Audrey Livingstone

Almost a century ago, the juvenile justice system was founded on a radical idea.  Because children are so different from adults, the law should treat them in a way that complements those differences.  The Progressive Era, which spanned from about 1900 to 1918, was a time of widespread social reform and provided the basis for the idea of a juvenile justice system.  In 1899, states began to notice the problem of juvenile imprisonment and consequently began building youth reform homes — a place where young people could be rehabilitated, not incarcerated, regarding their issues.  The public felt a responsibility to help juvenile offenders before they became immersed in crime they had already begun to take part in.

As the juvenile justice system began to develop, states took on the task of “parenting” the youths until they either changed or became adults (“parens patriae”).  They were not tried in adult courts anymore, and the cases took on a more informal aspect.  Oftentimes, they were not represented by lawyers, and judges took extenuating evidence and circumstance into consideration before sentencing.  The juvenile justice system evolved rapidly as these changes took place.  By the 1960s, juvenile courts automatically had jurisdiction over nearly all cases involving children under the age of 18.  In addition, transfers into adult courts could only be made per the juvenile court’s waiver.  And by 1967, new rights were available to minors: the right to receive notice of charges, the right to obtain legal counsel, the right to “confrontation and cross-examination,” the “privilege against self-incrimination,” the right to receive a “transcript of the proceedings,” and the right to “appellate review.”

Coming into the twenty-first century, there was a sudden rise in juvenile crime.  This occurred specifically between the late 1980s and the late 1990s.  Legislatures took action to make sure this rise in crime would not continue.  In 1974, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act was modified to allow states to try juveniles as adults for some violent crimes and weapons violations.  This act is what provides the most controversy regarding juvenile and criminal courts today.  The question on everyone’s mind is, “Should children be allowed to be tried in criminal courts?”

Some say no, children who commit violent crimes (murder, rape, etc.) should absolutely not be tried as adults.  For example, about twenty-one years ago, nine-year-old Cameron Kocher was tried as an adult for murder.  He fired a rifle outside of his window and killed his seven-year-old neighbor.  The prosecutor decided to try him as an adult.  A few of his reasons were he lied about the murder when he was questioned about it, and he slept during pretrial motions.  This showed a lack of remorse for what he had done and perhaps ignorance for the gravity of his actions.  This caused a giant uproar, and consequently Kocher was sentenced as a minor.

Another similar case took place in 2009.  Eleven-year-old Jordan Brown was charged as an adult with criminal homicide.  He shot his father’s pregnant fiancée in the head with a shotgun.  The judge originally ruled Brown would be tried in a criminal, adult court, but eventually (almost two years later) his case was transferred into a juvenile court, and he was tried there.  Both of these children were sentenced to life in prison until they reached the age of twenty-one, and then they were put on probation.

Those who disapprove of children being tried in adult courts assert children are immature in three different ways: their development is incomplete, their judgment is not yet mature, and their character is still in the developmental process.   Because of this immaturity, they cannot be treated as adults; they are not fully matured; they are not competent, responsible, and unlikely to change like adults are.  They are still impressionable and can be rehabilitated.  Can they really process information and plan crimes like adults can?  Of course not, they say.  Yet, we have increasingly younger children committing increasingly more violent crimes.

At the other end of the spectrum are those who believe yes, children committing violent crimes should absolutely be tried as adults.  If they are old enough to make an awful decision, like killing or raping someone, they are old enough to deal with the consequences of that decision, regardless of age.  For example, in February of this year, three thirteen-year-old boys assaulted and raped one of their fellow classmates, a thirteen-year-old girl, at a community park.  Because they were under the age of 14, however, they were kept in a juvenile court.  This caused a tremendous amount of controversy.  As one woman stated on the news in response to the case, voicing the opinion of the public, “If they are old enough to gang rape, then they are old enough to be tried as adults.  I have no sympathy for them.”  Another stated, “What is this world coming to when they can simply walk away?  And that is pretty much what will happen.”

Another case with a similar reaction took place several years ago.  A two-year-old English boy was taken by two ten-year-old boys.  He was mutilated and murdered.  The two ten-year-old boys then placed his body on a railroad track in hopes an oncoming train would cover up what they had done to the little child.  Instead, the body was found, and the boys were arrested.  The general reaction was absolute horror.  The fact children could do something so monstrous to a mere toddler disgusted everyone.

The children were tried in an adult court, to the public’s satisfaction, though they denied all charges brought against them — attempted abduction, abduction, and murder.  The prosecuting attorney in the trial successfully rebutted the idea of doli incapax, which assumes children cannot be held responsible for their actions.  Both of the young boys were evaluated by psychologists and found to have undoubtedly known the difference between right and wrong, and that purposefully causing harm to another was wrong.  The court came to the conclusion it was a cold-blooded murder, and the two boys were found guilty, becoming the youngest convicted murderers of the twentieth century.  The boys were kept in custody for eight years at different locations.

This point of view comes down to the fact a complete lack and disregard of morals cannot be fixed or rehabilitated.  This is absolutely true.  Everyone has an inner sense of right and wrong.  Everyone measures someone else’s actions against that sense of right and wrong.  This is why when these murder, assault, and rape cases appear in the media, the general reaction is horror.  Everyone knows what that person or group of people did was wrong.

While it is true children are developmentally immature in their teenage years, they are still fully aware of the rightness or wrongness of their actions.  A teenager who makes a decision to murder or kidnap someone has done just that — made the decision.  All who commit a violent crime have a choice before them.  Age has nothing to do with that.  A child who kills someone is fully aware of that fact.  The argument that child did not understand the gravity of his actions or did not understand what he did is absurd and cannot and should not be made, much less presented in a courtroom.

Everyone must be held accountable for their actions.  Just because someone is under the age of eighteen does not mean he did not understand the gravity and wrongness of the crime.  If a ten-year-old is old enough to murder someone, he is old enough to deal with the consequences of that murder.  He is old enough to deal with those consequences without the protection and cushion of a juvenile court. Excuses cannot and should not be made for youths merely because of their age.  If the severity of violent crimes committed by children was taken into account as much as their age was, they would certainly be tried as adults.

Bibliography

MacArthur, John T. and Catherine T. “MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice.” Established 1977. <http://www.macfound.org/site/c.lkLXJ8MQKrH/b.948173/k.D1D7/Research_Networks__Adolescent_Development_and_Juvenile_Justice.htm>.

Reaves, Jessica. “Should the Law Treat Kids and Adults Differently?” TIME. 17 May 2001. <http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,110232,00.html >.

Schwartz, Robert. “Kids Should Never be Tried as Adults.” CNN. 18 February 2010. <http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-18/opinion/schwartz.kids.trials_1_justice-system-juvenile-justice-cameron-kocher?_s=PM:OPINION>.

Wilde, Jessica. “Juvenile Criminals Must be Tried as Adults.” The Rebel Yell. 5 March 2009. <http://unlvrebelyell.com/2009/03/05/juvenile-criminals-must-be-tried-as-adults/>.