Juvenile criminals must be tried as adults 
March 5, 2009 by Jessica Wilde
The judiciary should not make age-based exceptions
In light of 11-year-old Jordan Brown murdering his father’s pregnant girlfriend because he was “jealous” and thankfully being tried by Pennsylvania’s court system as an adult, one may ask, why don’t juveniles committing crimes so heinous get the punishment they deserve more often?
This child, among countless others who commit crimes such as rape, robbery, assault, murder and attempted murder are exempt from being tried in a criminal trial purely because of their age. The National Center for Juvenile Justice Profiles explains that juveniles are treated differently from adult criminals because “youth behavior is malleable” and can be reformed with treatment and successful rehabilitation.
The privacy of minors is protected during the hearing and they are never referred to as guilty – only as delinquent. Criminal trials differ in that all court proceedings are available to the public and defendants are found simply innocent or guilty based on the facts.
The obvious problem in trying minors as minors and not treating them in the same way for the same crimes is that rehabilitation will not fix these young criminals. It is simply not important if the children can be rehabilitated and fixed into not being repeat offenders. Prevention of relapse should not be the main focus because situations like this should never arise in the first place.
In 1993, 2-year-old Jamie Bulger living in Bootle, England, was taken by two 10-year-old boys and was mutilated and murdered. The two boys then laid his body on a railroad track with the intention of causing substantial injury which would cover up what they had done to the child. The murderers were tried and convicted as minors and the boys have since been relocated and given new identities.
Excuses should not be made for these offenders; lessening the consequences of their actions will not only undermine the victim and his or her family, but also make it seem excusable after a short period of remorse.
A lack of human morals cannot be treated or cured in rehabilitation centers. Morals are inherent from birth, the acknowledgement of right from wrong and the respect of following those lines are unchangeable foundations a person is built upon from the beginning. People either have morals or they don’t: there is no gray area. One may argue that morals are evident in one situation but not the other. Does this mean that one can pick and choose when they follow their moral compass, when they should believe in right from wrong?
Some may argue that minors do not understand the significance of their actions, that they don’t understand the enormity of what they have done or how it has hurt others. In the case of Bulger, it was reported that the two boys set out that morning with the intention of hurting or killing a young child for fun. They were seen on CCTV scoping out their victim, and found Bulger when he wandered out of the store where his mother was shopping.
To those who advocate a second chance for youths, I have something for you to think about. Put yourself in Bulger’s mother’s shoes. Would you feel your son’s brutal murder was vindicated if the two boys who killed your son, purely for fun, were taken to juvenile detention, received rehabilitative aid and released with new identities to live the rest of their lives with nothing but a faint memory of what they had done? I think not.
All crimes committed by juveniles should and must be treated in the same regard, if not to punish heinous acts, then to provide justice to the families of victims.
> Morals are inherent from birth . . . People either have morals or they don’t: there is no gray area.
What absolute rubbish! – have you never had any children???!
“…rehabilitation will not fix these young criminals.”
Of course youth can be rehabilitated. Many youth who commit crimes have unmet needs such as mental health issues or special educational needs. Some may be lacking in guidance: one youth tried as an adult I spoke to wrote, “There was no one to show me another way.” Education, mental health, mentoring, and job training services, provided by the juvenile justice system, absolutely have the potential to turn kids around. Additionally, these services, provided before kids get in trouble, will probably be the soundest way to prevent crime.
Furthermore, trying youth in the juvenile system works much better to improve public safety than trying youth in the adult criminal court. Study after study has demonstrated that youth transferred to adult court are more likely to re-offend than those sent to the juvenile justice system for the same type of offense and with similar prior records.
“It is simply not important if the children can be rehabilitated and fixed into not being repeat offenders.”
To say that it doesn’t matter whether children are rehabilitated is ridiculous. It matters to the child, the child’s family, and every person with whom the child ever comes into contact after release.
“Prevention of relapse should not be the main focus because situations like this should never arise in the first place.”
No, situations like this shouldn’t arise in the first place. Of course we’d all prefer that the main focus be prevention of crime. But when crimes do occur, locking up a youth in an adult facility and throwing away the key isn’t going to undo that crime or the pain it caused. Justice is better served when we keep youth in the juvenile justice system, not the adult system, where not only are more youth set back on track, but which produces citizens instead of hardened criminals.
For more information, visit: http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org.
[...] really dont think that Juvenile criminals should be treated the same as adults. Of course they should be punished, dont get me wrong, but an [...]
Ms. Wilde knows absolutely nothing about juvenile law, or even adult law for that matter. And she surely knows nothing about history or current affairs.
The Bulger case brought Great Britain considerable scorn from other EU nations – in fact, Britian’s conduct in handling the case was censored by the EU and is still a matter of discussion throughout Europe – as a result of that case, England now has closed hearings for children charged with crimes and a minimum age at which personal information can be released. Last year, an EU watchdog group harshly critisized Great Britian for setting 10 as the minimum age of criminality – when all other EU nations set the bar at 12 or 14 or even 16. Somehow, none of the other countries has the serious crime rate that London does.
The boys in the Bulger case were never shown to have conspired ahead of time to kill – in fact – they were shown to have acted on impulse – the way that most 10 or 11 year old children do. One of the boys, in his confession, asked his interrogator if they were going to bring the little boy back to life again – showing a complete lack of understanding of death. They were released last year and given new identities to protect them from other monsters – people who threatened to murder them – some of whom had identified people who looked like the boys and threatened them by mistake. Even the families of the victim asked people to lay off. To date, neither of the two boys has been shown to have engaged in antisocial acitivities, and frankly, their records while in care were promising.
The United States, with the exception of Florida which sets no bar at all – has 7 as the minimum age of criminal responsibility – something considered barbaric throughout the entire world – even in nations that we would consider underdeveloped.
Prior to juvenile laws, we had the rebuttable presumption of incapacity, which protected children from the law – prosecutors had to overcome a presumption of incapacity for children between 7 and 14 by demonstrating that the child understood and appreciated the nature and consequences of his actions. Very few children under 14 were convicted of murder under common law because it was almost impossible to demonstrate capacity for children that young where premeditation came into play.
Under the commonlaw standard, my guess would be that Jordan Brown would be immediately acquitted of the second murder charge – the killing of a fetus – and the other charge would stand at second degree manslaughter (assuming that he actually fired the shotgun). The prosecutor in this case could have followed in the steps of his ancestors and charged Brown with manslaughter under the recognition that planning and premeditation are not the same thing. He could have had custody over Brown for 10 years under this scenario, which is plenty of time – instead, the prosecutor chose the route that made the child notorious – and hence has made the prospect of rehabilitation all the more difficult. Children who are made notorious often live up to their reputations.
Pennsylvania even permits children under 10 to be charged as adults with murder. The infamous Cameron Kocher case some 20 years ago showed the weakness in the law there – when a prosecutor went after a nine year old child who shot another child off the back of a snowmobile at 300 feet. The boy claimed to have been playing hunter and many of the same statements about premeditation were made against this boy as have been made against Jordan Brown. The good citizens of PA were put on notice more than 20 years ago that firearms and children could be deadly, yet did nothing. Kocher’s parents’ insurance company paid out for their negligence, and once the DA was disposed of, the boy pled to manslaughter and was never heard from again. The DA, however, was heard from again – last year he was convicted of molesting an 11 year old girl.
PA also has the highest number of children sentenced as adults to life without parole – in the entire nation. This is a nasty distinction and the sign of a backward system – most children in fact do change and very few children convicted of killing while children ever go on to reoffend. Rehabilitation can – and often does – work. But it takes a commitment similar to that of an EU nation to make rehabilitation work properly – not a system designed to be grossly punitive when dealing with very young children.
I do not know what Ms. Wilde’s background is, but it may do her some good to actually read about the subject matter before writing an editorial that makes little sense and is inherently incorrect on so many counts. She could start with DOJ stats on youth offenders and then go to the CDC website to review the report about the differences between children convicted as juveniles and those sentenced as adults – the stats tell the truth – that kids sentenced as juveniles are much less likely to reoffend. We also know that most children arrested are not arrested for so-called violent crimes, or even felonies. Most kids are arrested for so-called status offenses – running away, truancy, alcohol consumption, or being a brat to their parents. Less than 13 percent of felonies involve children under 18, and less than one percent of children arrested are arrested for violent crimes. With such a small number of real child criminals, perhaps we could take proactive steps to keep guns out of the hands of children – since more than three quarters of homicides involving children as the defendant involve firearms. My guess is that Jordan would not be notorious today if he did not have access to a shotgun – what a great Christmas gift by the way – a true celebration of Christ’s birth.
Perhaps Ms. Wilde enjoys writing silly editorials for the shock factor – like a shock jock who wants attention. Or perhaps like a small child who shoots someone without much thought or consideration. Either way, she should take a few courses in journalism, ethics, and basic research before making hasty conclusions.
I think it’s time parents start being more responsible, and if a child gets ahold of a gun the adult resonsible needs to be charges as well. I don’t believe an 11 year old should be tried as an adult.
I am a justice studies student with UMA and I respectfully disagree with the author. We don’t let kids drink, do we? I’ve certainly not seen many 11 year olds driving. So they get no adult rights there but if they break they law we treat them like adults with things like “automatic transfer” to adult court.
I asked my 11 year old the other day what the criminal code was. He does not think it has ANYTHING to do with a set of laws. He thinks it’s a secret language criminals use to communicate.
I also would like to introduce the fact that Isreal and the US are the only 2 countries to lock children away for life. Even Isreal gave their 7 convicted children sentence reviews. The US stands alone now in locking children up. But- I’m sure Pennsylvania is keeping us real safe with their 350+ children locked up for life just in that state.
As Virginia Slims says- “We’ve come along baby’ Haven’t we? We’ve made amazing stride in mental health the possibility of rehabilitation should be there for an 11 year old.
ALawyer. Totally agreed about when children are charged as juveniles they are less likely to reoffend. The surgeon general agrees with you. I started a website for Jordan with forums if anyone is interested.
http://www.justiceforjordan.org
Generally folks like Wilde who advocate prosecuting and punishing children as adults fall into to categories; those who are ignorant of the trauma inflicted on children as a result of such prosecution, including physical and sexual assaults in prison, a significantly higher rate of suicide and high recidivism; and those who get their jollies from seeing children tortured in this way . . which begs the question; are they simply stupid, or are they closet sadists.
Despite what Wilde claims, children who are treated as juveniles and placed in programs intended for rehabilitation DO become rehabilitated in a far higher level than those who are placed in adult prisons. Nationwide, statistic bear this out as fact.
Wilde forgets, as do far too many prosecutors, the justice system is not about obtaining vengeance for victims. It’s purpose is to find JUSTICE for all concerned, the accused, the victim and society. This should be doubly true for children accused of crimes.
Lastly, Wilde neglects to mention, in referencing the 11 year old boy in Pennsylvania, that this child has yet to be found guilty of any crime. With our basic right of presumed innocence, in a situation involving a child, pre-trial placement in an adult facility is tantamount to child abuse. Perhaps Wilde might consider what recourse there would be if this young child were raped while in adult jail prior to trial . . and then found not guilty.
It’s interesting that people responding to Ms. Wilde’s Opinion seek to “correct” her Opinion and to attack her for having it. Hmmm. I can’t help but think that they are missing the point. As an Opinion writer she is perhaps playing the role of Devil’s Advocate to provoke discussion. Surely Mr. Osborn and alwayer (it’s always good to be anonymous isn’t it?) are smart enough to realise that?
An important point that Ms. Wilde was making was that children are perhaps more malleable than adults and that it is much more preferable to prevent the problem than to fix it. Too much focus is given to an individuals rights and toolittle on their responsibilities. My take from Ms. Wilde’s article is that children do know right from wrong and that those fundamental moral positions should be made clearly expressed by tsociety general, every day of their lives. We have all seen where the notion “if it feels good, do it” has taken us.
How many people have hesitated to raise an objection to a child’s obnoxious behavior for fear of the consequences from an outraged parent who is allowing their little “treasure” to “find themselfves?”
I wonder if and how “understanding” some respondents would be if, God forbid, something heinous happened to a loved one of theirs because someone’s little “treasure” was simply “finding themselves” or failing to observe what most people would consider acceptable behavior.
In an ideal world the issue if prosecuting children would not need to be entertained. There is no easy solution to the problem of child criminals and it is somewhat uncomfortable to accept that they do exist, but indeed they do.
So when Robert Thompson and John Venables (the convicted murderersof Jamie Bulger) have their own children, I wonder how they will view the world from the perspective of the safety of their offspring?
A final thought, “alawyer” refers to EU members expressing concerns about the Bulger trial and that may well be the case. However, he or she might want to help get the US legal system in order before he criticizes another, especially one admired by members of the Supreme Court of the United States. I dare say that a certain Mr. & Mrs.Goldman might appreciate that, as might those subject to “extraordinary rendition” which used, I think, to be called “kidnapping.”
But just so we are clear, this is just my opinion, which is no more that a position between fact and ignorance. It must be nice for some contributor’s to be so much closer to fact that Ms. Wilde, or at least it must be nice for them to believe that that is the case.
Please don’t be discouraged by personal attacks Ms. Wilde, it is healthy for us all to discuss societal problems, as we can all learn something from comments made, especially from the self-professed experts. Please do forgive the irony, I couldn’t help it.
I’m wondering where “interested reader” is finding fault when (he/she) says, “(it’s always good to be anonymous isn’t it?) . . ” Am I wrong for using my name, or is “interested reader” castigating “alwayer” for using an anonymous “nick?” The later would cause one to wonder why “interested reader” would choose a “nick” rather than a name. Regardless . . Wilde is certainly entitled to her opinon on the subject of destroying a child’s life, which clearly she advocates. The unfortunate thing here is that her advocacy centers on misconceptions or “misinformation.” A brief moment of time spent researching juvenile incarceration and recidivism rates among children prosecuted as adults and who serve time in adult prisons, as opposed to those who have the benefit of the juvenile justice system and juvenile programs aimed at rehabilitation will overwhelmingly result in data supporting adjudication through the conventional juvenile justice system (see, for instance, information on the websites for the Pendulum Foundation and the McArthur Foundation).
Certainly “playing the devils advocate” might be a fun and interesting pursuit, but there must be some level of responsible journalism inserted into the process of publishing, even when producing op/ed material. Making a blanket claim that children who commit crimes are beyond rehabilitation is both without basis and irresponsible from a journalistic standpoint. It is difficult to fathom someone who could find moral high ground arguing for a “living death sentence” (life in prison) for a child who committed an act of extreme violence at the age of 11.
I have been involved, primarily on the prosecution side of the table, for twenty-six years as a forensic expert. I have also been a volunteer member of two national grassroots juvenile justice reform and advocacy programs for nearly a decade. While I would not be so bold to suggest that my interest in the subject deems me an “expert” on this subject, it certainly provides me with the knowledge to argue with Wilde and express strong confidence that the basis of her position is far from correct.
Alawyer,
Not only does PA have to highest rate of children being charged as adults. Please tell me you are familiar with the big scandal recently revealed that judges have been taking up to $2.5 million is kickbacks to send huge amount of kids to juvenile centers, centers owned by private interests. These kids were mostly innocent as well
I do know about the PA Judges taking kickbacks for sending kids to jail. it is truly an ugly situation – many young lives have been destroyed. There have been similar situations in other parts of the nation. In Texas last year, they discovered that the youth prison jailers were using the children for sex under threat of lengthening their sentences.
Also, I suggest in the last line of my original post that Ms. Wilde’s article might be a shock jock type ploy for attention – i.e., she is playing devil’s advocate – but her methods are wrong – she needs to base her information and material on facts.
I pay attention to EU crime discussions because they help us know what is considered acceptable elsewhere – our system, unfortunately is built on the British common law system – most of our legal history is joined at the hip with theirs. Too bad, really.
While it may be the intent of Ms. Wilde to provoke discussion, I doubt it was her expectation of her readers of this article to continually personally attack her, rather than contributing to a meaningful discussion of differing opinions.
Osborn’s comments do not contribute academically to this discussion in any way, rather they attack Wilde and her so-called advocation of “destroying a child’s life.” Quite a dramatic, uneducated assertion, don’t you think? Perhaps next time Osborn decides to comment on a piece, he may take his own advice and stick to the facts of which he is certain, instead of attacking a person of whom he does not know.
what i say should be put into law
WOW, Morals are not learned they are something you are born with… That is a very bold statement and a very wrong statement. We are not born knowing what is right and wrong that is what culture or society teaches us. I, am simply amazed that someone would actually make a comment like that. We learn from our environment and morals develop like all other skills through experience and consequence. In rare cases as you mention you must understand that children are different cognitively from adults. The way they might process their though patterns may be completely changed through many different therapy techniques. Even the most severe behavior can be changed and you are suggesting that behavior and morals cannot obviously you have no real understanding of psychology or human development.
i totally agree with the write. Look at the Columbine incident. Just imagine one of them students that was involved in the shooting was your child. You would want justice. I mean i’m not to fond on locking children up, but if you can hold a gun in your hand i believe they know what they are doing. Everyone has to put theirselves in a different position. I just know if my child was killed by even just a child i would want justice. I think these juveniles know they can get away with it because of their age. On top of it all if an 11 year old child is capable of selling drugs, and knowing that it is against the law but they still do it are you telling me that they have psycotic problems. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and that’s mine.
what?
I Say lock dey asses up an throw away the key if u do the crime u do the god damn time kuz if they let u get away with it once as stupid as people can be they gone turn around and do the same thing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
jessica wilde was wrong about being born with morals. there’s no such thing. a baby can’t be born knowing stealing is wrong. we inherit morals as we grow and learn. but in general she’s right about sentencing juvenile violent offenders as adults. in other word, sending violent minors to jail. there are three reasons why this must be so. first of all adult sentencing is an effective way to prevent offendres from rapeating crimes. secondly, it prevent other minors thinking about commiting crimes from staying away from crimes. and finally to provide justice to victims and their families.
i have a qusetion for alawer. i don’t know ifyou have a family. but if a random teenager stabs your wife to death just for fun or for gang initiation, what do you want to happen to them? many people oppose adult sentencing but they don’t think of what they’ll do if their family member was killed. i have an advise fpr them……….STOP WASTING YOUR TIME!!!! i know they would want anyone who killled their relative dead.
also scott the therapist or who uses phycology to oppose adult sentencing should understand something. he’s says jessica wilde is not smart when he himself isn’t. if he was smaert enough, he’ll know that minors sent to jail can seek the treatment and rehabilitation they need with the programs they are provided with in jail. scott has to understand we are talikng about united states jails and not jails in a foreign country. you don’t think that inmates stay in there cells all day doing nothing. they have the choice to go to programs that can help them change their lives.
bottomline is life is to precious. our justice system’s purpose is to punish the offender. not the age of the offender.
The author of this piece needs to read from book 4, chapter 2 of Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. Blackstone’s legal thought influenced the Founding Fathers’ own legal thought more than anyone else. See what he says about age: http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-402.htm
Well i agree that if the children are simply put through a detention center and relocated that the proper justice will certainly not be servered
wow. this is quite interesting. I am a junior in H.S. and i must write a 7 page research paper on whether juveniles should be tried as adults. your conversations have been very….enthralling.
I myself am against juveniles being tried as adults. I wanted to share with the public a piece of information that has not been touched upon as of yet…i don’t think.
…..Regions that control sensory and motor skills mature first, becoming more specialized and efficient. The prefrontal cortex, responsible for judgement and impulse control, matures last. The prefrontal cortex isn’t “done” until the early 20s-and sometimes even later in men…
I took this straight from U.S NEWS & WORLD REPORT Title of Article:”The Amazing Teen Brain” Author:Nancy Shute
There is much more info in the article….
My thoughts: A 17 yr old (used my age as an example) knows right from wrong but they are compelled to make rash, impulsive decisions……hopefully this article will lead society to question whether or not they should persecute a child who is bound to be irrational the same way they’d try an adult…….just my thoughts….
first of all adult sentencing is an effective way to prevent offendres from rapeating crimes. secondly, it prevent other minors thinking about commiting crimes from staying away from crimes. and finally to provide justice to victims and their families.
My response:…whoah. uhm for the first one….i’m not even goin to comment on that….look it up then come back. for your second point Ms. Nancy, myself and many of my peers knew little to nothing about juveniles being tried as adults….and i go to school thats about 50% white, 40% black, 10% other and i am on good terms with MANY people in my school…how can sentencing kids as adults prevent youth from commiting crimes if we know little to nothing about the subject?? about your third point,…? what? you are an adult so lets be forreal…that family has to forgive in order to move on. but hey if they’d rather that their tax money goes to feedin, clothing, and “housin” the offender, instead of the other possibility of rehabilitation than humanity is sadder than i realized….
I’m a sophomore in H.S also writing a research paper on the juvenile justice system. I have to analyze whether teenagers accused of violent crimes should be tried and sentenced as adults. Personally, I agree with those opposed to Ms. Wildes article; if juveniles are not endowed with the same rights and priveleges as adults, how can we punish them the same way? If theres no difference between a 15- year-old and an adult in the courtroom, then there shouldn’t be a difference in politics, specifically in voting. I also think that children are certainly not born with morals; studies about the development of the teenage brain prove this. One other point I wanted to make, is that there is an extreme difference between justice and vengeance. Those who have written things similar to art’s ” the proper justice will certainly not be servered” “if the children are simply put through a detention center and relocated” should re-approach the difference between these two terms. I realize, that if a crime actually hit home with one of us debating these topics, we would probably feel an urge to want that criminal dead. Does that mean this feeling is justice? Should the emotions of the victim’s family be placed as top priority in determing a criminal’s sentencing? Or should we instead sentence criminals in a way that will benefit our society?
To put yourself in the postion of Bulgar’s mother’s shoes would be considered invalid, it makes a moot point. To have been his mother or in a similar situation you would be ruled by your emotions over what happened, not useing facts, or science to find whether or not. If you were a lawyer and that was your closing statement, then the opposing delivered straight up facts then you would have lost your case. It doesn’t matter how heart felt, or well put together your words are, its emotionalism. Have you ever seen ‘Dead Poets Society’? the last scene? If you haven’t watch it. An besides have you ever seen just what rehabilitating can do or actually helping these coulds do? Have you ever seen one-on-one what a kid in jail looks like? They dont belong. Besides that, the brain of a juvenile is not as fully developed and are more over come by their emotions. They become blind-sighted by them and their hormones are certainly no help in the situation. Have you ever read the study called “Anatomical Changes in the Emerging Adult Brain”, it’s from November 29th 2005 in an online issue of the journal ‘Human brain Mapping’. Two researchers, Abigail Baird and Craig Bennett conducted a study on college students and it went to show that those student’s brains still were developing and changing vastly.The change was mostly in regions of the brain known to integrate emotion and cognition. If this is happening in kids that are legally adults then how can we send kids that are almost a decade younger or even jus a few years younger in to be tried as adults. Those 18-19 year old kids still have brains that are far from resembling those of someone in a their mid-twenties.
And i must disagree with your statement
“Morals are inherent from birth, the acknowledgement of right from wrong and the respect of following those lines are unchangeable foundations a person is built upon from the beginning. People either have morals or they don’t: there is no gray area.”
Morals are bore into one’s brain when they’re born
If they were then I believe the world would have a sense of moral-universalism, since baby brains don’t tend to vary much until they hit about a month or so.
Yes, morals are built upon from the beginning, but they can be changed. You see kids at my school who have been in and out of the System and who REFUSE to change then you see those who have been in maybe once or twice and have decided that what they did is wrong and they won’t do it again. Morals change as their choices change. The law says that marijuana is wrong by making it illegal, but at the same time it’s okay for doctors to prescribe it as medicine, that’s a gray area. Surely you see this as a gray area? It’s not a yes, it’s not a no, it’s a in between kind of thing.
im not saying change your beliefs or your opinons but look at all the facts and science before making up your mind that way your not looking at things through tunnel vision.
Children who commit violent and heinous crimes like murder, rape, battery should and must be tried as adult and be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law that adults are prosecuted. We all know that children sometimes can be really evil and perhaps more evil than adult sometimes. Anyone at the age of 10 and above understands, and is expected to understand, the right and wrong. Don’t tell me that the two boys in the 1993 Bulger murder case didn’t know what they were doing to that poor little child was seriously wrong. They knew all the way it was wrong as you know you are alive. Yong scumbags like those should have never been allow to walk away free. No, never! It was a grave mistake for the British judicial system to make and it will have consequences!
I reverently disagree with Douglas; the development of the child and teenager’s brain has less to do with their perception of right and wrong, and instead in emphasising the irrational emotions that dominate children’s brains, especially in the earlier ages. According to a recent study, “The pre-frontal cortex, responsible for the characteristics of adult behavior, such as impulse control, the regulation of emotions and moral reasoning is thh last to mature. They are more prone to peer pressure, tend to focus on reward over risk, act impulsively, and think about the present instead of being future oriented.” In addition to teens’ inability to control their emotions, our society does not present the most positive atmosphere for children: Lionel Tate, 12, beat to death a young girl, imitating his World Wrestling Federation; Thomas Preciado, 14, was mimicking a TV program about little girls who rob a bank when he robbed a minimart, and stabbed the clerk. Both of these situations have to do with how corrupt and violent our society has become. Is it then just to punish children more severely, when they are only conforming to their surroundings? Maybe children are increasingly violent simply because they are standing in the direct flow of the mass media and violent culture of today.
I THINK ANYONE WHO DECIDED TO MAKE UP THEIR MIND TO KILL ANOTHER PERSON THEN THEY SHOULD BE THROWN IN JAIL NO MATTER THE AGE.
Rather than being an intelligent argument for trying children as adults, the writer has instead proven why our nation’s solutions to juvenile crime is a dismal failure. She has not listed one single factual statistic in her discourse, leaving it nothing more than an irrational and uniformed rant. But why reference statistics when they consistently disprove your point?
Nevertheless, for the rationally minded among us, who prefer facts and logic to emotional diatribes…
Here are some statistics for you:
- Children who have been incarcerated are THREE TIMES more likely to re-offend within the next year as children who are sentenced to alternatives to incarceration. Such alternatives can include counseling, community service, reparations and a whole host of others. Also, all of these alternatives are much less expensive than incarceration. Additionally, children who are incarcerated, rather than being offered alternative measures, commit far more serious crimes when they are eventualy released.
- It has been proven, by a plethora of studies over the last two decades, since the “getting tough” on juvenile crime was first instituted, that these policies DO NOT reduce juvenile crime, and in fact, they INCREASE the incidences of recidivism.
- A recent federal study of teens in juvenile detention found that 66% of the boys and 75% of the girls had at least one psychiatric disorder. However, the U.S. Department of Health and Human services estimates that about 80% of children who need mental health services do not receive them.
- A study comparing abused to non-abused children found that abused children are 4.8 times more likely to be arrested as a juvenile, and 11 times more likely to be arrested as a juvenile for a violent crime. These children did not ask to be born into abusive homes. Where was the concern for the victims, when THEY were the victims? And when all they have learned is violence from being abused throughout their childhoods, we should lock them up and throw away the key, rather than provide treatment and rehabilitation, to allow them to one day, become productive citizens who could give something back, and be an example to others, rather than continue victimizing society, by our having to subsidize their continued incarceration?
- The United States puts more of its children behind bars than any other nation on earth. To give you a comparison, the U.S. has more than five times the number of incarcerated children as India, a country of more than one billion people. Despite this statisic, we DO NOT have lower crime rates than other countries. If it’s not working, why are we forcing taxpayers to pay for it?
- Many programs in other nations have preemptively reduced crime. Based on the efforts of other nations, it is estimated that encouraging social development of children and families decreases crime and yields returns up to $7.16 for every $1 spent. In order to decrease crime by 10%, $228 additional tax dollars per family would need to be spent on incarceration compared to just a $32 dollar increase to help at-risk children complete school. For every dollar spent on incarceration, $1.89 is believed to be returned as a net benefit to society, whereas alternative programs have been found to return almost $4.00 in net benefit to society. Not only does incarceration make no RATIONAL sense, where juvenile crime rates are concerned, but it also makes no ECONOMIC sense.
– 85 percent of all juveniles who interface with the juvenile court system are functionally illiterate. Why is this statistic so important? Because, two-thirds of students who cannot read proficiently by the end of the 4th grade will end up in jail or on welfare. Literacy, quite clearly, provides better opportunities in life, which means being able to provide for your own well being, which ultimately means LESS CRIME.
If the “Get Tough” on juvenile crime model is such a failure, why is it so slow to be reformed?
Because, as is evident even here, in this writer’s article, the MEDIA IS COMPLICIT in the irrational and unfounded belief that juvenile crime rates are a CRISIS which must be dealt with harshly for our own safety.
HOW IS THE MEDIA GUILTY?
Youth rarely appear in the news, but when they do, they are unduly connected to violence or crime. For example, one study of local California TV coverage found that nearly 7 in 10 news stories on violence involved youth, while youth arrests made up only 14% of arrests for violent crime that year. Another study found that more than half of TV news stories concerning children or youth involved violence, while only 2% of young people were either victims of violence or violent offenders that year. Homicide coverage on network news increased 473% from 1990 to 1998, while homicides decreased 32.9% during that time. While there was a 68% decline in homicides committed by youth from 1993 to 1999, 62% of the public reported believing that youth crime was on the increase.
The media, benefits financially from sensationalistic journalism, and when they fuel the fires of irrational fear, it creates panic in law abiding citizens, who don’t know the real facts and statistics, and this encourages law-makers to institute brutally harsh measures. Why do lawmakers do this? Because they are primarily concerned with getting re-elected, and when they APPEAR to be helping to solve the irrational fears the media has helped perpetuate, then they also appear to be working toward lowering the crime rate among juvenile offenders, which helps them get re-elected, though in reality, the crime rates are NOT lowered, and in many cases, INCREASE, while burdening the taxpayer with the more expensive method of incarceration.
It is an ILLUSION which drives the methodology in our current juvenile justice system. An illusion perpetuated by the selfishness of the media, and the selfishness of lawmakers. Both of whom benefit from the myth, while society as a whole PAYS THE PRICE, both economically and in decreased safety. Not to mention the wasted lives of children, who rather than being helped, are locked away for years upon years, and merely learn to be adult criminals.
The author claimed that we should ask the mother of a victim of juvenile crime whether we should rehabilitate or seek revenge?
What purpose would this serve? Victims often desire revenge as retribution. But why should society as a whole bear the burden of her PERSONAL desire for revenge, knowing this only increases juvenile crime rates, when instead, we could do the right thing, which would prevent MANT OTHER MOTHERS from losing their own sons and daughters to violent crimes? While I would understand her personal motivation for revenge, I am not willing to sacrifice the lives of my own children, merely to help her achieve it.
Are you?
– Craig Maxim
This is an example of a class based mindset. I am referring to the comment< "morals are inherited from birth." So are you saying that rich people like Paris Hilton inherit the morals? Think about that arguement. I find these comments very naive and class biased. I can tell you a truth, "morality has nothing to do with what you are born into." Here is something you may want to study about jueveniles, " mylenation in the brain, and how this does not form until after 18 years of age", and how parents have difficulty reasoning with children under 18 because they do not think like adults, and hmmm… why do judges and authority figures talk to adolescents like their children instead of adults, ( because they are in fact children.) Dont get me wrong I am not saying that adolescents should get off easy for a crime, but try them the same as adults (thats crazy), try considering toughening up the juevenile programs instead. (now this is a gray area ) and hate to tell you in life there are a lot of gray areas, try be stuck in one for a change.
Yes, children should have to face the same law as adults. It is unfair to the victims and their loved ones. The law should serve the victims too.
I COULDNT AGREE MORE WITH YOU!
children who commit such crimes
should be charged as adaults!
I think that when juveniles are tried as adults it brings out a lot of emotions amongst different people. I appreciate your thoughts Jessica, and I think that your analysis of the issue had a lot of great insight. I am one who agrees with the argument that no child should be tried as an adult, no matter how harsh the circumstance.
Even though most people feel that crimes such as rape and murder should translate to long-term sentences, punishing adolescents under the same rules as an adult is wrong. Adults are called adults for a reason, and juveniles are called juveniles for a reason. They’re two separate groups.
Juveniles have a substantially greater chance of rehabilitating and staying out of trouble as they grow older. It’s cruel to lock up a thirteen your old child in prison for life. We shouldn’t count juveniles off as hopeless and throw away the key; instead we should help them understand what their actions caused, given that a juvenile’s brain is less responsive than adults and is not fully developed.
I am not saying that any juvenile who commits a crime should be set free. I’m purely stating that age has to be taken into account. They shouldn’t be given such long terms as life in prison, especially without the possibility of parole.
All in all, I think we can all agree that judges have a tough job and this is not an easy issue for them to address.
they should not be tried as adults because kids are not as mature as adults and it is not fair
Blanket statements are rarely completely correct. So saying that either juveniles should or shouldn’t be tried as adults is incorrect. I know teenagers that are more mature and intelligent than many adults. I also know many adults that never grow up mentally past high school. So the maturity argument should be thrown out as it offers little insight into the problem.
The age of adulthood in the US is 18 but do you automatically become responsible at that age? Do you all of the sudden realize that you shouldn’t act rashly but that you should “look before you leap”? NO. Our society chose the age of 18 arbitrarily and for convenience. Socially we need a simple way to distinguish between an adult and a minor.
It would be very difficult for our country if we did not have an easy test to see if someone was an adult as this would affect many things such as when a person can join the military, use restricted substances, vote, sign contracts in their name, etc. The separation is needed because our society for the last hundred years or so has decided that childhood should be protected and so we have put laws in place to protect children (outlawing child labor, mandating school, etc.)
I personally believe that prosecutors and courts should be able to try juveniles as adults as long as they can prove that the juvenile had the required maturity and understanding to make their decision. If not, then juveniles should continue to be treated through a separate juvenile system. For example, the children that planned columbine should have been tried as adults. It was not a rash decision but an intricate plan. A juvenile, on the other hand, that gets into a fight with someone and then killed them seems to be a different situation unless you can prove that they planned to kill the other juvenile or adult. Even in our adult law, we separate those two as a premeditated plan to kill someone would be first degree murder while a killing that was not planned would be manslaughter or second degree murder.
I am currently an 8th grader in a Speech and Debate team. Very competitive. So far I’ve seen information that solely agrees with the ‘con’ side of the ‘Juveniles tried as adults’ topic. Can anyone help me get a couple of good pointers for ‘pro’ ‘Juveniles tried as adults’? thanks in advance.
Craig,
It is important to note that Nevada has no age minimum to be tried as an adult we have statutes in place instead that state murder, rape (or any sexual assult), anpossision of a wepon with intent to commit a crime are automatic qualifications for any youth to be tried as an adult.
Now to add some pro statements. I support Nevada’s statutes for this. IMO any youth should be tried as an adult in any state by the time they reach 14 for the crimes of Murder, Sex crimes(Rape), and robbery. 14 is the minimum I believe bc by that time in our lives we have had the appove mentioned crimes hammered into us as being bad and any person commiting these crimes should know that they will get severly punished.
Juveniles should ABSOLUTELY be tried as adults
Okay, I agree with everyone who says that children should NOT be tried as adults. We say that 10 year-old children should know right from wrong. That is true. But what if the child is not properly educated. It’s not as if school’s teach children what the exact punishment is for children who commit crimes; let alone the fact that parents assume children are supposed to know, or tell them “murder is bad”. I am not pointing fingers, but society plays a large role in the actions of children today. Our media plays a big factor in a child’s life. We have movies, shows, and even cartoons that involve guns and hurting people, or even the murdering of people. We have advertisements focusing on weapons, and what do children expect weapons are for? We have news broadcasts of war and murder. The thing is, children never really comprehend the words they hear. They really learn on graphics and visualizations. What about the environment children live in? I’m not trying to offend anyone, but there are many neighborhoods in the US that has a high rate in gang violence. Within other neighborhoods even, there can always be a bar dispute or some type of social gathering that ends in violence. The possibilities of a child being exposed to violence in our society is very high. And death. We’re all unsure of death, really. Everyone has their religious beliefs and what not, but no one will ever be 100% sure in what comes after death, or even what death could possibly mean. Perhaps a child believes that death is a good thing, based on the possibility that death could be a “relief” from this effed up world that we live in. So murdering someone could not be bad for all we know…..
I could go on and on about this, but I have a blog to write about the same topic. If you’d like to follow it, or even criticize my opinions (don’t worry, i take no offense to what others’ opinions may be), then you can go to childrenandtheiractions.blogspot.com
here, you can view all the blogs I have written upon my opinion of different articles presented in class.
If you can claim that minors can be fully mentally and emotionally responsible for their actions if they kill someone, then how can you say that same minor can’t purchase and consume alcohol?
Does it not stand to reason that if murder isn’t over a 10 year old’s head, then why isn’t the effects alcohol would have on their body? Or how about consenting to sex? Are we to believe that sex and drinking alcohol are more complex to understand for a 10 year old mind than murder?
And even then, when you say “try as an adult” are you going to give the boy the death penalty? Life in jail? Will the sentence even stick? It likely won’t even hold up and get appealed then overturned. More often than not, it’s a waste to even go through those motions as I don’t see any sane jury convicting a 10 year old boy of 1st degree murder. Premeditated or not.
I’ve worked in Criminal Justice for 34 years in positions from police officer, detective to currently working with juveniles in a detention center as an adolescent behavior interventionist. I hold a Master’s Degree in Criminal Justice, and a licensed therapist in Florida and am trained in Foresic Psychology. I agree with the writer in that our current form of juvenile rehabilitation does not work for violent juvenile offenders. Although I do not agree that people are born with moral values, they are learned early in life by those who raise a child. I have worked with juveniles who at 14 years of age murdered another and show no remorse or empathy for what they did. These adolescents cannot be fixed and will eventually become career criminals. The juvenile justice system should be disbanded and all criminals regardless of age should be brought into criminal court to face their consequences whatever they be. Diversion Programs should be available to first-time offenders who do not commit violent crimes or are status offenders. Life without parole is a good alternative for violent adolescents. It’s not cruel and unusual punishment…like may of the murdering adolesents I work with they caused cruel and unusual punishment to their victims.
I just recently had an argument with my girlfriend about the death penalty, youth tried as adults and all the like issues surrounding our “justice” system. So I went on line to look up different opinions on the issue, and I just want to state mine on this particular article and it’s responses.
First off, it appears a lot of focus is being put on the age of the offender, and the issue’s relation to OTHER situations.
Children tried as adults for theft, vandalism,… we aren’t talking about any of that.
Alcohol is an irrelevant point, unless you are saying that drinking alcohol and murdering a 2 year old are the same thing. I will humbly argue that they are not. Neither are any of the other age restricted issues anyone has brought up. Those are things you SHOULDNT do TILL a certain age. Smoking, sex, voting, driving, porn… ALL things that are perfectly legal, perfectly acceptable, at a certain age.
A better but still irrelevant mention would have been, illegal drugs. Still irrelevant though,(i’ll pretend i have a 10 year old), my 10 year old killing your newborn, would be totally different from, my 10 year old snorting cocaine, even further different from, my 10 year old drinking a can of pabst, way way WAY further different from, my 10 year old watching the playboy channel.
I can see motivation for a child to mimic or be curious about sex, alcohol, smoking, driving, even drugs, if the child is exposed to it through their parents or you know, just sees it all the time for whatever reason. But where does the motivation come from, to kill someone?
Children, I’ve learned, DO like to act out, hit, throw things, etc… is this violent behavior? YES, but it is NOT the same thing as murder. is it? You see your child trying to run out in the street, you make damn sure they can understand that’s not a good idea. You see your child hurting your cat, dog, or newborn, you make damn sure that kid knows it’s wrong. You try your hardest. Because you are a good parent. And you DON’T want your kid to kill themselves, or go shoot up a school.
-”Perhaps a child believes that death is a good thing, based on the possibility that death could be a “relief” from this effed up world that we live in.”
You are right there stating that a child understands death to some degree, the concept of relief, which is in all honesty more complex than death, and their relation to each other, and to the world. In THAT case, I say they know what their doing. But I disagree alltogether. I say someone who can be said to have that complex of a belief, definitely knows, murder is wrong. But I agree with you that media plays a huge role… and who controlls the media?….
the school.
the parents.
you also mentioned education. i second that.
HOWEVER…
“The two boys then laid his body on a railroad track with the intention of causing substantial injury which would cover up what they had done to the child.”
… unless everyone ties each other to railroad tracks in England, I’m gonna say, they knew what they were doing.
now, I don’t agree that these 10 year old boys should be sent to an adult population prison, but definitely should be kept out of the general public. If they have a tendency or predisposition, or simply are capable of such violence, they are then a danger to public safety. So, at that time, it should be in arguable that there is a problem with these children. And they should be subject to some form of mental evaluation and attempted rehab. Please try and refute that.
Craig, mentioned a bunch of statistics that seem to say media plays no role. Yet of all places you picked California? Genius. In any case I am sure the media played a role both ways but it would definitely NOT be congruent. Those statistics also don’t define the age range of “young people”, or the nature of the crimes of the seemingly miniscule percentage in a moderately violent state. I’d argue that adults will ALWAYS make up a larger percentage of violent crime as they posess a greater capacity to do so, but as all victims of juvenile crimes would say if they were still alive, “juveniles are not incapable of violent crimes”. And 2% can be a VERY large actual number while still appearing to be a small percentage. Percentages are favorable to one or another side of an argument depending on how big or small they are.
Furthermore. Why is there so much talk about the youth’s punishment, education system, legalities, media and seemingly ZERO responsibility placed on parenting?
I’d continue but I gotta go to bed so I can be a productive member of society tomorrow. someone please respond.
I don’t like having to put away children at any age but if that child killed my child, brother, sister or mother I would want him to stay in prison so he would not have the chance to do it to any one else child. If we let these children stay in the juvenile justice system they will be out at 21 or 25. After this most of these kids get in trouble any way it might not be murder again this time it could be rape and they will go in and out the system the rest of there life. Look at the show call parole board some of these criminals have been in the system from the age of 14 and they just keep going they have records as long as your arm or the length of your body they start off in the juveniles system and just got worst because the system was so light on them. Remeber years ago when gangs would used these minors to kill because they wouldn’t get that much time then there was a cry from society
If the child is old enough to do the crime, the child is old enough to do the time.
ALL HEINOUS CRIMES COMMITTED BY JUVENILES SHOULD BE SENT TO ADULT COURTS!
I believe that juveniles who commit crimes should be tried and sentenced as adults because a crime is a crime regardless of age. If the person is old enough to hold a gun, is old enough to know what the consequence of shooting it is, he/she SHOULD be sentenced as adults. If a child beats up someone else, he absolutely knows what he’s doing because first of all he’s doing it to cause harm to the other person and he knows that harm is being caused. Furthermore, it’s the parents/guardians responsibility to know exactly what the child is doing and its the parents responsibility to teach a child that doing such crimes are bad and they should be taught this at a very young age! Therefore there is not justification as to why a child has committed at crime…
It is true that a 5 year old who beats up someone might not know what he’s doing but for a 10+ year knows the difference between what’s right and what’s wrong!
Therefore juvenile criminals should be sentenced as adults.
kids should not be tried as an adult because they are not the legal age to be considered as an adult if you want to put a minor on trial for some thing her or she did then they should chage the leage age of being an adult. because iam also only 17 but they want to trie me as an adult for hitting a mailbox and not telling anyone about it when it hppend at 3am. and the court wasnt to put me in jail for 3-4 days. i dont think its right
Rae,
I guess you shouldn’t have hit a mailbox then, don’t do the crime if you can’t do the crime. Im sure you knew what you were doing was wrong, maybe a few days in jail will teach you not to break the law.
Anyone who has slammed the Ms. Wilde is out of their mind I have a Degree in Early Child education and agree with the statement that A lack of human morals cannot be treated or cured in rehabilitation centers. Morals are inherent from birth, the acknowledgement of right from wrong and the respect of following those lines are unchangeable foundations a person is built upon from the beginning. People either have morals or they don’t: there is no gray area. One may argue that morals are evident in one situation but not the other. Does this mean that one can pick and choose when they follow their moral compass, when they should believe in right from wrong?
For example the DC snipers or high school shooters cannot be rehabilited becasue of their mindsets and they have certain morals from the start
i feel that the death punishment/children sentenced like adults should not be ineffect. what if they did not do it,then who would charge them of whatever they did?
i hate why i speak my mind it can always be used in a court of law against you.
i agree w/u joey(13)
I feel that Jordan Brown was treated as fairly as he should have been treated. The State of Pennsylvania should have charged him as an adult . after all he told the victim on numerous occasions that he was going to kill her and her two daughters. These words have been reported to the police in Wampum. They are part of public record. He intended to murder Ms. Houk and her unborn baby. And to make the matter worse, he just threw the shotgun shell to the side. He was fully aware of the damage that the shotgun could cause. He was an avid shooter, with many trophies, and awards. Jordan was a very demented young man. Just because he is under the age of 18, people want to slap him on the wrist,when he really needs a hard kick in the ass..(excuse my profanity).
I totally agree with the state in charging him as an adult. I can truthfully say “if it were my son, I would have charged him as an adult”. That may sound horrible to some, but that is my true opinion.
I have done research on the case, and I know it very well. I have been folowing it since 2008. He needs to pay for his crime, and not with juvenile time. He committed an adult crime, give him adult time……
Children should be tried as adults if they say their going to kill someone on purpose