitigating Factors Overview. Retrieved from https://www.justia.com/criminal/aggravating-mitigating-factors/
The National Academies Press. (n.d.). The Juvenile Justice System | Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice | The National Academies Press. Retrieved from https://www.nap.edu/read/9747/chapter/7
National Conference of State Legislatures. (n.d.). Juvenile Age of Jurisdiction and Transfer to Adult Court Laws. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/juvenile-age-of-jurisdiction-and-transfer-to-adult-court-laws.aspx
Office of Justice Programs. (n.d.). Legislation/JJDP Act. Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/about/legislation.html
Slowikowski, J. (2010, June). Juvenile Transfer Laws: An Effective Deterrent to Delinquency. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/220595.pdf
