Trying Juveniles as Adults

Part A 

The decision to try American juveniles as adults has led to increased opposition from civil rights groups. Trial as adults refers to how juvenile offenders are tried using similar laws, procedures, and protocols as adults (Scialabba, 2016). Treating juveniles as adults implies that the various privileges they enjoy are waved. For instance, protections like suppressing the offenders’ pictures and names or using closed courtrooms during proceedings are waved. The history of juvenile courts in the US dates back to 1899, when Illinois became the first state to establish juvenile courts (Scialabba, 2016). Consequently, the children were legally tried and punished as adults. However, juvenile courts' establishment changed these beliefs, with the newly developed courts focusing on offenders rather than the offenses committed. In essence, the courts focused on rehabilitating the offenders in different settings than the adults, thus helping them attain behavioral, emotional, and environmental change for better adulthood. The courts were also based on the argument that the juveniles had undeveloped cognitive and moral capabilities, hence requiring a different trial system.  

The juvenile courts' fate changed a decade later when the 1980s and 1990s saw a gradual increase in violent juvenile crimes. Due to increased violence among juveniles, they were transferred to adult courts, thus drawing huge controversies from humanitarian organizations and international bodies (Scialabba, 2016). While some groups supported this move to solve the increasing juvenile crimes, those that opposed it argued that it was a violation of their constitutional rights. For instance, human rights groups and children welfare societies showed their extensive opposition to the new policies. 

The transfer of juvenile cases to the criminal courts follows distinct policies, considerations, and procedures. In transferring juveniles, juvenile judges have to consider the severity of their offenses and age. During this consideration, the judges determine if the stated criminal acts align with those tried in adult criminal courts (Graber, 2019). The transferring judges have to consider a juveniles’ age. For instance, various states have set differing regulations on age limits, with 14 years and 18 years being the minimum and maximum among the American states (Scialabba, 2016). Currently, concerning the age regulation, 23 US states do not have minimum age limits for statutory exclusion or judicial waiver provisions that allow or illegalize the transfer of a juvenile to criminal courts (Scialabba, 2016). The transfer of juveniles from their courts to the criminal courts is also heavily dependent on prosecutorial discretion. Government prosecutors also can decide where their clients would be tried. The prosecutors can gauge where to take the juveniles, depending on the severity of their crimes. Statutory exclusion is also a key consideration used in determining whether children and adolescents can be tried in adult criminal courts. Some states laws also demand that juveniles who were previously tried in criminal courts must always be tried in such courts. In essence, these states assume that children who have been tried in adult courts should never be tried in juvenile courts, as they have both the emotional and cognitive capabilities to deal with adult court systems.  

More than 2 million arrests are made every year involving juveniles below 18 ( National Research Council, 2013) . The juveniles are arrested for serious and petty offenses, including theft, disorderly conduct, drug abuse violations, and cyber insecurity. The highest number of juvenile cases transferred to adult courts was recorded in 1998, with the Bureau of Justice 1998 statistics indicating that 7100 juvenile cases were transferred to criminal courts (Connect US Fund, 2019). The statistics also indicate that close to 250,000 youths are in every year tried, incarcerated, or sentenced in adult courts in the US (Connect US Fund, 2019). There are huge controversies surrounding youths' trials in juvenile courts, with moral and cognitive capabilities being the most significant arguments. 47 US states outline the maximum juvenile court jurisdiction age of 17 years. However, in Vermont, in 2020, passed legislation expanding juvenile court jurisdiction age to 18 years (Connect US Fund, 2019). Wisconsin, Georgia, and Texas have their maximum age limit of 16. The high number of juveniles tried in adult courts indicates that the trend could be on the rise. The federal and state governments must abolish this trend, as it not only violates juveniles’ rights, but also does not deter from crime indulgence. 

Part B 

Juveniles should not be tried in adult courts as it results in increased physical and emotional risks for them. Trial and incarceration in adult courts imply that the juveniles are subjected to US adult prisons, making them interact with adults, with higher felonies like murder. Currently, there are more than 10,000 children daily in various adult jails and prisons across the US (Connect US Fund, 2019). The crime response behavior puts them at increased risks from the adults. For instance, juveniles are five times more likely to experience sexual assault or harassment when in adult prisons (Connect US Fund, 2019). With the high risks of sexual assault, the children are more likely to be infected with sexually transmitted diseases. Physical assault is also an increased risk area that juveniles could face for being adult criminal jails or prisons. Being placed at adult prisons also increases juveniles' chances of being physically harassed by adults. In the juvenile justice system, juvenile physical assault is minimal because the youths are usually of the same age, and the main system’s main focus is rehabilitation. In a 2016 study of the instances of trauma for juveniles transferred to adult justice systems, it was established that the juveniles are 36 times more likely to be subjected to suicide (Connect US Fund, 2019). The adult systems have limited resources for countering mental illness, impulsive actions, and anxiety and trauma. Consequently, the juveniles become more susceptible to suicidal thoughts. Trying juveniles in adult court systems is unfair and should be abolished as it increases their chances of physical, emotional, mental, and sexual harassment. 

Transferring children to adult systems also limits the number of sentencing options that the judges consider. While working in the juvenile justice systems, judges and magistrates have widespread sentencing options for children and teenagers. However, when the cases are heard in adult courts, the variety decreases as the judges are limited only to the criminal justice available options (Connect US Fund, 2019). In the juvenile system, the judges can opt for curfews, arrests, counseling, subjecting the juveniles to treatments in their residential programs. Juvenile judges could also consider juvenile facilities during sentencing. Therefore, the judges can choose from various options in the juvenile justice system (NCSL, 2021). Moving the children to the court systems subjects them to the available, mandatory sentencing options that exist within most US jurisdictions. The US states have varying descriptions and categorizations of crimes in various classes. For instance, in Wisconsin, a 10-year-old committing any first-degree homicide is considered for trial as a Class-A felony (Connect US Fund, 2019). In this case, only one sentencing option exists for this class of felony in the state. In essence, the juvenile must be subjected to life imprisonment without considering their age or willingness to commit the stated crime. Therefore, transferring children to the adult system limits the options according to which they can be judged. Using the Wisconsin example, if tried in the juvenile justice system, a lighter punishment method could have been imposed on the juvenile (Connect US Fund, 2019). For instance, the juvenile judges could consider the teen’s willingness to commit the crime or their emotional and cognitive abilities to indulge in the crime. Consequently, it would be easier for the teen to be put in the most appropriate justice system, including a more lenient punishment or rehabilitation. Therefore, children and teens should be tried in juvenile justice systems, as transferring them limits their sentencing options, thus subjecting them to unwanted mechanisms. 

Trying juveniles in adult court systems is also detrimental because it does not consider their maturity. Juveniles have cognitive and mental structures that are not fully developed, implying that they can easily commit crimes that they would normally not commit when fully developed. Moreover, the adolescent stage brings various emotional changes, thus increasing juveniles’ subjectivity to criminal acts (Juvenile Law Center, 2020). According to Lantto et al. (2021), adolescents are more susceptible to criminal offenses. The stage results in high exploration desires among the youths, thus resulting in high chances of indulging in criminal activities. Consequently, the children and teenagers find themselves committing crimes that they regret later in their lives. In essence, a teenager is pushed by emotions into committing most criminal acts, making it easier for them to be susceptible to more criminal acts. For instance, when a 7-year old child commits a felony, transferring them to an adult court system could be a violation of their rights. In defense of such a child, advocates could argue that the child is unlikely to pass various eligibility tests; thus, subjecting her to adult courts is illegal. For instance, the child can never pass a competency test; thus, her trial is deemed unconstitutional and a violation of the child’s rights. For children to be eligible for trial in adult courts, they must be 15 years and above and must be repeated, violent offenders. (Juvenile Law Center, 2020). Therefore, subjecting children to adult courts is illegal as it fails to consider their maturity levels. 

The behavior of subjecting juveniles to adult systems also denies them their rehabilitation rights. Children should be subjected to rehabilitative measures because their brains are not fully developed to adapt to criminal social behaviors. Rehabilitating children also increases their chances of transforming and leaving their criminal behaviors. Concerning denying children their rehabilitative rights, a Wisconsin court, in 2016, sentenced two 12-year-girls accused of stabbing their classmate (Juvenile Law Center, 2020). In this case, the teens drew their inspiration to stab the classmate from a film character,  Slenderman    (Juvenile Law Center, 2020) .  In tying the two girls, the Wisconsin Supreme Court considered them adults, thus rendering an adult decision on their trial. In essence, the girls received 25 years and 40 years in prison for their crimes (Juvenile Law Center, 2020). The adult system has limited capacity to respond to juveniles’ psychological and growth, and development needs. In this case, the children only committed the crimes due to poor developmental guidance. Therefore, subjecting them to such severe sentencing denies them their constitutional rights to rehabilitation and consideration of their maturity levels. Therefore, trying juveniles in criminal courts treats them as adult criminals, thus making it difficult for judges to consider their rehabilitative rights. 

Subjecting youths to adult courts increases their chances of becoming repeat offenders. The recidivism rates for children who tried adult courts are way lower than those of adults tried in the same courts. In essence, 7 years after release, the juveniles are more likely to commit violent crimes than those from juvenile systems. Among the youths, 0% rates are reported within the first year, and a 41% rate is reported after 5 years (Juvenile Law Center, 2020). Up to 41% of youths tried in juvenile courts are more likely to become repeat offenders after 5 years (Juvenile Law Center, 2020). There is a huge recidivism difference among youths and adults tried within their respective court systems. However, the situation changes gradually when children are tried in adult courts. During this period, the juveniles interact with adults within the prison and jail systems, thus influencing their recidivism rates significantly. The 2015 statistics attained from 15 US states indicated that the recidivism rate for youths who tried adult courts is 82%, while adults are 16% (Juvenile Law Center, 2020). These statistics indicate the negative impacts that adult courts have on youths. Trying juveniles in adult courts make them more susceptible to criminal acts. The reason for the increased recidivism rates is that juveniles are more likely to interact with people from different backgrounds and with varying criminal behaviors. With the youths being more susceptible to adult influence, they are more likely to commit more crimes. Additionally, the juveniles develop the criminal mentality whereby they view themselves as unable to transform. During this earlier stage of criminal behavior, the juveniles have different criminal and life views from adults. For instance, they have limited skills, have not completed their schooling, and are yet to begin their social life (NCSL, 2021). On the contrary, their adult counterparts could have children, skills, and even higher education. Therefore, trying juveniles in adult courts only increases their recidivism levels; hence should not be practiced. 

Trying children in adult courts also denies them the chance to have a fresh start in life as it does not offer them developmental opportunities like in the juvenile system. When children are convicted in the juvenile systems, their criminal records are made inaccessible after reaching a specific age, usually 18 years to 21 years (Graber, 2019). However, trial in adult courts implies that the children's files can be accessed even after adulthood. A trial in adult courts implies that children have a permanent criminal record within their files. Consequently, this information becomes publicly accessible by landlords, employers, or other people searching for them (Graber, 2019). The situation makes it difficult for the juvenile to gain employment and housing services, thus denying them a chance to start a new life. People with felony convictions experience huge difficulties finding employment in public and private entities. For instance, only 28 US states have existing laws banning employers from placemen of conviction history for individuals applying for job opportunities (Graber, 2019). With such trends, children convicted at younger ages will find it difficult to find any employment in the US. Juveniles should not be tried in adult courts because it denies them a chance to progress in life. Therefore, juveniles should not be tried in adult justice systems. 

In support of juveniles' trial and conviction in adult courts, lawmakers argue that this is the only suitable penalty for the severest crimes committed. Juveniles’ criminal behaviors could be severe, thus limiting any formative options (Scialabba, 2016). For instance, juveniles involved in first-degree murder cases must be charged in adult courts, thus limiting their chances of trial in juvenile systems. The US Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention states that there are currently more than 350 people killed every year due to lone juvenile offenders' activities. Even though the number has decreased by 75% from the 1990s, the figure is still high and should be eliminated (Scialabba, 2016). Such statistics indicate that the US records one of the highest severe juvenile cases. The high cases of juvenile indulgence in serious crime can be corrected through admission to adult courts. In essence, trying such severe offenders in juvenile systems undermines their severity. The only way to ensure justice is by trying such offenders in adult criminal courts.  

Supporters of trying juveniles in adult criminal justice systems also argue that it limits the chances for repeat offenders. Trying the juvenile offenders in adult systems ensures that they are constrained from indulging in further criminal acts, making it difficult for them to indulge in further criminal acts (Scialabba, 2016). However, statistics indicate that trying the juveniles in the adult systems only increases their chances of indulging in repeat felonies. Introducing this system of trying juveniles in criminal justice systems makes them understand that their actions could lead to detrimental life consequences. Therefore, felonies committed by the juveniles should be tried adult courts to prevent their future occurrence among the juveniles. 

Conclusively, juveniles should not be tried in adult court systems as this action violates their rights. Trying juveniles in adult court systems also subjects them to increased risks of physical and emotional abuse. When in adult jail systems, the juveniles are subjects to sexual harassment, thus affecting their health. Subjecting juveniles to adult criminal systems also results in reduced sentencing options as the judges are restricted to the adult sentencing systems. Juveniles tried in adult court systems are also denied their civil rights as the prosecutors fail to consider their maturity in relation to court hearings. The practice also violates the juveniles’ rights by denying them rehabilitation rights whereby they are sentenced to jail and prison terms like adult offenders. Trying juveniles in adult court systems also increases the rates of repeat offenses. When released from adult prisons, juveniles are more likely to indulge in felonies and other offenses due to poor mentorship and influence of the adult offenders in adult systems. Finally, this practice denies juveniles their rights to education, thus resulting in poor skill acquisition. Consequently, the juveniles have limited options in life when released from their jail terms. 

References 

Connect US Fund (2019). 22 Should juveniles be tried as adults? Pros and cons. https://connectusfund.org/22-should-juveniles-be-tried-as-adults-pros-and-cons 

Graber, R. L. (2019). Is it acceptable for juveniles to be tried as adults? Cedarville University. https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/criminal_justice_capstones/1/ 

Juvenile Law Center (2020). Youth tried as adults. https://jlc.org/issues/youth-tried-adults 

Lantto, J., Hakko, H., Riala, K., & Riipinen, P. (2021). Higher levels of nicotine dependence in adolescence are associated with younger onset age of violent criminality: a follow-up study of former adolescent psychiatric inpatients.  Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry ,  30 (1), 6. 

National Research Council (2013). Reforming juvenile justice: A developmental approach. Committee on assessing juvenile justice reform.  Bonnie, RJ.; Johnson, RL.; Chemers, BM . 

NCSL (2021). Juvenile age of jurisdiction and transfer to adult court laws. https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/juvenile-age-of-jurisdiction-and-transfer-to-adult-court-laws.aspx 

Scialabba, N. (2016). Should juveniles be charged as adults in the criminal justice system? ABA. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/childrens-rights/articles/2016/should-juveniles-be-charged-as-adults/