Introduction
On a casual day, there are about 81,000 children (263 out of every 100,000 youths ages 10 through the state’s upper age of original juvenile court jurisdiction in the overall population) being imprisoned in a juvenile justice residential placement (Children’s Defense Fund, 2012). In addition, there are about 7,560 children placed in adult jails and 2,778 in adult prisons (Children’s Defense Fund, 2012). This is a very detrimental and inhumane condition.
In the general American justice system, the process of treating juveniles as adults is a risky proposition. This is because juveniles are at the highest risk of being sexually abused while being in prison. This is as reported by the 2007 National Prison Rape Elimination Act Commission (Charish, Davis, & Damphousse, 2004). Children placed in adult facilities are also at an even higher risk of being sexually abused as compared to the children placed in juvenile facilities. There are also inherent problems in the juvenile justice system such as racial/ethnic disparities, gender and other socio-economic elements. Specifically, the youth of color are one-third of American adolescents. They compose two-thirds of youth in juvenile facilities (Charish, Davis, & Damphousse, 2004).
This study questions the adult treatment of juvenile delinquents. Primarily, it explores the issue of age as the juvenile commits crimes which are relegated to be committed by adults. This is a timely question in the present context of the violent acts of juvenile offenders nowadays.
NO: Juveniles should not be treated as adults
There are many strong points to the answer that juvenile should not be considered as adults in the context of criminal justice system. Here are the following arguments espoused by the author:
1. Children do not have the intellectual or moral capacity to understand the consequences of their actions. At the same time, they lack the same capacity to be trial defendants.
The juvenile justice system was organized under the presumption that juveniles are not as mature and cannot be held responsible to the same standards as adults. In general, those under 12 years old cannot be charged with crimes because it has been presumed they cannot be expected to know right from wrong or acknowledge the consequences of their actions (Reaves, 2001). However, as crimes committed by juveniles grow more numerous and more heinous, there is a strong clamor to try younger children as adults. These also include subjecting the juvenile delinquents to longer prison periods, often in adult prison, where the stress is more on punishment and not on rehabilitation.
Child-development experts such as Dr. James Farrow, associate professor of medicine and pediatrics at University of Washington School of Medicine, director of the Division of Adolescent Medicine at the UW Medical Center, and director of Nathan Hale High School's Teen Health Center; Dr. Jim Owens, medical director for the Department of Juvenile Rehabilitation; and Dr. William Womack, child psychiatrist at Children's Hospital and consultant at Echo Glen Children's Center (a juvenile rehabilitation institution), agree that children develop a moral sense not in a chronological order. Hence, age means nothing. It also means that not all children develop a conscience along the same timeline (Gelernter, 1994). It is common that juvenile delinquents charged with crimes are not functioning at their chronological ages.
Experts also agree that children must be held responsible for their behavior. However, they must first be taught to have a sense of morality. They believe that the children can relearn this in a safe, nurturing and consistent environment with expectations about responsibility (Gelernter, 1994). Hence, the early intervention is encouraged. At younger ages, it is better to intervene and correct the children’s behaviors.
According to child psychiatrist, Dr. Womack, once they have committed a serious crime the harder for them to integrate themselves to the greater society. They do not consider human life as being very valuable. They see themselves as insignificant to the whole system or society and thus, even when they are penalized or rehabilitated, they feel detached (Gelernter, 1994).
Child experts also agree that developmental stages of a child vary. It is by about age 6 when normal children develop an internal conscience (Gelernter, 1994). They have an internal conscience which tells them what and what not to do. By about age 9 or 10, children learn to live by rules. Hence, the more they live in an external world outside the family, the more they have a need to learn structure and rules to deal with the external world. Ages 12 and 13 tend to be a transitional, awkward period. Between age 12 to 15, children shift in early adolescence’s ways of thinking. This is the time when they are able to understand the consequences of their behavior or actions.
Womack emphasized that while the law focuses on knowing right from wrong, there is a difference between knowing what is right and being able to behave right. While the legal system focuses on "doing what is right from wrong,” the child expert believes that it does not determine what they do or how capable they are of being helped so they will not commit the same mistake again. As such, powerful penalties for crime are fairly meaningless as a deterrent to kids younger than 14 (Gelernter, 1994).
Steinberg (2008) summarized that while adolescents are aged 16, they reach adult levels of intellectual maturity, psycho-social maturity until they become young adults. They do not gather facts altogether and generate mature conclusions as adults. These important findings stress the need to consider if the adolescents’ lack of maturity as compared to adults warrants them being treated uniquely when they undergo criminal prosecution. Steinberg recommended that policymakers should examine if the same factors that make youth ineligible to vote or sit on a jury might also be taken in the same light as when they enter the justice system.
2. Successful rehabilitation is better for society in the long run than releasing someone who spent their entire young adult life in general prison population. A young person released from juvenile prison is far less likely to commit a crime than someone coming out of an adult facility (Reaves, 2001).
This argument is supported by the Center on Early Adolescence (2008) which emphasized that “placing troubled youth into ever-more punitive, restrictive, and long-term surroundings contradicts the total development process of the adolescent and steal their golden opportunities to learn new skills and imbibing more positive behaviors.” The Center also reasoned that out the incarceration and punitive methods of most states, this traditional approach interferes with effective diversionary, treatment, and reformation practices.
This is further strengthened by other research studies on high-risk youth which evidence that a system in which troubled youth are convened increases the tendency for them to imbibe negative behaviors from one another, hence, by putting them in prison, their deviant behaviors are reinforced (Center on Early Adolescence, 2008). Research also showed that threatening and punitive interactions, incarceration, and punishment enhance the aggressive behavior of problematic youth (Center on Early Adolescence, 2008).
As the former Deputy Mayor of New York City’s infamous Spofford facility stated that detention centers for juveniles are “indistinguishable from a prison” (Holman & Ziedenberg, 2000). A Supreme Court Justice also seconded that in his fair view, the pre-trial detention of a juvenile gives rise to injuries comparable to those linked with adult imprisonment. Detained juveniles, who are usually pre-adjudication and awaiting their court date, or sometimes waiting for their placement in another facility or community-based program, can spend anywhere from a few days to a few months in locked custody.
At best, they are physically and emotionally separated from the families and communities who are the most invested in their recovery and success. Often, detained juveniles are put in overcrowded, understaffed facilities—an environment that conspires to breed neglect and violence (Holman & Ziedenberg, 2000).
A recent study of juvenile corrections indicates that detention has a major, negative impact on the young people’s mental and physical well-being, their education and their employment (Holman & Ziedenberg, 2000). A psychologist found that for one-third of incarcerated juvenile diagnosed with depression, the onset of the depression occurred after they began their incarceration. Another psychologist proposed that poor mental health and the conditions of confinement altogether make the incarcerated teens to commit suicide and self-harm (Holman & Ziedenberg, 2000).
For various reasons, research suggests that the experience of detention may make it more likely that juveniles will continue to engage in delinquent behavior and that the detention experience may increase the odds that youth will recidivate, which is more risky for public safety. Instead of reducing crime, the act of incarcerating high numbers of juveniles may in fact help increase crime by aggravating the recidivism of youth who are detained.
In a Wisconsin study, it was shown that 70 percent of youth held in secure detention were arrested or returned to secure detention within one year of release (Holman & Ziedenberg, 2000). Studies on Arkansas’ incarcerated juveniles found not only a high recidivism rate for incarcerated juveniles but that the experience of incarceration is the most important factor in increasing the chances of recidivism. Sixty percent of the youth studied were returned to the Department of Youth Services (DYS) within three years (Holman & Ziedenberg, 2000). With most states facing grave budgetary constraints, it is a special time for policymakers to consider ways to reduce juvenile justice spending which will not risk public safety.
3. Racial disparity is unfair for treating juveniles as adult offenders.
It is apparent that the present criminal system is very vulnerable to racism. Statistically, black juvenile offenders are far more likely to be transferred to adult courts (and serve adult time) than their white delinquents who have committed similar crimes (Reaves, 2001). Recent studies showed that several statistical supports argue that youth of color are being entangled with the justice system more often than the Whites. Despite the decline in disparity over twenty years, prevalent racial disparity remains based on arrest rates. Generally, it is believed that the lower the socio economic status, the more likely the juvenile defendant is to be sentenced and obtain a lengthier sentence (Reaves, 2001).
However, the impact of race and ethnicity on prosecutorial decision making is not very consistent. Studies also indicated that it is not always the Blacks or Latinos and Latinas who get more punitive treatment (Kutateladze, Lynn, & Laing, 2012). While various studies evidenced that minority defendants tend to be prosecuted, held in pre-trial detention, and experience other harsh treatment, researchers also showed proof of prosecutors treating non black defendants more harshly for specific offenses and at specific discretion points (Kutateladze, Lynn, & Laing, 2012).
Recent studies showed that several statistical supports argue that youth of color are being entangled with the justice system more often than the Whites. Snyder (2003) found that the disparity for African American as recently as 2001 evidenced the following:
- The racial composition of the juvenile delinquents was 78% White, 17% African American, 4% Asian, and 1% American Indian.
- The arrest incidences for African Americans was greater than thrice those of the American Indians and White juveniles while it is about seven times as that of the Asian juveniles.
- The arrest rate for property crime for African American juveniles was 40% more than the rate for the American Indian youth, twice the rate for White juveniles and more than thrice the rate for Asian juveniles.
Despite the decline in disparity over twenty years, prevalent racial disparity remains based on arrest rates. Studies also showed that juvenile courts tend to formally charged African American juveniles than the White juveniles even when they have the same offenses (Poe-Yamagata & Jones, 2000). Courts tend to sentence African American offenders to incarceration when managing adjudicated offenses as compared to the White delinquents. For similar offenses, African American delinquents receive longer sentences as compared to Whites and Latino delinquents. For the latter, the sentences often result to being confined in a mental facility for treatment while the African Americans are confined in the juvenile justice system (Wright, 2010).
Further Recommendations
The recent study from the University of Virginia School of Law (2013) proposes that the juvenile justice system would promote healthy psychological development in adolescents if it stressed parental (or parental figure) involvement or those who are dedicated to the adolescent's development. This may also include a special peer group that values good behavior and academic success and engaged in activities which enhance to independent decision-making and critical thinking. This negates the system of putting juvenile delinquents in confinements where they will learn negative behaviors or deviant behaviors as they engage with other juvenile delinquents (University of Virginia, 2013). The study also recommends fairness to all juveniles, regardless of their race, background and gender as it helps promote respect for authority (University of Virginia, 2013).
The research shows that adolescents have a greater sensitivity to perceived injustice and their bad experiences with criminal officers, lawyers and judges can have traumatic effects. Fair treatment is the ultimate measure by which delinquent children will be reformed and this will revert in the goodness of the whole society (University of Virginia, 2013).
In another important policy reform study commissioned by the National Research Council at the request of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, an affiliate of the U.S. Department of Justice, the experts argue that the juvenile justice system must be overhauled to integrate the recent body of knowledge about adolescent development and effective interventions as these would improve outcomes for juvenile offenders and the general society (University of Virginia, 2013).
A primary recommendation is the development of a juvenile-justice system that promotes accountability without criminalization. The institution believes that children should be held accountable. However, the standards of accountability for adults should not be applied to them since these measures only hamper their positive development and growth (University of Virginia, 2013). These experts are composed of director of the University of Virginia's Institute of Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy, and top experts in neuroscience, criminology, mental health, economics, developmental psychology, etc. (University of Virginia, 2013).
The report points to the vital guiding principles which are strongly recommended to be integrated in the U.S. juvenile justice reform. These include the following:
- The use of restitution and community service as methods of holding offenders accountable to their victims and the whole community;
- Confinement of juveniles sparingly and only if needed to respond to and avoid serious reoffending;
- Avoidance of collateral consequences of being in the juvenile justice system, like the public release of juvenile justice records which could lessen the offender's chances for a successful transition to adult life;
- Totally engaging the juvenile delinquent's family, if possible, and drawing on neighborhood resources to promote pro-social development and law-abiding behavior.
The juvenile justice system strongly depends on jailing and punishing and this abducts youths from their families, peer groups and community. It also deprives them of the opportunity to properly adjust to the challenges of real life (University of Virginia, 2013). However, the system must recognize that adolescents are different from adults and children in three major ways. First, they lack the maturity to control themselves in emotionally charged situations. Second, they have a greater sensitivity to external influences like peer pressure. Third, they have fewer skills to deliver judgments and decisions which require an understanding of how actions lead to consequences which may affect their future (University of Virginia, 2013).
Most policy reform advocates and academics contend that juveniles must be given enough chances to turn their lives around after committing minor offenses. It is good to note that the Department of Justice observed positive changes leading to this prescription as moves to minimize the general number of juvenile offenders into the criminal facilities are being applied by various states and federal agencies. They see it as a way to best achieve reduction in recidivism (Wright, 2010).
References:
Center on Early Adolescence. (2008). Building a More Effective Juvenile Justice System. Retrieved on November 4, 2013 from, https://www.earlyadolescence.org/juvenile_justice_system.
Charish, C., Davis, S., & Damphousse, K. (2004). Race/Ethnicity and Gender Effects on Juvenile Justice System Processing. Retrieved on November 4, 2013 from, http://www.oja.state.ok.us/final%20oja%20report%207-8-04.pdf.
Children’s Defense Fund. (2012). Juvenile Justice. Retrieved on November 3, 2013 from, http://www.childrensdefense.org/policy-priorities/juvenile-justice/.
Holman, Barry & Ziedenberg, Jason. (2000). The Dangers of Detention: The Impact of Incarcerating Youth in Detention and Other Secure Facilities. Justice Policy Institute. UNICEF Publications.
Kutateladze, B., Lynn, V., & Liang, E. (2012). Do Race and Ethnicity Matter in a Prosecution? VERA Institute of Justice. Retrieved on October 8, 2013 from, http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/vera/race-and-ethnicity-in-prosecution-first-edition.pdf.
Poe-Yamagata, E. & Jones, M. (April, 2000). And Justice for Some: Differential Treatment of Minority Youth in the Juvenile Justice System. Washington D.C.: Building Blocks for Youth.
Reaves, Jessica. (2001). Should the Law Treat Kids and Adults Differently? Time Online. Retrieved on November 3, 2013 from, http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,110232,00.html#ixzz2jeg4QVba.
Wright, V., Ph. D. (November, 2010). Deterrence in Criminal Justice: Evaluating Certainty vs. Severity of Punishment. Washingotn D.C.: The Sentencing Project.
