Juveniles Tried as AdultsEssay Preview: Juveniles Tried as AdultsReport this essayJuveniles Tried As Adults 1Juveniles Tried As Adults 2Trying juvenile criminals as adults is unfair. Juvenile offenders are not as cognitively developed or mature as adults and, therefore, should not be held accountable for their crimes in the same way adults are.
Many tough-on-crime advocates call for certain juvenile crimes to be automatically heard in adult criminal courts with convicted criminals subject to sentencing under adult standards. Such proposals focus on the gravity of the act and its immediate impact on the victim and society, rather than on the inner motivations of the young perpetrator. Although intention plays some role in determining the severity of the crime, considerations of the juveniles immature judgment, dysfunctional family life, low cognitive function, poor impulse control and other factors are deemed irrelevant. In such an approach, minors are presumed to have the same ability to comprehend the nature of their act, to consent to committing it and to be invested in committing it as an adult. This unfair presumption is based simply on the act itself and the severity of its impact on the victim.
However, it is hard to say that they are not impacted by the adult sentencing context. Most adolescents in adult sentencing have been charged under the juvenile justice law or had their sentences reduced to non-penalizable youth, which means that their sentencing history is often determined by their own mental state. And yet such sentencing history is a relatively easy and cost-effective means of mitigating a juvenile’s crime under most circumstances.
While many teens with the type of juvenile crime the proposal proposes would provide little relief to their communities, it is possible that the proposal would be helpful to a number of youth with the same type of crime. For instance, in Washington juvenile law, some defendants may be sentenced to years for a first-degree forcible rape, and those sentenced to multiple juvenile court periods may be sentenced to up to five years in the juvenile court. These sentences might include the possibility of up to 18 years, if such a sentence is later commuted when the youth has been out of school for ten years or longer (for example, when a juvenile has spent more than a decade in juvenile court for a previous offense such as rape, sexual assault, and aggravated assault). Similarly, on federal law as elsewhere in the country, many juvenile defendants’ violent behavior is not a problem even in states with less restrictive juvenile justice systems. Indeed, juveniles charged in this way are less likely to be released from juvenile custody than are young persons charged in court. Nonetheless, while a significant number of these youth have been given conditional release and will not serve as juveniles for much of their sentences–as they will face probation for a first-degree felony assault on a child, or probation for a sexual violation–the fact remains that this group makes up just 20 percent to 30 percent of overall adult population. This group is unlikely to be affected by other adult sentencing systems because juvenile court’s lack of sentencing and incarceration are far outweighed by their significant role in increasing the risk of incarceration for future crimes. These youth will likely be less likely to become involved with crime, which is largely ignored by many young offenders.
“We do not wish to diminish the importance of providing safe, supportive and adequate youth services. But we will not hesitate to offer them services that are consistent with our commitment to building stronger communities, and who contribute toward the community in ways that we consider beneficial to youth.”
We believe this proposal will not be helpful to our efforts to address problems of disproportionate impact, or to the growth of youth offenders. But we encourage the proposal to acknowledge their work to grow the safety of youth, and to help them gain more confidence and confidence in participating in the youth justice system.
We appreciate that this proposal seeks to work with states and local organizations to work toward preventing and responding to the overall growth in youth incarceration.
We understand that the proposal will be critical for both the success of youth justice programs that help build confidence in youth, and at the same time, reduce the risk of juvenile crime. But we also know that this proposal does not address the critical factors that make youth incarceration particularly valuable. We have heard from jurisdictions across the country that youth crime is high at the local community level. We have heard from families of youth, who are often less familiar with the crime structure and have fewer resources to provide their family services. In reality, many people have little chance of learning early on about youth justice and we have heard from other states about youth juvenile crime rates. We believe
In practice, however, many states, such as California, consider a juvenile’s ability to read and understand their juvenile status to be entirely irrelevant if the juvenile is a minor. For example, states that restrict the age of juveniles on probation or parole could not, under the California law, remove children of juveniles from juvenile proceedings. Because the Legislature has decided that this policy should not apply to juveniles sentenced to juvenile hearings, the California State Prison System, for example, has taken the position that juvenile admissions that a minor committed before the date of initial release have no meaningful impact on their conviction. The California Penal Code, as cited, generally requires a juvenile to be at least 12 years of age when he is assigned to treatment, custody, or supervision. However, this policy appears to have been changed after the state Supreme Court of Justice ruled that the statute does not apply to juveniles whose parents or guardians are of the age of 21. Therefore, by changing the law, the California State Prison System, and thus any State officials, might be limited in the powers and authority of their discretion to make admissions under a juvenile’s juvenile probation or parole eligibility criteria.
The California Department of Justice is committed to ensuring that convicted men and women do not unnecessarily, and in no manner unnecessarily, receive treatment from prison for conduct that would result in a conviction. Additionally, the California Department of Justice intends to ensure that parolees with outstanding parole or probation eligibility who serve time for mental illness, addiction, or substance use while incarcerated are fully supervised.[8] In addition, it aims to limit and curtail the use of juveniles that provide a level of protection to minors who do not meet the requirements of the applicable Federal or State law. We note that state law provides that juvenile sentences should be increased to the appropriate level of rehabilitative services[9] if successful. When a convicted offender is granted parole or probation, the state may waive this waiver, which can be done by any State other than California, using an option available in the parole or probation application. Sentences must pass a state or federal screening and then pass the State Court of Appeals or the state legislature to have a final determination made, which will occur without a hearing. The law does specifically require the State Prison System to be made available as the appropriate treatment facility through the Department of Justice.
We emphasize that the state’s role as “special judge” has often been to conduct hearings on any case that appears as serious to the juvenile justice system as it is at correctional facilities and that state law mandates that an inmate be given a chance to file a request for access to mental health care and to be placed on supervised placement before a judge. The primary role of this “partnership” is to assure that juveniles receive a chance to file a request for access as soon as possible rather than as far away as the nearest state prison. While we urge the State Public Defender to consider this opportunity as a way to establish a standard for how well juvenile offenders are evaluated by state and Federal courts, we note that the State may face restrictions on the number and type of individual hearings it may require, and the availability of a facility to handle all such hearings.[10] Because the State requires only preliminary hearings, it cannot simply ignore the possibility that a judge might not be able to hear a request for access at all and that the State may ultimately limit hearings. We note that at this time, the most direct way to resolve the current situation is through the court system review process. In
In practice, however, many states, such as California, consider a juvenile’s ability to read and understand their juvenile status to be entirely irrelevant if the juvenile is a minor. For example, states that restrict the age of juveniles on probation or parole could not, under the California law, remove children of juveniles from juvenile proceedings. Because the Legislature has decided that this policy should not apply to juveniles sentenced to juvenile hearings, the California State Prison System, for example, has taken the position that juvenile admissions that a minor committed before the date of initial release have no meaningful impact on their conviction. The California Penal Code, as cited, generally requires a juvenile to be at least 12 years of age when he is assigned to treatment, custody, or supervision. However, this policy appears to have been changed after the state Supreme Court of Justice ruled that the statute does not apply to juveniles whose parents or guardians are of the age of 21. Therefore, by changing the law, the California State Prison System, and thus any State officials, might be limited in the powers and authority of their discretion to make admissions under a juvenile’s juvenile probation or parole eligibility criteria.
The California Department of Justice is committed to ensuring that convicted men and women do not unnecessarily, and in no manner unnecessarily, receive treatment from prison for conduct that would result in a conviction. Additionally, the California Department of Justice intends to ensure that parolees with outstanding parole or probation eligibility who serve time for mental illness, addiction, or substance use while incarcerated are fully supervised.[8] In addition, it aims to limit and curtail the use of juveniles that provide a level of protection to minors who do not meet the requirements of the applicable Federal or State law. We note that state law provides that juvenile sentences should be increased to the appropriate level of rehabilitative services[9] if successful. When a convicted offender is granted parole or probation, the state may waive this waiver, which can be done by any State other than California, using an option available in the parole or probation application. Sentences must pass a state or federal screening and then pass the State Court of Appeals or the state legislature to have a final determination made, which will occur without a hearing. The law does specifically require the State Prison System to be made available as the appropriate treatment facility through the Department of Justice.
We emphasize that the state’s role as “special judge” has often been to conduct hearings on any case that appears as serious to the juvenile justice system as it is at correctional facilities and that state law mandates that an inmate be given a chance to file a request for access to mental health care and to be placed on supervised placement before a judge. The primary role of this “partnership” is to assure that juveniles receive a chance to file a request for access as soon as possible rather than as far away as the nearest state prison. While we urge the State Public Defender to consider this opportunity as a way to establish a standard for how well juvenile offenders are evaluated by state and Federal courts, we note that the State may face restrictions on the number and type of individual hearings it may require, and the availability of a facility to handle all such hearings.[10] Because the State requires only preliminary hearings, it cannot simply ignore the possibility that a judge might not be able to hear a request for access at all and that the State may ultimately limit hearings. We note that at this time, the most direct way to resolve the current situation is through the court system review process. In
In practice, however, many states, such as California, consider a juvenile’s ability to read and understand their juvenile status to be entirely irrelevant if the juvenile is a minor. For example, states that restrict the age of juveniles on probation or parole could not, under the California law, remove children of juveniles from juvenile proceedings. Because the Legislature has decided that this policy should not apply to juveniles sentenced to juvenile hearings, the California State Prison System, for example, has taken the position that juvenile admissions that a minor committed before the date of initial release have no meaningful impact on their conviction. The California Penal Code, as cited, generally requires a juvenile to be at least 12 years of age when he is assigned to treatment, custody, or supervision. However, this policy appears to have been changed after the state Supreme Court of Justice ruled that the statute does not apply to juveniles whose parents or guardians are of the age of 21. Therefore, by changing the law, the California State Prison System, and thus any State officials, might be limited in the powers and authority of their discretion to make admissions under a juvenile’s juvenile probation or parole eligibility criteria.
The California Department of Justice is committed to ensuring that convicted men and women do not unnecessarily, and in no manner unnecessarily, receive treatment from prison for conduct that would result in a conviction. Additionally, the California Department of Justice intends to ensure that parolees with outstanding parole or probation eligibility who serve time for mental illness, addiction, or substance use while incarcerated are fully supervised.[8] In addition, it aims to limit and curtail the use of juveniles that provide a level of protection to minors who do not meet the requirements of the applicable Federal or State law. We note that state law provides that juvenile sentences should be increased to the appropriate level of rehabilitative services[9] if successful. When a convicted offender is granted parole or probation, the state may waive this waiver, which can be done by any State other than California, using an option available in the parole or probation application. Sentences must pass a state or federal screening and then pass the State Court of Appeals or the state legislature to have a final determination made, which will occur without a hearing. The law does specifically require the State Prison System to be made available as the appropriate treatment facility through the Department of Justice.
We emphasize that the state’s role as “special judge” has often been to conduct hearings on any case that appears as serious to the juvenile justice system as it is at correctional facilities and that state law mandates that an inmate be given a chance to file a request for access to mental health care and to be placed on supervised placement before a judge. The primary role of this “partnership” is to assure that juveniles receive a chance to file a request for access as soon as possible rather than as far away as the nearest state prison. While we urge the State Public Defender to consider this opportunity as a way to establish a standard for how well juvenile offenders are evaluated by state and Federal courts, we note that the State may face restrictions on the number and type of individual hearings it may require, and the availability of a facility to handle all such hearings.[10] Because the State requires only preliminary hearings, it cannot simply ignore the possibility that a judge might not be able to hear a request for access at all and that the State may ultimately limit hearings. We note that at this time, the most direct way to resolve the current situation is through the court system review process. In
Recent brain studies indicate that children and adolescents do not process emotionally charged information the same as an adult. Other research has shown that while strong emotions can cloud or distort judgments for adults and adolescents, the adolescents experience wider and more frequent mood swings. All this suggest that juveniles lack the cognitive and emotional maturity of adults and are less likely to think rationally when faced with emotionally charged decisions and, therefore, should be held less accountable for their choices. For this reason, a juvenile offender should not be sentenced in an adult criminal court.
Juveniles Tried As Adults 3Sentencing juveniles to adult prisons is not only immoral, but the impact of sentencing juveniles in adult courts falls unequally on the minority youth. For example, non-white youths in California are eight times more likely than white youths to be sentenced by an adult court to incarceration in a youth facility and three times more likely to be transferred to adult court for trial and sentencing (Young, L. 2004). This discrimination undermines the credibility of the juvenile justice system. How can a system with such disparities among the races be considered fair and equal?
Sentencing juveniles to adult punishment subjects young offenders to conditions that are unacceptable for children. Adult prisons offer little or no counseling or education at the secondary level. For these youths, long sentences served in adult prisons basically end all possibilities of living a meaningful life once they are released as adults. Additionally, youths that are incarcerated in adult facilities are likely to be sexually assaulted, beaten by staff or attacked with a weapon. According to Stephen Donalson of Stop Prison Rape, nearly 300,000 incarcerated boys and men are raped every year. The most vulnerable of these inmates are the youngest, weakest, and least experienced. Many in society have condemned these juveniles as unalterable criminals. This criminalization of the youth takes us back to Victorian England when poor and mentally-disturbed youths were dumped in warehouses, terrorized and beaten. How can we assume that 14 and 15 year olds are already beyond redemption? Subjecting juvenile offenders to this sort