Revisiting the Juvenile Offenders in Adult Criminal Justice System

The statistics are striking. In 2002 alone, one in twelve murders in the U. S. involved a juvenile offender (Snyder and Sickmund p. 65). Half of high school seniors (51%) surveyed in 2003 said they had tried illicit drugs at least once (Snyder and Sickmund p. 75). About 9% of murders in the U. S. were committed by youth under 18 in 2000 and an estimated 1561 youth under the age of 18 were arrested for homicide in 2000 (Fox). Youth under 18 accounted for about 15% of violent crime arrests in 2001 (FBI).One national survey found that for every teen arrested, at least 10 were engaged in violence that could have seriously injured or killed another person. (US Dept. of Health and Human Services). The alarming numbers continue but leave a question mark on the propensity and effectiveness of existing US juvenile laws, pushing for an inclination towards adopting adult justice systems in youth offender cases. Yet, alongside these figures are far more alarming statistics. While juvenile crimes are persistent, it is also true that one of every four violent crime victims known to law enforcement is a juvenile (Snyder and Sickmund p.31). Suicide is the third leading cause of death among teenagers. In fact, 1921 young people ages 10 to 19 died by suicide in the United States in 2000 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). In fact, about 1 in 11 high-school students say they have made a suicide attempt in 1999(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention p. 6). And, officials have reported that of the more than 2,800 sexual violence allegations in juvenile facilities in 2004, 3 in 10 were substantiated (Snyder and Sickmund p. 230).A juvenile offender is one who is considered too young to be tried as an adult. Typically, the age at which a person can be tried as an adult varies among states, but ordinarily, it is the age of seventeen or eighteen, although this age can go down for certain serious offenses, such as homicide or sexual assault (Larson). When charged with a cri minal offense, a juvenile is sent to a juvenile court where he may either waive his right and be tried under adult criminal systems. Ideally and ordinarily, the focus is on what will rehabilitate the juvenile, rather than on punishment.For juvenile offenses, the juvenile are often said to have committed a â€Å"delinquent act,† as opposed to a â€Å"criminal offense. † (Larson). Although the juvenile court has broad discretion to tailor a sentence to the needs of a young offender this juveniles are still sentenced to prison. In fact, many states have large juvenile prisons and treatment facilities. The principle is that that the present criminal justice system believes that some juvenile offenders are very dangerous, despite their age, that incarceration seemed to be appropriate.While most of the policymakers and the press claim that an increase in the youth population shall also result in the rate of juvenile offenses, a lot of considerations need to be addressed. Jus tifications, as will be discussed later, however, boil down to one conclusion- when a juvenile commits an adult crime, he should not be required to face the consequences as an adult. In an effort to derive justifications why youth offenders should not be tried under adult criminal justice systems, several propositions are laid out below based on recent studies: 1.Youth are developmentally different from adults; 2. Incarcerating youth offenders in adult jails is dangerous to the juvenile offenders; 3. Youth incarceration in adult jails does not reduce crime rate; 4. Trying juvenile offenders and imposing death penalty to youth offenders is unconstitutional. These are discussed in detail in the following sections. Youth are developmentally different from adults The basic principle of equality of rights is commonly understood to mean that persons who are similarly situated shall be treated the same under the law.A close analysis of adult and youth offender profiles however suggests tha t adult and youth criminal offenders are not similarly situated so much so that existing adult justice systems should be liberally applied if not totally abolished as against juvenile offenders. Psychologists and lawyers have raised significant and recent studies in the juvenile brain in reconsidering the existing juvenile laws. An issue in point is whether a teenager who commits capital offenses can be executed or whether this would be cruel and unusual punishment, banned by the Constitution's eighth amendment.The point is, adolescents are not morally culpable as adults because their brains are not as capable of impulse control, decision-making, and reasoning as adult brains are. Psychologists say that this is because the brain's frontal lobe, which exercises restraint over impulsive behavior, â€Å"doesn't begin to mature until 17 years of age,† says neuroscientist Ruben Gur of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. â€Å"The very part of the brain that is judged by the legal system process comes on board late.† Other than this, adults behave differently not just because they have different brain structures, but because they use the structures in a different way ( Beckman ). Because of these social and biological reasons, an article in Times Magazine read, â€Å"teens have increased difficulty making mature decisions and understanding the consequences of their actions. † With much of these studies leaning towards the immediate fact that juveniles are not as mentally developed as the adult offenders, it is but proper that minors should never be tried as adults and should be spared the death penalty.Incarcerating youth offenders in adult jails is dangerous to the juvenile offenders It is a fact that despite a federal law preventing juveniles from adult jails existing for over three decades, 7,500 youth are in adult jails, according to a report released by the Campaign for Youth Justice. It must be reconsidered that rather than reh abilitating the youth offenders, incarcerating youth offenders in adult jails poses more danger to the juvenile. In fact, they are exposed to these dangers even before they’ve had their day in court (Campaign for Youth Justice).Incarceration exposes the youthful offender to sexual assault. Officials reported that of more than 2,800 sexual violence allegations in juvenile facilities in 2004, 3 in 10 were substantiated with girls more likely than boys to be sexually victimized (Snyder and Sickmund p. 229). In 2005, 21% of all substantiated victims of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence were under eighteen years old, even though youth make up less than 1% of the total jail population (Campaign for Youth Justice).Likewise, incarceration in adult are at greater risk of suicide than similar youth in theU. S. population (Snyder and Sickmund p. 229). In fact, youth have the highest suicide rates of all inmates in jails. â€Å"They are 36 times more likely to commit suicide in an adult jail than in a juvenile detention facility, and 19 times more likely to commit suicide in an adult jail than youth in the general population† (Campaign for Youth Justice). Finally, jailing juveniles in adult facilities are counterproductive and even increases their likelihood of reoffending.Based on studies, children who are prosecuted in adult court are more likely to be rearrested more often and more quickly for serious offenses(Campaign for Youth Justice). Youth incarceration in adult jails does not reduce crime rate While it is true that juvenile population in the US is increasing similarly to other segments of the population such that population projections indicate that the juvenile proportion of the U. S. population will hold constant through 2050 (Snyder and Sickmund p. 2), it is not true that this increase would also result in the increase in juvenile crime rate.In an analysis conducted based on official crime statistics of youth offenders in California from 1970 to 1 998, Macallair and Males said that â€Å"the popular claim that the rising teenage population means more crime and violence is a myth† (2000). According to them, the current crime trends among youths are indication of declining crime rates into the next century and suggest a reevaluation of current trends in youth crime policies and reexamination of popular assumptions based on these statistics. Death penalty to juvenile crimes is unconstitutionalThe truth of the matter is that all states in the US now allow certain juveniles to be tried in criminal court or otherwise face adult sanctions (Snyder and Sickmund p. 110). More over, the federal consititutionality of the American juvenile death penalty was a reasonably settled issue for the past 15 years. This is a serious matter that poses more danger to juvenile offenders in facing adult consequences. It is a good thing however, that the United States Supreme Court has now expressed a renewed interest in reconsidering this issue with state courts getting more involved as well. In Thompson v.Oklahoma, 487 U. S. 815 (1988), the United States Supreme Court held that â€Å"executions of offenders age 15 and younger at the time of their crimes are prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution† (Death Penalty Information Center). In Simmons v. Roper, 112 S. W. 3d 397 (Mo. 2003), the Supreme Court of Missouri interpreted current national data to hold that the death penalty for juvenile offenders now violates the United States Constitution's prohibition against Cruel and Unusual Punishment. They however did not reach the issue under the Missouri State Constitution.Although a ruling on federal constitutionality, Simmons applies only in Missouri at this juncture. In the meantime, the two prevailing issues before the Supreme Court is whether the lower court can subsequently reinterpret and reject the standards under evolving standards of decency once the United States Supreme Court sets the Eighth Amendment Cruel and Unusual standard and whether death penalty for a 17-year-old offender is now Cruel and Unusual under the Eighth Amendment's evolving standard of decency (Death Penalty Information Center).In 2005, the U. S. Supreme Court (5-4) upheld the Missouri Supreme Court and banned the death penalty for juvenile offenders, Roper v. Simmons (2005). With this as precedence, it is but due time for states to also reconsider the adverse consequences of juvenile commitment in adult prisons. Conclusion With all the issues raised above, it is but appalling why juvenile offenders should be tried under adult criminal justice systems. It is but due time that existing state policies be revisited and amended to adjust to the need of youthful offenders.In the meantime, since the present state policies on juvenile offenders are already in place, it is only but fitting to reconsider some adjustments in existing policies if at least to address and prevent these dangers until such time that the federal and state systems are ready for the new, more effective and revitalized policies. In referring to the special circumstance of juvenile offenders, the following recommendations were given in an ABA Task Force Report in 2001:†¢ Since youth are developmentally different from adults, these developmental differences need to be taken into account at all stages and in all aspects of the adult criminal justice system. †¢ Pretrial release or detention decisions regarding youth awaiting trial in adult criminal court should reflect their special characteristics. †¢ If detained or incarcerated, youth in the adult criminal justice system should be housed in institutions or facilities separate from adult facilities until at least their eighteenth birthday.†¢ Youth detained or incarcerated in the adult criminal justice system should be provided programs which address their educational, treatment, health, mental health, and vocational needs. †¢ The ri ght to counsel in the adult criminal justice system should not be waived by a youth without consultation with a lawyer and without a full inquiry into the youth's comprehension of the right and capacity to make the choice intelligently, voluntarily and understandingly. If the right to counsel is voluntarily waived, stand-by counsel should always be appointed.†¢ Judges in the adult criminal justice system should consider the individual characteristics of the youth during sentencing. †¢ The collateral consequences normally attendant to the adult criminal justice process should not necessarily apply to all youth arrested for crimes committed before the age of eighteen. (ABA p. 2) In sum, trying youth offenders under the adult criminal justice system â€Å"is not safe, is not fair and does not work† (Youth for Justice p. 4) and should therefore be guarded against. Rather than considering the youth as vices of the community, they should be looked upon as needing of socie ty’s support.Works Cited Beckman, Mary. â€Å"Crime, Culpability and the Adolescent Brain. † Death Penalty Information Center. 30 July 2004. Science Magazine. 10 March 2008. . Fox, James Alan. , Zawitz, Marianne W. â€Å"Homicide Trends in the United States. † US Department of Justice. 2002. Northeastern University and Bureau of Justice Statistics. 11 March 2008. < http://www.ojp. usdoj. gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd. htm>. Larson, Aaron. â€Å"Juvenile Offenders. † LawExperts. March 2000. 10 March 2008. . Snyder, Howard N. , and Sickmund, Melissa. â€Å"Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report. † Death Penalty Information Center. 2006. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 11 March 2008 . Wallis, Claudia and Dell, Kristina.â€Å"What Makes Teens Tick; A flood of hormones, sure. But also a host of structural changes in the brain. Can those explain the behaviors that make adolescence so exciting–and so exasperating? † Death Penalty Information Center. 10 May 2004. Time Magazine. 10 March 2008. . â€Å"Youth in the Criminal Justice System: An ABA Task Force Report. † American Bar Association. February 2002. Criminal Justice Section. 9 March 2008. â€Å"Youth risk behavior surveillance – United States, 2001.† Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2002. In: CDC Surveillance Summaries. June 28, 2002. MMWR, 51(SS-4), p. 6. 10 March 2008. . â€Å"Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General. Executive Summary. † U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2001. p. vii. Comparison of data from the Monitoring the Future Study from the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research and data from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting program. 11 March 2008. < http://www. surgeongeneral. gov/library/youthviolence/summary. htm>.