Juvenile Justice – Individualized Rehabilitative Justice or State Sanctioned Revenge?
The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention states, “The juvenile justice system was founded on and guided by the concept of rehabilitation through individualized justice.” Is that what’s truly happening, or is the juvenile justice system punitive?
On Monday, the Washington Post ran a story entitled, “A 9-year-old is facing five counts of murder. He didn’t even know what ‘alleged’ meant.”[1] On April 6, 2019, a fire broke out in a mobile home in Eureka, Illinois. Of the seven family members inside at the time, the boy and his mother were the only two to get out. According to the story, officials believe that the boy set the fire intentionally. On Monday, he appeared for arraignment on five counts of first-degree murder and three counts of arson. The judge had to explain to the boy what alleged and arson meant.
Juvenile Court Jurisdiction–Maximum Age
Every state has a juvenile court system. However, with acts that would be crimes if committed by an adult, juvenile courts’ jurisdictions vary widely from state to state. Generally, a person is subject to the jurisdiction of a juvenile court for acts committed before reaching the age of majority, 18 in most states. In five states, any criminal act is charged in an adult court if the person is 17 or older.[2] In nearly all states, the juvenile court retains jurisdiction over an adult for an act committed as a minor.
Minimum Age
What is the minimum age the state can charge a child with a crime? I was surprised to learn that 27 states and the District of Columbia have no minimum age.[3] A prosecutor can charge a child with a crime at any age. Utah and Illinois are two such states. Utah doesn’t publish statistics on juvenile court cases. I contacted the juvenile court administrator, but she didn’t get back with numbers in time for me to publish this.
Trying a Juvenile as an Adult
All states have one or more mechanisms by which the state can transfer a case from the juvenile court and try a juvenile can as an adult.[4] Five states have no statute regarding the age of a juvenile and a transfer; 16 states and the District of Columbia have laws setting a minimum age (as young as 12) at which the state may charge juveniles as adults for any crime. The remaining states only allow a transfer for certain felonies. Iowa allows transfer to the adult court at ten years old.[5] In Utah, the prosecutor can request the juvenile court to transfer a 14-year-old to the district court.[6] If the juvenile is 16 and the crime is murder or aggravated murder, the district court has original jurisdiction.[7]
A quick search of the Salt Lake Tribune produced many stories of the state charging 16 and 17-year-olds and one 14-year-old in adult court for homicides. A look around the country shows: North Carolina charged a 13-year-old autistic boy as an adult; Pennsylvania charged a 10-year-old boy and housed him in an adult facility. Texas charged a 14-year-old girl, and Oklahoma, charge a15-year-old. In Mississippi, 12 and 14-year-old girls were arrested for murdering their mother. The 12-year-old will remain in the juvenile system while the state charged her 14-year-old sister as an adult. There are many more accounts of prosecutors charging young teens as adults in the last few years.
Punishment
The boy in Illinois will not be incarcerated. The minimum age for incarceration in Illinois is ten. I was unable to find a minimum age for incarceration in Utah.
In Utah, if a juvenile is sentenced to confinement, that confinement can be home confinement, detention, or the state can commit the juvenile to one of six Juvenile Justice Services secure facilities.[8] A secure juvenile facility is different than detention. It is essentially a high-security prison for juveniles. A minor 14 years or older convicted as an adult will be incarcerated in a secure facility until age 18, at which time Juvenile Justice Services (JJS) transfers the person to the state prison. In extreme circumstances, a judge can send a juvenile to the state prison bypassing JJS.[9]
The judge sentenced the 14-year-old from Utah to a 15-years-to-life prison term. JJS transferred him to the Utah State Prison as soon as he turned 18. The Utah Board of Pardons and Parole set his first parole hearing for 2034.[10]
Only in 2005 did the U.S. Supreme Court rule that juveniles cannot be sentenced to death.[11] In 2010 the Court ruled that a judge or jury may only sentence a juvenile to life without parole (LWOP) for homicide.[12] In that ruling, the Court also said that the state must give the offender a meaningful opportunity for parole. Because the 15-year-old Utahn was convicted of murder, and because the board of pardons is notoriously parsimonious when people convicted of murder come to a parole hearing, he will probably never get out of prison.
Questions
Keeping in mind that juvenile justice is supposed to be rehabilitative and individualized not punitive, should there be a minimum age to charge a juvenile with a crime, to incarcerate a juvenile, or to try a juvenile as an adult?
When would incarceration in an adult prison be appropriate?
Is LWOP ever appropriate?
1. Derek Hawkins, A 9-year-old is facing five counts of murder. He didn’t even know what ‘alleged’ meant, The Washington Post, (October 21, 2019), https://www.washingtonpost.com/
nation/2019/10/21/year-old-is-facing-five-counts-murder-he-didnt-even-know-what-alleged-meant/.
2. National Conference of State Legislatures, Juvenile Age of Jurisdiction and Transfer to Adult Court Laws, http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/juvenile-age-of-jurisdiction-and-transfer-to-adult-court-laws.aspx (last visited October 24, 2019).
3. The National Juvenile Defender Center, Minimum Age for Delinquency Adjudication–Multi-Jurisdiction Survey, https://njdc.info/practice-policy-resources/state-profiles/multi-jurisdiction-data/minimum-age-for-delinquency-adjudication-multi-jurisdiction-survey/ (last visited October 24, 2019).4. National Conference of State Legislatures, Juvenile Age of Jurisdiction and Transfer to Adult Court Laws, http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/juvenile-age-of-jurisdiction-and-transfer-to-adult-court-laws.aspx (last visited October 24, 2019).
5. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Juvenile Justice System Structure & Process, https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/qa04110.asp?qaDate= 2016&text=yes&maplink=link1 (last visited October 24, 2019).
6. Utah Code Ann. § 78A-6-602 (2018).
7. Utah Code Ann. §§ 78A-7-101 et. sec. (2017).
8. Utah Code. Ann § 62A-7-404 (2017).
9. Utah Code. Ann § 78A-6-705 (2015)
10. Pamela Manson, Utah parole officials set 2034 hearing for man who beat his girlfriend to death, Salt Lake Tribune, (July 29, 2016), https://www.sltrib.com/news/crime/2016/07/29/utah-parole-officials-set-2034-hearing-for-man-who-beat-girlfriend-to-death/.
11. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).
12. Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010)
Research on adolescent brain development shows crucial differences in faculties for judgment (1). This is critical to take into account when sentencing. As well as the fact that LWOP is proportionally more severe for a juvenile. Juveniles have much more life to lose than adults. It is also more expensive. A 50 year sentence for a 16 year old costs around 2.25 million (2). The extreme cases of juveniles that end up with these extreme sentences tend to come from extreme circumstances. The same sentences that have deemed them incorrigible and placed them in state prison showcase their need for immediate developmental rehabilitation. This option is lost to them in state prison. They do not belong there.
ReplyDelete(1) slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/dc-sniper-supreme-court-malvo-kennedy-
jlwop.html
(2) sentencingproject.org/publications/juvenile-life-without-parole/
Chad, great post sir. I think Jordana hits on some important aspects of the adolescent brain and the adult brain. I do not believe there should be a minimum requirement for incarceration; however, the transfer to an adult facility should not be allowed until at least 18 years of age. I personally don't agree with LWOP for children but there should be some serious mental evaluation, educational requirements, adaptation back to society, family values training, increased penalties for repeated offenses and a serious evaluation of the child's home life and parental structure. Times are changing these days. The 10 year old of today's generation and the ten year old for the 80's generation are grammatically different children. We need to be cautious on giving an absolute free pass and just rehab to these offending kids. There should be more "boot camp" type facilities or a possibility for a child offender who is reformed to be released only into an active military career. With the right guidance, some of these kids from troubled homes can be reformed and become important part of the society they contribute to daily.
ReplyDeleteI do not think there should be a minimum age, I think it probably should be a case by case basis. I agree with Cain that no one should be transferred to an adult prison until the age of 18 and I questioned that age. A 10 year old who is Autistic has a different mental capacity and that should be taken into consideration. Jordana also posted statistics regarding the growth of a teenage brain and the development. The juvenile system is supposed to be rehabilitative but it isn't. Minors are generally treated like criminals and teenagers make stupid mistakes that would not be made as an adult. Trust me I know because I have 4 of them. I have had personal experience in the juvenile system and through my volunteer work and there needs to be a change.
ReplyDeleteGreat post Chad! I really wrestled with this one. Ultimately, I don’t think there should be a set minimum age to charge a juvenile with a crime. As Jordana and Cain have pointed out the adolescent brain is still developing, and it would be hard to put a specific number on that minimum age as each juvenile is different. It shouldn’t be simply based off the reasoning that each judge or jury randomly has either, as this could lead to vastly different outcomes since each person has a varied perception on what a 9, 14, 15, 16, or 18-year-old should know. As Cain mentioned a 10-year-old today, is not the 10-year-old in the 80s, and I completely agree. With the advancement of social media, it’s hard to gage fully what the development level is for each juvenile, and it’s not the same of how youth in the past years developed through the adolescents. Having a set age limit doesn’t account for someone’s maturity, knowledge of right and wrong, social pressures around them, and many other factors that could be present. To me, factoring in the juvenile in their entirety, taking mental health assessments, knowing if there was an adult who pushed them into this crime, family pressures, etc is needed to make this full determination.
ReplyDeleteI am against incarceration of juveniles in general though, and am against juveniles being placed with adults in prison. Perhaps there should be a separate prison for those who aged out of the juvenile system but won’t be transferred to an adult prison, even if they are now the legal age of an adult. Being set apart from society for their teenage years still doesn’t help them transition then to an adult prison as they yet again don’t have the social maturity to handle that, and to me doesn’t help with rehabilitation. Which is ultimately what the process is geared towards in aiding with rehabilitation rather than pure punishment for juveniles.
In regards to the question on LWOP’s, I don’t think this is ever appropriate. In the case of Miller v Alabama, in 2012 the Supreme Court ruled that LWOP is unconstitutional. “The Court held that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment forbids the mandatory sentencing of life in prison without the possibility of parole for juvenile homicide offenders. Children are constitutionally different from adults for sentencing purposes. While a mandatory life sentence for adults does not violate the Eighth Amendment, such a sentence would be an unconstitutionally disproportionate punishment for children.” (1)
It's also intriguing that there is a current Supreme Court case for the DC Sniper, Lee Boyd Malvo who was 17 years old at the time, and is now arguing that this ruling from 2012 should have a new ‘sentencing hearing’ since his original trial ‘was unconstitutional because there was no consideration of his youth’. (2). It will be curious as to what happens with this case and if the new law can be applied for a previous sentencing.
(1) https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/10-9646
(2) https://www.npr.org/2019/10/17/770848659/d-c-sniper-case-at-supreme-court
There are so many possible exceptions to posing new guidelines that I tend to agree with the majority here in that some weight must be given to each and all of the appropriate considerations. For example, age, mental capacity, ethnicity, family support (available or not), crime, other illness that may factor in to the crime and judgment.
ReplyDeleteJess, in response to your question about the Eighth Amendment, SCOTUS found in Furman v Georgia, that race has played a part (sadly) in whether or not the death penalty is imposed upon the convicted. Thanks, Chad, for a good post.
I do not believe it is appropriate to try a juvenile as an adult, it is hard to imagine a situation where doing so is appropriate. It seems more prudent, in consideration of the individual circumstances, that the courts consider what route will most likely result in rehabilitated success for the juvenile offender. A 2012 Sentencing Project Report, surveyed prisoners who were sentenced to life without parole as juveniles; 79% witnessed violence in their home, 32% grew up in public housing, 40% had been in special education classes, 47% were physically abused, and about 80% of girls reported being physically or sexually abused. In addition, there are significant racial disparities when it comes to LWOP sentences, white juvenile offenders are only about half as likely to receive a LWOP sentence as African American offenders. (1)
ReplyDeleteJordana cites the cost of incarceration above, certainly the money could be invested in programs that could help offenders as they mature to adulthood instead of keeping them behind bars for the remainder of their life. Studies have show that the recidivism rate for juveniles charged in adult court is higher than for juvenile’s charged in adult court (2). I fail to see what benefit charging children as adults or sentencing children to LWOP has to prevent crime.
1. https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Juvenile-Life-Without-Parole.pdf
2. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/childrens-rights/articles/2016/should-juveniles-be-charged-as-adults/
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is a complicated but great topic to think about and discuss. I think it has great pertinence especially as the Utah State prison is being relocated and despite an increased state population growth the bed availability will remain the same. As such, other options besides incarceration of some population segments need to be explored and juvenile offenders would be a primary group to reevaluate in place of incarceration. Similar to previous comments, a set age to be charged as an adult is capricious as a multitude of factors play into this decision.
ReplyDeleteThe argument for rehabilitation is strong. The other day I was listening to a great TED talk where the prosecutor talked about not charging a juvenile offender and the ultimate positive effects it had in turning his life around. The juvenile ended up being a productive member of society and that could not have happened had he been charged as an adult for crimes committed in his youth.
Yet, while compassion seems to say give the kid another chance, I do think some juveniles should be tried as adults. This would be specific to violent crimes and the nature of what happened. Looking at this issue from an outsiders perspective, it seems counter intuitive to try children as adults. But if one of my family members or myself were a victim of violent juvenile crime, I am sure it would open up a varying viewpoint. But at some point, an offenders actions may be so egregious it may need to lead to permanent lock up.
Today we know that the human brain doesn’t finish fully developing until closer to one’s mid-20s and even potentially into the 30s. Could it be argued individuals are not really adults until their brain is fully developed? I think most people would balk at trying a 20 something as a juvenile. At some point a person knows what they have done is wrong. Defining that line becomes much more difficult and arbitrary with younger people.
Youth today are different in many capacities than youth in the past. But I think youth no matter now or then have the capacity for greatness or devastating darkness. In perspective at 16 years old Alexander the Great was out conquering the world and Joan of Arc was telling a commander how to do his job. WWII saw young men as young as 14 voluntarily serving in the military. These are exceptions, but young people have the capacity to make some major important decisions early on. So yes, I agree most juveniles that make a dumb mistakes or something that is not life altering should absolutely get a second chance through rehabilitation. However, I think it would be dismissive to those injured by juveniles to chalk it up to their youth. Sadly in some cases, juveniles should be charged as adults. I don't have the answers as to what those guidelines should be. Perhaps our prison systems could be tiered in a better way that addresses special concerns with young offenders in the prison population so they receive better protection and services once they are in the adult system. Definitely an arduous task to decide who is and is not an adult, and who is and who is not benefited through rehabilitative programs.
(1)https://www.ted.com/talks/adam_foss_a_prosecutor_s_vision_for_a_better_justice_system).
(2)https://www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/boys-who-lied-about-age-to-fight-ww2-teenage-soldiers/
The juvenile justice system is supposed to be a rehabilitative system. I subscribe to the idea, below the age of majority; no individual should be deemed as a lost cause. However, it's prudent to understand that individuals mature at different rates, and therefore some Juveniles may be aware of the actions they commit are, in fact, a criminal. Consequently, I agree placing a hard line at the age of majority isn't always practical. Especially in instances where the crime is so egregious, and there is evidence of pre-meditation showing the perpetrator understood their actions were taken were, in fact, criminal.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of the 9-year-old, I frankly believe he shouldn't be tried as an adult. I don't think a 9-year-old has the mental capacity to determine that intentionally setting a fire would lead to seven deaths. And if the intent was to murder his he family. I don't believe he understood the permanence of death and the consequences of murder. Therefore, I don't think he should be tried as an adult. However, if the child was between 15 to 18 years old, and assessed to be mature to understand their actions by a clinician may perception would change, and I would advocate for trial, not as an adult, but punishment that transfers into the adult incarceration system
A juvenile should never be sentenced to life without parole. In a case where the facts show the minor understood their actions. We should still stick to the basis of a juvenile system being a rehabilitative system. Understanding there is a minimum amount of time it takes for the juvenile to be rehabilitated. Therefore, I would propose taking life entirely of the table and allowing parole. However, I would be amenable to allowing multiple-year sentences that transfer into the adult prison system.
Incarceration in an adult facility should only be an option only once the child has reached the age of majority. Regardless of how egregious the crime is, placing children in adult facilities will only limit the chances or rehabilitation. Maintaining these children in a juvenile facility may jumpstart the rehabilitation they require to reenter society.
To summaries my thoughts, I don't believe children should ever be tried as an adult unless they are close enough to the age of majority such that a professional could determine the Juvenile actions and thinking reflect those of an adult. Juveniles should also not be incarcerated in adult facilities until they are, in fact, adults. I also believe in the case where the crime is so egregious, the sentence handed down by the court should be able to transfer to the adult system. However, life without parole should be entirely of the table.
I don't believe any child should go to prison or be tried as criminals or adults. I believe it's inappropriate, serves no purpose other than to satisfy the victims and the possible public outrage for the child's crime. Like others have said, research has shown that the brain hasn't fully developed until around 25 years old. So why are we criminalizing children under the age of 18? If we include the topic of race, there are disporportionalty more black and brown youth in the system than their white counter parts. There are people that say this is a reflection on the child themselves, but I say this is also a reflection on how the system has failed them tremendously. Environmental factors of living in a low income household, possibly abused, mental and physical difficulties that are not addressed due to lack of resources, and the list goes on and on. These are factors that contribute for a child to act out and if society already has some racial/ bias opinion about a black or brown child, what does the child do other that to enforce what others think of them. It's really sad. That's why I think more emphasis on rehabilitation and systemic change is needed. Rather than debating on what age to trail children as adults.
ReplyDeleteI work for the juvenile court here in Utah. I am responsible for setting up youth offenders on the districts work crew program which is run by the Restorative Justice Intervention Services program within the courts. I have a lot of conflicting feelings about the questions posed here. They range from youth development, mental health considerations, trauma, environmental considerations and motive. What do we want to see from these kids moving forward and how involved should the criminal justice services be? As I started working for the juvenile court, they had just finished adjusting the process and policies of the whole mechanism due to the passing of H.B. 239, which was intended to expand on Utah’s already effective diversion program, called Non-Judicial Adjustment, in which the sanction is up to the assigned juvenile probation officer and can be adjudicated, with misdemeanor offences in either low, moderate or high risk cases per P.O. petition.[1] This house bill has shifted the focus from the aforementioned, more punitive public safety and rehabilitation aspects to one of more accountability, diversion and restoration. The idea is there to treat these juveniles with more of a trauma informed and evidence based perspective, but as to the cases of grave punitive action for kids lost in their vulnerability and toxic environments – part of me wants to trust the system, but a bigger part, that has worked with this age for the better part of a decade in one capacity or another, has yet to see a “hopeless” kid that is incapable of understanding and atoning for their mistake. Accountability is important, but through a legal lens, I would think that the outcome with the least chance of chronic recidivism would be the best outcome, and evidence shows that incarceration is not that.
ReplyDelete1. State of Utah, House Bill 239 FAQs, Utah.gov, https://www.utah.gov/pmn/files/294763.pdf