argumentative essay on juveniles tried as adults

Should Juveniles Be Tried as Adults? Argumentative Essay

Introduction.

The purpose of this essay is to determine whether juveniles should be tried as adults under the criminal court system. The age of a juvenile according to most laws is 18 years and below.

However, different states have different ages that define who a juvenile in; for instance, Wyoming have acknowledged 19 years to be the age of a juvenile, while states such as New York, Connecticut and North Carolina, one is recognized as a juvenile when he/she is under the age of 16.

Knowing the age of a person suspected to be a juvenile is vital, because this will assist the authorities to decide which court the individual should be charged in. (Juvenile Law Par. 1).

Juvenile Court Systems and Laws

When it comes to determining whether a juvenile offender will be tried as an adult, juvenile court judges usually look at the seriousness of the alleged offense and the need to protect the community from the juvenile offender, the nature of the offense; whether it was violent, premeditated or aggressive, the amount of damage that resulted from the offense, whether the offense was committed against a person or property, the level of maturity of the juvenile offender, whether they have a criminal record or records of achievements and the likelihood of whether the offender can be rehabilitated by the juvenile criminal system (Cassel and Bernstein 42).

Juvenile laws have become very punitive in the recent past to deal with the increasing cases of juvenile delinquency around the world. The general argument that underlies these changes is that juvenile offenders should be held accountable for their criminal behavior by receiving punishments that are equivalent to their crime.

The juvenile laws have also suggested that the current juvenile justice systems do not offer any important psychological differences between juveniles and adults when considering their criminal responsibility. Despite their being declines in violent crimes committed by juveniles in America, all states have revised and adopted juvenile law policies that will be used to increase the prosecution of juveniles as adults (Free 159).

An example of a state that has adopted new juvenile policies is California which passed the Gang Violence and Youth Crime Prevention Act in March 2000. This act would see juveniles who are 14 years and over being tried as adults for any type of violent crime. This act gave state prosecutors the alternative of transferring juvenile cases that were violent or had gang involvement to the adult court without any judicial reviews (Free 159).

States that support the prosecution of juvenile offenders below the age of 14 in adult courts include Arizona who age limit is ten, Arkansas, Colorado, Maryland whose juvenile offender age is seven, Minnesota, Mississippi, Texas, South Dakota and Vermont (Hile 30).

Arguments For and Against Trying Juveniles in Adult Court Systems

Arguments that have arisen for trying juvenile offenders as adults are that violence committed by juveniles is viewed to be a serious problem and it should be dealt with in an effective and efficient manner. Other arguments are that juvenile courts are not effective when it comes to dealing with violence committed by juveniles.

The punishments and sentences that are meted out by juvenile courts are not usually appropriate to the kind of crime that has been committed (Cole and Smith 398). Other arguments that have arisen on trying children as adults are that the procedures used in waiving juvenile jurisdictions are usually problematic and cumbersome in many states in America. Criminal justice and law requires that any violent or heinous crimes committed by a person regardless of their age should be dealt with to the full extent of the law.

Despite these arguments, there are those who continue to propose that violent juvenile offenders should be dealt with by the juvenile court system. Many legal and juvenile experts have argued that trying juveniles as adults will only make things worse. Their main argument is that trying juveniles as adults means that the legal system has failed to consider their social and emotional development which is different from that of adults (Cole and Smith 398).

The arguments that have been raised for not trying juveniles as adults are that; the juvenile system has the appropriate mechanisms that can be used to deal with the social and emotional problems of juvenile offenders, general criminal laws around the world recognize that children have diminished capacities and responsibilities for their actions, meting out adult punishments to juvenile offenders robs them of their childhood and threatens their psychological development.

Such arguments have put pressure on legislators to lower the age of adulthood so that violent cases for serious juvenile offenders can be tried in the adult court system. This has however been viewed to be a futile exercise given that different states have different guidelines and procedures that are used to determine the appropriate age of a juvenile.

Some legal experts have argued that setting artificial guidelines to be used in determining whether a juvenile is an adult will restrict the ability of the court system to convict the juvenile offenders based on the type of crime they have committed (Hile 32).

The main argument that has been identified in the essay is that juvenile offenders who have mostly committed violent crimes should be tried and prosecuted in the adult criminal court system. This is mostly because the juvenile system does not provide the necessary punitive actions that can be used to deal with serious juvenile offenders.

Arguments in the essay have shown that to counter the juvenile system’s poor punishments, serious offenders should be tried in the adult court systems which have been viewed to be more punitive and strict when it comes to serious violent crimes

Works Cited

Cassel, Elaine and Bernstein, Douglas. Criminal behaviour , 2 nd Edition, New Jersey, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate Publishers, 2007. Print.

Cole, George and Smith, Christopher. Criminal justice in America. California: Thomson Wadsworth Education Publishers, 2008. Print.

Free, Marvin. Racial issues in criminal justice: the case of African Americans . Westport, US: Praeger Publishers, 2003. Print.

Hile, Kevin. Trial of juveniles as adults. United States: Chelsea House Publishers, 2003. Print.

Juvenile Laws. History, trying juveniles as adults, modern juvenile law, should the justice system be abolished ? N.d., Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, October 31). Should Juveniles Be Tried as Adults? https://ivypanda.com/essays/trying-juveniles-as-adults-outline/

"Should Juveniles Be Tried as Adults?" IvyPanda , 31 Oct. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/trying-juveniles-as-adults-outline/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Should Juveniles Be Tried as Adults'. 31 October.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Should Juveniles Be Tried as Adults?" October 31, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/trying-juveniles-as-adults-outline/.

1. IvyPanda . "Should Juveniles Be Tried as Adults?" October 31, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/trying-juveniles-as-adults-outline/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Should Juveniles Be Tried as Adults?" October 31, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/trying-juveniles-as-adults-outline/.

• Business Law. Punitive Damages in Florida
• Why Juveniles Should Be Tried in Adults’ Court?
• Juvenile Justice System vs. Adult Prosecution
• Crime Policy and Practices: Trying Juveniles as Adults
• Punishments for Juvenile Offenders
• Features of Conviction of Juvenile Offenders
• Gangs and Juvenile Delinquency
• Juvenile Justice System of USA
• Juvenile Delinquency
• Future of the Juvenile Justice System
• Policing the Drug Problem in United States
• Business Law: Periodicals Review
• Title VII Fact Situations
• Understanding Legal Aspects and Current Issues of Compensation Methodologies
• Gun Control in the USA

• Essay Editor

Should Juveniles Be Tried as Adults? Argumentative Essay

1. introduction.

The age at which a person can be tried as an adult in the criminal justice system is the subject of much discussion and debate. Up until recently, the age of eighteen was the cut-off at which a person could be tried as an adult in the United States. However, the ever-increasing rise of violent juvenile crime in the 1970s and 1980s led to widespread changes in many state juvenile crime laws, so that a minor as young as 14 years of age could now be tried as an adult if the crime was serious enough. The crux of the debate comes down to whether a juvenile offender should be judged and punished in the same realm as an adult. On one side of the issue, there are people who believe that children and adolescents are not competent to make adult decisions and therefore should not be held accountable in an adult manner. These people believe that child brains are undeveloped, leaving them unable to understand the repercussions or consequences of their actions. Additionally, children are assumed to have plenty of time to learn the correct behavior, so detractors of trying juveniles as adults feel that rehabilitation is a much more sound correctional tactic for youth. Those in opposition to trying minors as adults would also argue that placing the label of "convict" or "felon" on a juvenile can be detrimental to his or her future. Being convicted as an adult can lead to time in an adult penitentiary or jail, which proves to be an even harsher environment for a youth. Finally, there is a belief that the transfer to adult court does no more to prevent crime than would have been done by keeping the juvenile in the juvenile court system.

1.1. Background information

Juvenile is a term which defines a person who is under 18 years old, but in some cases, teens are often tried as adults. In many states, such as Vermont, Georgia, and Michigan, the law states that a juvenile is any person under the age of 17. In previous years, the idea of being tried as an adult was only for the worst of crimes. However, times have changed, and being tried as an adult no longer is based on the severity of the crime, but the age of the offender. One of the greatest achievements of the Juvenile Justice System was to recognize the fundamental difference between adults and children, and the system was designed to treat the children with the best interests at heart, to protect their welfare, and to help them avert a life of crime. In the adult court, the primary concern is the renditions of justice, and a conviction with little thought to rehabilitation or future impacts on the life of the convict. When a juvenile is tried as an adult in a criminal court, they will carry the permanent label of convicted criminal, instead of having the chance of a clean record if treated in a juvenile court. Dropping the age of Juvenile court jurisdiction has been done under the pretenses of protecting the public and that it would serve as a deterrent of future crime. However, studies have shown that minors prosecuted in adult court are more likely to reoffend in the future compared to those convicted of similar crimes in juvenile court. Often they become placed in an adult prison or jail, where their protection cannot be guaranteed and are exposed to violence, sexual abuse, and diseases, and the cost of the offense committed will be far greater. Although it varies by state, if a juvenile is tried as an adult and convicted in a criminal court, they may also receive an adult sentence such as life imprisonment with no chance of parole or probation, or the death penalty. In the case of the death penalty, it is unconstitutional to execute someone who committed a crime under the age of 18, however, there are many instances in which the defendant was close enough to the age 18 that the death penalty was a sentence as a mere form of punishment fitting the crime. This is exactly the opposite of what the Supreme Court case Thompson v. Oklahoma ruled when it claimed that neither the execution of an individual at 15 years old nor the life imprisonment of a 16-year-old for a minor property crime were permissible.

1.2. Thesis statement

The thesis statement is that this essay will try to prove that there is enough evidence to indicate that when a juvenile is tried as an adult for their acts of violence, there is a lower percentage of case recurrence and a decrease in violent acts committed by a juvenile. In order to make this position clear, the difference between child and adult, and the commingling of the two standards in the juvenile and adult system will be examined, as well as the process of transferring the juvenile to adult court. Also examined will be the effectiveness of deterrence of punishment on both types of systems. A discussion of both the future implications of the two systems, as well as an alternative solution, is included. Overall, it will be demonstrated that a juvenile sentencing to the adult system can be a beneficial measure for both the safety of the community and the best interests of the juvenile.

2. Arguments in favor of trying juveniles as adults

2.1. Responsibility and accountability It is often mentioned in the justice system that if a juvenile commits a crime that is deemed "adult-like," then the juvenile should be treated as an adult. The court system is said to be based upon punishment and justice, but the special treatment often deters justice. Juveniles are not learning how to be responsible for their actions when they are being tried as juveniles. Trying these juveniles as adults may hold them accountable and responsible, and they may actually learn that in order to be a respected member of society, there are consequences that need to be faced when a wrong action is taken. Minors should uniformly be held to the same standard as adults whenever they commit the same crime. The best way to do this is to try them as adults. If a juvenile can commit a crime deemed as an adult and they are able to understand the long-term consequences and effects of their actions, then they should be prepared to face the long-term consequences. Juveniles tried and convicted as adults face sentencing to adult penalties, including adult jails and state prison facilities where they are subject to the same length of sentence and conditions thereof as their adult counterparts. Despite abolition of the death penalty for juveniles, many states uphold this sentence for crimes committed when the offender was under the age of 18. Resulting in transfer enables prosecution of juveniles as adults and long-term confinement. 2.2. Deterrence and public safety It is sometimes debated as to whether or not trying a juvenile as an adult would bring forth a deterrence to other juveniles. The belief is that if juveniles know they can "beat the system" and receive a much lesser punishment than they deserve, they will continue to commit adult-like crimes because they know they are getting away easy. Some juveniles have the mentality that juvenile crimes are not "real crimes" and anything done in the juvenile justice system is just a slap on the wrist. This logic comes from the fact that many youths are not receiving a punishment to fit their crime and are getting off easy because there are limitations to the sentencing that can be given in the juvenile system.

2.1. Responsibility and accountability

According to MacArthur Foundation research on adolescents, "Treatment that is age-appropriate is essential for youngsters, but they also need to face consequences that are commensurate with the offense." Although we would prefer to believe that everyone must be held accountable for his or her actions, there are differences in the level of responsibility that can be attributed to children and adults based on the developmental stage of the individual. When a juvenile engages in risky behavior, there are biological factors that can mitigate the extent of his responsibility. Research has shown that brain development continues through adolescence and into early adulthood. The part of the brain responsible for decision-making, the prefrontal cortex, is not fully developed until the age of 25. This means that juveniles may be less capable of considering the long-term consequences of their actions, resulting in an impulsive decision. In some cases, trials have determined that a minor had the intent of an adult, despite a demonstrated lack of understanding of the implications of his actions. It is unjust to compare the understanding and intent of a juvenile to that of an adult when making a similar decision. The findings of a National Institute of Mental Health study using a simulated driving game support this claim. In this study, the younger the subject, the more likely he or she was to make a risky decision, regardless of failing past experience of negative consequences. This indicates that the capacity for learning from past mistakes is lower in juveniles. It may not be fair to say that a juvenile who committed a crime lacks the understanding of right and wrong, but it is probable that the decision-making process involved was less thoughtful and informed than that of a typical adult.

2.2. Deterrence and public safety

There are two important sides to the issue we are addressing. First is the plight of the victim and the views of society on juvenile offenders. The idea is that the offender's potential for committing violence is so dangerous to society that they must be put under adult jurisdiction no matter what the level of the offense. This is often said to be in the best interest of public safety and is a fear of many people. Considering the demographic trends of increased youth crime, numerically this is a valid concern. However, in terms of serious youth violence, this is not the case. Most serious violent offenses are committed by a small and finite group of juveniles. These juveniles tend to be the ones either tried as adults or are subject to waiver laws allowing for transfer to adult court. The crimes committed by this group are not deterred by the threat of adult punishment. Rather, it is the concept of youth punishment, inescapable due to the automatic certification for serious offenses, that has become an acceptable occupational hazard for these offenders. They know that juvenile sanctions, even for certified offenders, secure very short confinement in limited security facilities. This, in turn, has led to a trend of increased violent juvenile crime. It is at this point that the second side to this issue is addressed. In light of the fact that society's main goal is prevention and protection through incapacitation, there is a hope that a transfer to adult court will lead to more incarceration of violent youth offenders in adult correctional facilities. This is despite the fact that studies have shown that a minority of violent offenders trying to escape the juvenile justice system through acts of on or off-site petition have learned that adult certification always leads to a return to the juvenile system, which is still considered preferable to them. Nevertheless, on the assumption that this group of offenders will remain in adult courts and facilities, advocates of transfer believe it will prevent them from committing future violent offenses and lead to the prevention of the aforementioned phenomenon in the long term.

2.3. Severity of the crime committed

Objective: The crime committed by a juvenile cannot be treated as an adult. The act itself is heinous and brutal, but the offender is a child. It may be a case of an exceptional child who committed a terrible crime, but it cannot be forgotten that children are assets. Delinquency is the outcome of the crime because by committing heinous crimes, are we trying to say that the child is becoming a liability and burden? If yes, then what are the causes behind the crimes of the juveniles? It is the society who is responsible for such acts committed by the children. By trying juveniles as adults, are we trying to escape from the social responsibility and shifting the blame on the individual? In a society or community, the crime or offense committed by an individual affects the society. It creates awareness and alarm for the society and the community where the crime is committed. The fear of crime disturbs the peace and tranquility of the community or the society. The effect of the crime on an individual may be positive or negative. If the effect is negative, then there is a scope of reformation and rehabilitation. Sentencing a juvenile as an adult itself proves the negative effect of the crime. There are various ways to reduce or eliminate the bad impression of the crime. Juveniles have a tender age. It is well familiar with the philosophy "child is the father of man." Then why forget the child psychology? They may change according to the circumstances because the circumstances mold the man's character. It may be to escape from punishment, but in the case of the child, it is a better way to change the character.

3. Arguments against trying juveniles as adults

From a more psychological standpoint, the fact that adolescents have not matured completely, either physically or mentally, and are more susceptible to negative influences and peer pressure makes it harder for them to make rational decisions, with many of their actions being impulsive and thoughtless. This is due to the fact that the part of the brain responsible for decision-making, the prefrontal cortex, is not fully developed until around the age of 25. Because this is the case, they may not fully understand the severity of their actions and the consequences that may follow, and thus should not be held fully accountable for them since they do not perceive themselves to be committing adult crimes. In the words of Laurence Steinberg, a leading expert on adolescence, "It is inaccurate, and thus unfair, to define an adolescent act, no matter how serious it is, as evidence of a permanently defective character." Related to this is the idea that juveniles have the capacity to change and are more inclined to be rehabilitated, which is generally the primary goal when dealing with delinquents. Try them as adults and that changes. Many will end up in adult correctional facilities, be denied education, vocational training and mental health services - all programs that are fundamental for their change and development. Such juveniles will be at a higher risk of reoffending and will increase the ratio of youth to adult crime.

3.1. Brain development and maturity

Age plays a significant role in one’s ability to form judgments and understand consequences. Adolescents are known to be impulsive risk-takers, leading to dangerous behavior such as drug abuse and delinquency. Adolescence is also a time of rapid and extensive change in learning, memory, and cognitive control. In fact, the brain continues to develop through the adolescent years and into early adulthood. Understanding the still-developing nature of the adolescent brain can help in guiding adolescents toward positive growth. The areas of the brain responsible for decision-making and impulse control are still being formed and refined in adolescence and do not fully develop until the individual is in their early 20s. Because of this, young people may be more likely than adults to engage in risky or careless behavior and less likely to think before they act. In some cases, this can result in impulsive and ill-informed decisions with devastating consequences. Such is the case for 16-year-old Florida native, Lionel Tate, who was convicted of first-degree murder for violently beating to death a six-year-old family friend when Tate was left unsupervised. In an investigation of the case, it was discovered that Tate was attempting to mimic pro-wrestling moves that he had seen on television. Because of the particularly brutal crime, Tate was tried as an adult, convicted, and sentenced to life in prison. After three years in incarceration, the case was retried and the jury recommended Tate's release. Currently, Lionel Tate is spending 30 years on probation. Had Tate's brain been more developed or had he been mentally sound, the wrestling moves would not have been attempted and the tragedy would never have occurred. The immaturity of the adolescent brain often means that an individual may not fully understand the extent of his actions or the consequences that follow.

3.2. Rehabilitation and reintegration

The section "Rehabilitation and Reintegration" is quite coherent with both the other sections of the essay and the essay's overall argument. The claim is that juveniles should not be tried in the adult system because they cannot fully comprehend their actions and the punishment stemming from their actions. The overall argument of the paper is that juveniles should be kept in the juvenile system because they are children and they have diminished capability. In the Brain development and maturity section, facts were presented which showed that juveniles have a lesser capability in certain cognitive realms. These claims are consistent with the claim in this section that juveniles are less able to learn from their mistakes. This section also claims that sending juveniles to the adult system increases recidivism rates. This is consistent with the claim within the potential for harsh sentencing section, which states that children tried as adults receive disproportionately harsh sentences. Finally, it is claimed that keeping children in the juvenile system better protects the community. This claim is consistent with the essay's overall claim that children are not simply small adults, and they are far different from adult criminals.

3.3. Potential for harsh sentencing

Currently in the United States, five percent of convicted murderers are sentenced to death, and at least 22 juveniles have been convicted for crimes that have led to a death and been sentenced to death since 1990 (DPIC, 2016). Despite the fact that half of these sentences have been overturned due to the unconstitutionality of executing juveniles, it is clear that juveniles who are transferred to the criminal justice system are at risk of very severe sentences, including life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (LWOP) and execution. Petitioning for a juvenile to be tried as an adult is a direct contradiction to the purpose of the juvenile system, which is to rehabilitate and prevent reoffending, as the juvenile will no longer have the opportunity to take advantage of the resources and reduced punishment offered through the juvenile system. DW Pfeiffer, an American lawyer and author, explains that the harsh punishment faced by juveniles tried in the adult system stems from the public perception that the only way to protect society is to punish the offender the same way they have hurt the victim. Because a juvenile tried in the adult system is viewed and punished as an adult offender, there is no differentiation between them and adult offenders who have committed the same crimes. This perception has led to the increase in imposing adult sentences on juveniles, as well as increasing the severity of sentences given to youth for less serious crimes within both the juvenile and adult systems (Pfeiffer, 1998). This contradicts the principles of diminished responsibility and culpability of the offender due to their age, and it also contradicts the principle that a lesser sentence is appropriate for a lesser offence (NCYL, 2001). This need to punish juvenile offenders as severely as adult offenders demonstrates society's lack of understanding that youth are impulsive, short sighted, and are less capable of understanding the long-term consequences of their actions.

Related articles

White collar crime.

1. Introduction White collar crime is a term that is applied to non-violent crimes committed by business or government professionals for the purpose of financial gain. The "white collar" is usually applied to people who have certain recognized means of livelihood and who are salaried employees. It could also be applied to persons who are recognized as having a dependable means of income even if that income is not derived from a regular job or other occupation in the technical sense of the term. ...

The Classical School of Thought and Strain Theory in Criminology Essay

1. Introduction The earliest theoretical framework of criminology emerged from the Classical School of Thought in the late 17th to mid-18th century. The core concept of this theory was to search for the causes of crime in the nature of man as a rational actor, an individual making conscious decisions. The classical theory propounded that in a free society, an individual is free to choose their own path and therefore choose to engage in criminal behavior. In this theory, it was also put forth th ...

James Hardie Asbestos Case History

1. Introduction James Hardie Industries and its Canadian subsidiary have been defending a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of people residing in British Columbia. This action is against several manufacturers and distributors of building materials containing asbestos. The claim involves issues of conspiracy to suppress the hazards of asbestos-containing products, negligence, breach of duty, and breach of consumer protection legislation. In the 1940s, claims began to emerge regarding the he ...

Mass Incarceration in the United States Essay

1. Introduction Mass incarceration is one of the biggest social issues faced by the United States. It is also a result of America's longstanding history of racism that challenges the notion of the United States as the 'land of the free'. A system which has successfully locked up the majority of its minority citizens has been labeled "the new Jim Crow" by Michelle Alexander. The US has witnessed rates of imprisonment unparalleled by any other industrialized country. However, when these incarcera ...

Silence of the Lambs

1. Introduction Silence of the Lambs is a psychological thriller that has achieved great recognition in recent years, but has a number of unsavory connotations in regard to its subject matter. This special section of the film is pivotal in fiction and film in evoking and maintaining viewer interest and participation in the story. Giving audiences pieces of information to make them feel like insiders who know more than the characters themselves can facilitate an exciting level of involvement and ...

Cyber Crime and Necessity of Cyber Security Report

1. Introduction Definition of cyber crime Cyber crime is a malicious act done by a person to others using modern telecommunication networks and electronic technology, such as: 1. The perpetrator who is doing the crime or the act itself. 2. The computer used as a tool to commit the act. 3. The computer can be used in several ways as a tool in a crime, for example, the thief steals it to sell or it can be used as a storage device to store the evidence of the crime. 4. The computer can be used as ...

Poverty as a Great Social Problem and Its Causes Essay

1. Introduction Of all the social problems that exist in the world today, poverty is often considered to be the most pervasive. For this reason, there is an obvious need for a more thorough understanding of the causes of poverty as a prerequisite to the effective amelioration of this social condition. It is to this understanding that this essay is directed, attempting to sketch the complex web of interaction between economic and social forces which have produced for us a society in which millio ...

Criminal Procedure Essay Topic Ideas

1. Overview of Criminal Procedure Criminal procedure concerns the enforcement of individuals who have been suspected or are accused of committing a criminal offense. According to the due process model, a defendant is granted a variety of rights throughout the criminal justice process. The overall procedure begins with a crime allegedly committed and ends with a verdict or a decision based on the available evidence. The criminal procedure process is very complex and is full of intricate steps th ...

Should Juveniles Be Tried as Adults?

Jan 8, 2007, 12:00 AM

Reprinted from the Sunday, January 7, 2007 edition of  The Tennessean

"Old enough to do the crime, old enough to do the time."

This popular refrain reduces a complex reality to simplistic rhetoric. It’s also wrong. While young people must be held accountable for serious crimes, the juvenile justice system exists for precisely that purpose. Funneling more youth into the adult system does no good and much harm.

Juveniles are not adults, and saying so doesn’t make it so. Besides, we don’t really mean it: When we try them in criminal court, we don’t deem them adults for other purposes, such as voting and drinking. We know they’re still minors — they’re developmentally less mature and responsible and more impulsive, erratic and vulnerable to negative peer pressure.

As people, they are still active works in progress. We just don’t like the logical consequences of that reality — that they are by nature less culpable than lawbreaking adults, even when they do very bad things. So we change the rules of the game.

Which is precisely what we’ve done. In the last decade, virtually every state has made it much easier to try juveniles as adults. These sweeping changes came amidst widespread alarm that a wave of "juvenile superpredators" was coming — which fortunately turned out to be false. (In fact, juvenile crime was already falling by the time states were tightening the screws.)

In some states, including Tennessee, there is now no minimum age for being transferred to criminal court for certain crimes. It’s not abstract: Kids as young as 10 have been charged as adults.

The consequences of this switch-up can be extreme. Most young offenders do not become adult criminals. But when we punish them as adults, we change those odds. Teens tried as adults commit more crimes when released; their educational and employment prospects are markedly worse, creating opportunity and incentive for more crime; they bear a lifelong, potentially debilitating stigma.

The separate juvenile system was developed both to mitigate these harms and because youth were being preyed upon and "schooled in crime" while in adult prisons. We are now sending them straight back to that harsh schoolyard. All this for little or no payoff: Increased transfer has never been shown to reduce juvenile crime.

Our desire to ratchet up consequences is understandable. Victims of juvenile crime don’t hurt any less, and close cases (say, crime committed the day before the 18th birthday) make age distinctions seem arbitrary. This is why we historically have built in a small "safety valve," under which transfer arguably is appropriate for those very few offenders who are extremely close to the age cutoff and commit particularly awful crimes. The trouble is that the valve has both expanded and lost its spring. Indeed, people now act as if the decision to treat a juvenile as a juvenile implies a judgment that the crime was not that serious, the victims not that worthy of respect.

It doesn’t have to be this way. I once attended the sentencing of a teenager — Clarence — who had killed a woman — Pauline — who sang in my choir. The proceeding was no less solemn, no less tragic by reason of being in a juvenile court. Clarence was sent to a secure facility that very much resembled a prison. His family was destroyed. Pauline’s family was destroyed. The only slight glimmer of hope was that Clarence might, while incarcerated, grow up and become a law-abiding adult and that we would not collectively make him worse than when he went in.

When we consign our youth to the adult system, we are throwing away even that glimmer. Juvenile sentences, in contrast, shield our youth from the unique dangers of adult facilities and preserve the possibility — however slight it may seem — of rehabilitation.

Terry A. Maroney joined the Vanderbilt Law faculty as assistant professor in Fall 2006.

Explore Story Topics

• Vanderbilt Law News

Trying and Sentencing Youth As Adults: Key Takeaways from Recent Petrie-Flom Center Event

By Minsoo Kwon

All 50 states have transfer laws that either allow or require children to be prosecuted in adult criminal court, rather than juvenile court. There is no constitutional right to be tried in juvenile court. What has modern neuroscience shown about the differences between the developing and the adult brain, and how justifiable is trying, prosecuting, and sentencing children in the adult criminal justice system?

Panelists discussed these topics during a recent webinar hosted by the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics. This article highlights key points made during the conversation.

First, BJ Casey , Christina L. Williams Professor of Neuroscience at Barnard College explained key neuroscientific research that highlights the significant differences between the brains of children and adults.

• Casey presented data that focused on ages 10 to 25 years to demonstrate observable changes in the brain’s capacity for change, also known as plasticity, throughout the emerging adolescence period. She discussed additional relevant neuroscience concepts, such as structural changes in gray matter and cortical thickness, and changes in personality and self-regulation.
• Along with critical changes in the prefrontal cortex, there are changes in the deep primitive regions of the brain. Such regions, Casey noted, “are involved in desire, rage, and fight and flight.” Adolescents, she explained, have a “heightened sensitivity to emotional information related to rewards, threat, stress, also social information like peer influences. And this is combined with this under-appreciation of risks and consequences.”
• “There are expert and health organizations like the World Health Organization, NIH, United Nations who all acknowledge that there’s continued maturity and development that extends into the 20s and even our laws in this country recognize extended maturation in the early 20s with the extended age for drinking and foster care,” Casey said. “It’s not just special protections that youth need. [They also need] opportunities for them to build the very skills that are necessary for being a healthy independent adult and a contributing member of society.”
• Casey explained: “We know in the United States that psychopathy is relatively rare. The estimates are at one percent in this country. But what if we look at individuals who have psychopathic traits, does that change across development? I want to report the findings from over a thousand justice-involved youth who showed from 16 to 24 years of age a decrease in their psychopathic traits… the majority of youth who engage in antisocial behavior show declines in that criminal behavior with age, and with targeted interventions we could get an even bigger decline.”
• “It’s about getting the right treatment,” said Casey.
• The science does not support transferring children and youth to adult courts, she explained, not only because of the significant differences in brain structure and behavior, but also because there is hope to treat these youth with targeted interventions that would effectively curb criminal activity as they age into full adulthood.

Then, Marsha Levick , Chief Legal Officer and Co-Founder of the Juvenile Law Center, discussed specifics of the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems in the U.S.

• “Once these youth are put into the adult criminal justice system, those systems are driven by punishment and retribution. They are not at all centered-on rehabilitation. The kinds of rehabilitation programs and positive interventions… will be significantly fewer, if they exist at all, than what you will see in the juvenile system,” Levick said.
• “What often happens is that judges will make determinations that they don’t think there’s enough time in juvenile court to allow for available treatment options to actually have an impact. It’s also often the case that there may simply not be a facility available in a particular jurisdiction,” Levick said.
• Instead, the juvenile justice system operates within 51 separate jurisdictions, each “constrained only by relatively minimal limitations that the U.S. constitution imposes upon them,” Levick said.
• “States that allow for this kind of charging discretion give these prosecutors unfettered discretion,” Levick said. This is particularly dangerous in states that have a “once an adult, always an adult,” policy. This means that once a child is transferred into the adult criminal justice system, they will automatically be treated as an adult for any relevant crimes going forward.

In their concluding remarks, Casey and Levick emphasized that a discussion of juvenile justice in the holistic sense must be one that acknowledges the power of targeted treatment in the prevention of crime, as well as the current structural problems that force children into the adult criminal justice system. Panelists ended with poignant statements of how the United States must begin to reconcile our treatment of justice-involved youth that is currently inconsistent with scientific evidence.

“We tolerate an inconsistency in how we approach young people who are involved with the justice system in this country that is irrational. It is completely counter to scientific knowledge that we possess and have reasonable access to,” Levick said. “The unwillingness to follow the science combined with a cultural commitment to punishment has really prevented us from making smart choices.”

Casey concluded: “We have a long way to go, but we really need to move in the direction of remediation, as opposed to being punitive… and that is going to be a real paradigm shift.”

This transcript has been edited and condensed. Watch the full event video here . This event was sponsored by the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School and is part of the Project on Law and Applied Neuroscience, a collaboration between the Center for Law, Brain and Behavior at Massachusetts General Hospital and the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School, with support from the Oswald DeN. Cammann Fund at Harvard University.

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)

Minsoo Kwon

Minsoo Kwon is a Junior at Harvard University studying Neuroscience and an intern at the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Sign up for our newsletter

Should Juveniles be Tried as Adults

This essay about the adjudication of juveniles navigates the intricate ethical and sociological implications of trying them as adults. It explores the tension between cognitive development and legal culpability, advocates for accountability and deterrence, prioritizes victim rights, and discusses the delicate balance between recidivism and rehabilitation. By intertwining developmental insights with imperatives of societal welfare, it proposes a nuanced approach to juvenile justice that transcends binary discourse, fostering a holistic milieu centered on justice and compassion.

How it works

Within the labyrinth of legal discourse, the interrogation of whether juveniles should be subjected to adult trials resonates with profound ethical and sociological implications. This perennial debate, entwined with the nuances of morality, rehabilitation paradigms, and societal safety nets, forces a contemplation of the intricate balance between justice and compassion. This essay embarks on a nuanced exploration of the contention surrounding the adjudication of juveniles, advocating for a contextualized approach that amalgamates developmental insights with the imperatives of accountability and societal welfare.

Navigating Developmental Dynamics:

At the heart of the discourse lies the dialectic tension between the evolving cognitive landscape of juveniles and the imperatives of legal culpability. Adherents of a lenient approach underscore the inherent disparities in cognitive maturation, emphasizing the protracted neurobiological transformation characterizing adolescence. Undoubtedly, adolescence is a stage rife with cognitive flux, where impulse control and foresight often lag behind burgeoning emotions. However, such assertions, while cogent, falter in their universal applicability. The heterogeneity of adolescent experiences necessitates a discerning lens, one that discerns between impulsive misdemeanors borne of developmental turbulence and premeditated transgressions indicative of a matured agency.

Embracing Accountability and Deterrence:

Integral to the fabric of any justice system is the principle of accountability, which undergirds the moral edifice of societal order. Advocates of trying juveniles as adults accentuate the imperatives of accountability, echoing the sentiments of retributive justice. The premise that actions must engender commensurate consequences resonates deeply within legal philosophy, heralding a system predicated on the principle of just deserts. Furthermore, the deterrence argument, predicated on the notion that stringent penalties dissuade potential offenders, underscores the pragmatic exigency of adult trials. The specter of adult repercussions, with its attendant gravity, serves as a potent deterrent, dissuading juveniles from traversing the perilous terrain of criminality.

Restoring Equilibrium: A Victim-Centric Paradigm:

At the nucleus of the justice paradigm lies the plight of victims, whose narratives are often eclipsed amidst the discourse on offender rehabilitation. The reification of victim rights necessitates a recalibration of legal praxis, one that ensures that justice is not merely dispensed but also perceived. Victims of heinous crimes, ensnared in the labyrinth of trauma, yearn for closure and vindication. By adjudicating juveniles as adults in egregious cases, the legal apparatus not only amplifies the voices of victims but also fosters a climate of restorative justice. Denying victims the catharsis of witnessing perpetrators being held accountable obfuscates the path to healing, perpetuating the specter of unresolved trauma.

Striking a Delicate Balance: Recidivism and Rehabilitation:

Critics of the adult trial paradigm often invoke the specter of recidivism, cautioning against the potential erosion of rehabilitation efforts. The punitive tenor of adult correctional facilities, juxtaposed against the malleable psyches of juveniles, portends a perilous trajectory fraught with recidivist pitfalls. However, such apprehensions, though valid, elide the nuances of a holistic rehabilitative schema. The confluence of accountability and rehabilitation, rather than constituting antithetical poles, can synergistically coalesce within a judicious legal framework. Tailored intervention programs, replete with therapeutic modalities and reintegration initiatives, hold the promise of not only ameliorating recidivist propensities but also engendering a restorative ethos conducive to societal reintegration.

Conclusion:

In summation, the discourse surrounding the adjudication of juveniles is a dialectic tapestry interwoven with the threads of moral imperatives and societal exigencies. The dichotomous imperatives of accountability and rehabilitation, far from constituting mutually exclusive propositions, converge within a nuanced legal prism. By recalibrating the paradigm of juvenile justice, cognizant of developmental dynamics and societal imperatives, the legal apparatus can transcend the shackles of binary discourse, engendering a holistic milieu predicated on the twin pillars of justice and compassion. Thus, the imperative lies not in succumbing to the allure of categorical imperatives but in embracing the dialectic flux inherent within the crucible of justice.

Cite this page

Should Juveniles Be Tried As Adults. (2024, Apr 07). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/should-juveniles-be-tried-as-adults-new/

"Should Juveniles Be Tried As Adults." PapersOwl.com , 7 Apr 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/should-juveniles-be-tried-as-adults-new/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Should Juveniles Be Tried As Adults . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/should-juveniles-be-tried-as-adults-new/ [Accessed: 21 Apr. 2024]

"Should Juveniles Be Tried As Adults." PapersOwl.com, Apr 07, 2024. Accessed April 21, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/should-juveniles-be-tried-as-adults-new/

"Should Juveniles Be Tried As Adults," PapersOwl.com , 07-Apr-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/should-juveniles-be-tried-as-adults-new/. [Accessed: 21-Apr-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Should Juveniles Be Tried As Adults . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/should-juveniles-be-tried-as-adults-new/ [Accessed: 21-Apr-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Criminal Justice Collaborative

Charging youths as adults can be a 'cruel wake-up call.' is there another way.

Renata Sago

The booking and release center at the Orange County Jail in Florida, where juveniles who are charged as adults await trials in criminal court. Mark Wilson/Getty Images hide caption

The booking and release center at the Orange County Jail in Florida, where juveniles who are charged as adults await trials in criminal court.

The moments inside a courtroom in Orlando in 2007 were quick and consequential for Marquis McKenzie. The 16-year-old stood handcuffed behind a lectern. A juvenile judge announced his charges, then apologized that he could no longer take up the case.

"You're being direct filed," he told McKenzie, who was accused of armed robbery over a cellphone and a wallet. "You understand what I'm saying? You're being charged as an adult now."

As a 16-year-old, Marquis McKenzie was sent to the juvenile section in one of Florida's medium security private prisons. Joey Roulette hide caption

As a 16-year-old, Marquis McKenzie was sent to the juvenile section in one of Florida's medium security private prisons.

McKenzie remembers his mother wailing from the courtroom benches, begging the judge to reconsider.

"I had never been in that situation. I had gotten in trouble, but I had never gotten arrested," he recalls a decade later. "I just knew it was going to be a hell of a ride from there."

The juvenile judge's announcement meant that McKenzie was no longer solely subject to the rehabilitative services offered within Florida's juvenile system. He was now facing a 10-year sentence. A judge in one of the state's criminal courts would have the option of sending him two hours away to residential confinement at a youth facility, or to the juvenile section in one of Florida's medium security private prisons.

The latter is where McKenzie ended up. That same year, more than 3,600 other kids were direct filed and sent to adult court, too.

Across the country, lawmakers, juvenile justice advocates and community groups are shifting away from direct file, and rethinking their approach to handling kids and young adults who commit crimes. Florida, more than other states, has traditionally embraced an aggressive direct file system run by state attorneys who opt to transfer kids out of the juvenile court system and into the adult criminal system. The repercussions are great and the options for navigating the complex system are limited.

" Cruel wake-up call"

Florida was in the thick of its direct file culture when McKenzie's case was transferred to adult court. From 2006 to 2011, more than 15,600 youths passed through the adult criminal court system for violent and nonviolent offenses.

"That was a 'get tough' era in the United States," says Florida State University criminologist Carter Hay. "That was a time when there was a lot of concern about juvenile crime. There was a lot of media attention to the idea that there were these juvenile superpredators who were just a real threat to public safety."

Lionel Tate Back in Jail on Holdup Charge

Behind the trend were state attorneys, to whom Florida's direct file statute grants unfettered discretion to move any juvenile case to adult court without a judge's permission. The statute dates back to juvenile justice reform from the 1950s, when lawmakers were seeking to balance rehabilitation and punishment of youths who had committed heinous crimes. In the 1990s and into the 2000s, the direct file statute became the most used tool for handling children.

"A lot of these juveniles that have been through the system a lot, when they get arrested, their attitude is 'Nothing's going to happen to me. I'm a juvenile,' " says former 9th Circuit state attorney Jeff Ashton.

For more than 30 years he helped prosecute juvenile cases in Orange and Osceola counties, where McKenzie was direct filed. As state attorney, he spent four years having a final say over which cases got sent to adult court.

"When they get direct filed to adult, it's sort of this cruel wake-up call," he says.

The Orange County Juvenile Assessment Center is where youths are taken when arrested. There, case managers use risk assessment tools to make recommendations for the state attorney on how youths should be handled. In recent years, the state of Florida has invested more resources in its risk assessment tools. Joey Roulette/WMFE hide caption

The Orange County Juvenile Assessment Center is where youths are taken when arrested. There, case managers use risk assessment tools to make recommendations for the state attorney on how youths should be handled. In recent years, the state of Florida has invested more resources in its risk assessment tools.

According to Ashton, the direct file statute gives judges a "bigger toolbox" for deciding how to deal with youths who have committed crimes. It also allows for more nuances in how prosecutors across Florida's 20 circuits interpret the gravity of crimes and the potential threat a youth offender has on the overall safety of a community, criteria that arguably reflect personal values and interpretations of the law.

In a 2011 report , the U.S. Department of Justice identified Florida's direct file rate as disproportionately high compared to other states. The statute is hard to measure and easily classifiable as subjective. Human Rights Watch, in a report on juvenile justice, criticized Florida's direct file statute as an example of disparate treatment of people of color. Its report found that from 2008 to 2013, black boys in Florida were disproportionately sent to prison, whether for first- or second-time offenses.

That trend continues with data from the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice showing that 64 percent of kids sent to adult court in 2016 were black.

Measuring direct files across the country

Currently, 12 states and the District of Columbia allow prosecutors to make decisions on where kids end up based on a direct file statute. But one major roadblock has been measuring the consistencies and inconsistencies within the statute.

"We have pretty decent estimates of the cases that go through juvenile court, everything from race and ethnicity to age and offense. But in criminal court — the ones that go straight there because the prosecutor said so or the legislator tried to say so — largely we have no clue what those cases are all about," says Melissa Sickmund, director of the National Center for Juvenile Justice. The private, nonprofit research organization has spent 40 years collecting and analyzing data on juvenile crime and delinquency in conjunction with the federal government.

For a long time, the focus of federal and state data has been the corrections system, which has limited the ability of researchers, policymakers and juvenile justice advocates to get a clear picture of the potential and shortcomings of the adult transfer system.

Juvenile justice in most states varies from county to county, without a standardized system for documenting, analyzing and disseminating statistics on kids who commit crimes or are at risk of doing so. The tradition within the juvenile justice system has been to decide the outcomes case by case, with individual values for what is in the best interest of the child having more weight than data.

Proportion Of Girls In Juvenile Justice System Is Going Up, Studies Find

"It makes it hard to do reform," says Sickmund. "You have a good intent and say we're going to do things differently, but then a few years down the road, it's hard to say whether that was a good decision or not because you don't know where you were."

Research has shown that taking kids out of the juvenile system and putting them in the adult system makes them worse off. One way to measure the impact of direct file is through recidivism: Was a youth rearrested after being sent to adult court and dismissed? Was he reconvicted for another offense? Was it for a serious charge that would have been a felony?

In 2014, the Pew Charitable Trusts conducted a survey of juvenile corrections agencies in all 50 states as part of its Public Safety Performance Project. The survey, which focused on measuring recidivism, found that 1 in 4 states does not regularly report the data needed to assess trends in where youths end up.

The survey displays the data states were collecting at the time and their varied standards. Language to describe recidivism — and the definition of the term itself — changes from state to state and over time. No project of its nature has been done since, according to Adam Gelb, director of the Public Safety Performance Project, largely because of the level of work and coordination involved.

"There were two real takeaways from the report," Gelb says. "One was that there needs to be much greater consistency in how states are collecting this information and, second, that they've actually got to make recidivism reduction a core part of their mission, and that means tracking it; using that data to make decisions about how to respond to these kids."

States in the midst of reform

Last year saw sweeping changes across the country in the nation's direct file trend. The most dramatic shift was in California where, last November, voters approved Proposition 57, which removes the unfettered discretion given to state prosecutors. The new law requires that kids eligible for a transfer to adult court first go before a juvenile judge , who is expected to consider the youth's case and the circumstances that led to it.

Prop 57 was the result of a major effort by juvenile justice advocates, who argued that sending kids directly to adult court undermined the rehabilitative mission of the juvenile system.

They voiced concern that California's direct file statute opened the door for longer sentences and psychological trauma of being processed through adult criminal court, which meant lifelong consequences for youths and their families.

In a report , the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, a San Francisco-based nonprofit, noted disparities across counties in how the direct file statute was used, based on the political affiliations of district attorneys and the race and ethnicities of youths. According to Maureen Washburn, a policy analyst, an overall drop in juvenile crime in California helped make a case for reform. Lower numbers of youths in the system means more capacity to strengthen rehabilitative care. Less than a year into Prop 57's implementation, advocacy groups are planning to research and evaluate transfer hearings and, eventually consider phasing them out.

Juvenile Justice System Failing Native Americans, Studies Show

"The juvenile justice system in California is prepared and poised to manage all young people regardless of the seriousness of their offense in the juvenile justice system where they can truly receive the services and rehabilitation that they need to rejoin their families and community," Washburn says.

In 2016, lawmakers in Indiana approved an unprecedented state "reverse transfer" law, which allows kids sent to adult court to be placed back in a juvenile court if their adult charges are unsuccessful. The purpose of the change is to restore the possibility of exposing a kid to rehabilitative care within the juvenile justice system. In recent years, Indiana voters have reduced the number of offenses once protected under the direct file statute. Kids accused of criminal gang activity, intimidation and substance-abuse-related acts can now be seen in juvenile court.

"But we think there's still a lot more to do," says JauNae Hanger, president of the Children's Policy & Law Initiative of Indiana, a network of juvenile justice advocates.

She argues that Indiana and other states must reconsider the age at which brains have fully developed.

"What happens to the 18- to 25-year-old? Should we be treating them differently?" Hanger asks. "That's a long-term question for our state, how we treat youthful offenders systemically."

The community and change

Before landing in front of the judge 10 years ago, Marquis McKenzie had displayed the textbook signs of an "at risk youth" navigating the complexities of community in desperate need of economic resources. He vividly recalls moving with his mother when he was 8 to the Ivey Lane Homes, a housing project in Pine Hills, a predominantly black, mixed-income neighborhood on Orlando's west side. The community, once a suburban oasis for white middle class families, had earned the moniker "Crime Hills." McKenzie remembers being exposed to gang violence, drug deals, drug busts and burglaries.

Witnessing a domestic violence incident between his mother and her boyfriend ultimately drove him to get involved in street life, he says.

"She had to get eight stitches in her head. And after that, nothing else didn't really matter. That was my excuse to be harmful to people," he says.

When McKenzie was transferred to adult court, he took a youth defendant plea. Though facing 10 hard years in prison, he served two and was placed on four years of probation, which were reduced by half due to good behavior.

"Income is one of the biggest things," McKenzie, who is now 27, says of many teenagers who get in trouble. "It's kind of hard to tell them to put the gun down or stop stealing if you don't have a direct resource for them."

Today, McKenzie has two sons, ages 7 and 4. He started his own cleaning company, called The Dirt Master LLC, and has been training to teach remodeling, so he can equip youths with skills to repair their homes and, ultimately, their neighborhoods.

"A lot of people have broken sinks, tubs, holes in the walls," he says. "And I kind of strongly believe if you change the way somebody's living, you can impact their life forever."

Today, Marquis McKenzie has two sons, ages 7 and 4. He started his own cleaning company, called The Dirt Master LLC, and has been training to teach remodeling, so he can equip youths with skills to repair their homes and, ultimately, their neighborhoods. Joey Roulette hide caption

Today, Marquis McKenzie has two sons, ages 7 and 4. He started his own cleaning company, called The Dirt Master LLC, and has been training to teach remodeling, so he can equip youths with skills to repair their homes and, ultimately, their neighborhoods.

" You could consider other options"

Orange County, where McKenzie was direct filed in 2007, has the highest number of direct files in Florida. And Pine Hills, where McKenzie grew up, has the highest concentration of juvenile arrests and direct files in Florida.

With support from the state attorney's office and the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, community groups there are working to fill a gap that law enforcement cannot.

Let Your Voice Be Heard Inc. has become the biggest voice in Pine Hills, hosting job fairs, talking in schools about conflict resolution, and making on-call house visits for "crisis mentoring."

"We sit down and try to figure out what the case is with that particular individual. If we don't have the expertise that the child needs, then between 24 to 72 hours, we will contact the individuals for the parent to take the child to get further assistance for that particular situation," says Emery James, who helped found the nonprofit advocacy group with Miles Mulrain.

James was direct filed to prison at 15 for an armed robbery. Now, at 38, he is developing programs to keep kids out of the system.

In Connecticut, Project Youth Court Offers Peer-To-Peer Justice

"I've learned firsthand the detriments of negative situations and the psychological effects that it can have on a child's mind. By the grace of God, by me going through all the trials that I did, I can look back and say 'Wow, everybody's not going to make it out like that, doing 10 years or better in the system with all of the dehumanizing living conditions."

In the past five years, Florida's Department of Juvenile Justice has visibly shifted its focus to kids' unique needs based on a set of criteria including family situation, schooling, and mental and physical health histories. The agency has a sophisticated set of data available for law enforcement to make informed decisions on where it is best for a child to end up.

Ed Brodsky is state attorney for the 12th judicial circuit. In 24 years, part of them as a former assistant state attorney, he has handled dozens of criminal cases involving adults and youths. He has noticed a significant change in the prosecution model.

When asked a decade later whether a 16-year-old with McKenzie's case and circumstances would be direct filed, he responded, "You could consider other options."

Florida's direct file rate has dropped since McKenzie was sent to adult court, and it continues to. The number of youths transferred under the direct file statute has decreased by 51 percent, from 15,665 to 7,619.

For McKenzie, that is promising, but the remnants of his past still haunt him. Earlier this year, he found himself in the back of a police car for not moving his parked car and resisting arrest for it — charges that were dropped.

"It would've been another stumbling block, especially if I'd have gotten convicted for it," he says. "[Police] already still look at the past that I have. It's like 'He's not done getting in trouble,' so it would have been even more for me to try to prove my point as a citizen out here and even for other felons who haven't made it to the point where I'm at. I'm just going to keep fighting until a door opens and my voice gets heard."

Should Juveniles be Tried as Adults Essay: Exploring Both Sides of the Debate

The question of why juveniles should be tried as adults in criminal courts is a complex and controversial issue that has generated much debate in recent years. Some people argue that minors who commit serious crimes should be held accountable and face the same punishment as adults who commit the same offenses. They contend that trying juveniles as adults will serve as a deterrent to other young people who may be considering committing similar crimes.

On the other hand, others argue that juveniles are not fully developed and should not be held to the same standards as adults. They contend that young people are still developing emotionally, cognitively, and socially, and that their decision-making abilities are not yet fully formed.

Additionally, research shows that juveniles who are tried as adults are more likely to suffer from mental health problems, become repeat offenders, and experience physical and sexual abuse while in prison. Therefore, it is important to examine both sides of the debate over trying juveniles as adults and consider the implications of each position. In this essay, we will explore the arguments for and against trying juveniles as adults, as well as the potential consequences of each approach. If you need help with writing such a complicated topic, specialists at custom writing service are always ready to help with arguments on any essay theme. Because, sometimes we need qualified assistance with a complex topic.

Juveniles Should be Tried as Adults: Pros, Cons, and Implications

On the one hand, proponents of “should juveniles be tried as adults thesis statement” argue that it is necessary to hold young offenders accountable for their actions. They contend that if minors commit serious crimes such as murder, rape, or armed robbery, they should face the same consequences as adults who commit the same crimes. They also argue that trying juveniles as adults will serve as a deterrent to other young people who may be considering committing similar offenses.

Arguments Against Trying Juveniles as Adults

However, opponents of trying juveniles as adults argue that minors are not fully developed and, therefore should not be held to the same standard as adults. They contend that adolescents are still developing emotionally, cognitively, and socially, and that their decision-making abilities are not yet fully formed. Besides, research shows that juveniles who are tried as adults are more likely to suffer from mental health problems, become repeat offenders, and experience physical and sexual abuse while in prison.

The Juvenile Justice System

Another argument against trying juveniles as adults is that the juvenile justice system was created specifically to handle young offenders. The system is designed to provide rehabilitation and support for minors who have committed crimes. Trying juveniles as adults undermines the purpose of the juvenile justice system and denies young people the opportunity to receive the treatment and support they need to turn their lives around.

The question of whether juveniles should be tried as adults is a complex one. While some argue that young offenders should be held accountable for their actions, others contend that minors are not fully developed and should not be held to the same standard as adults. Ultimately, the evidence suggests that trying juveniles as adults is counterproductive and may do more harm than good. It is important to remember that young people who commit crimes are still developing and have the potential to turn their lives around with the right support and intervention. Therefore, juveniles should not be tried as adults, but instead should be given the opportunity to receive rehabilitation and support through the juvenile justice system.

Tips and Strategies for Effective Argumentation

Before you start writing, do some research to gain a comprehensive understanding of the issue. Read academic articles, news reports, and other credible sources to get a broad perspective on the topic.

Define Key Terms

Be sure to define key terms in your essays on juveniles being tried as adults, such as “juveniles” and “adults.” This will ensure that your reader understands the meaning of these terms in the context of your argument.

Present Both Sides

Be sure to present both sides of the debate, and use evidence to support each position. This will demonstrate that you have done your research and understand the issue’s complexity.

Provide Examples

Use real-life examples to illustrate your points. This can help to make your argument more compelling and relatable to your reader.

Address Counterarguments

Acknowledge counterarguments to your position, and use evidence to refute them. This will demonstrate that you have considered different perspectives on the issue and can think critically about the topic.

Consider the Implications

In addition to presenting the arguments for and against trying juveniles as adults, consider the potential consequences of each approach. This can help to demonstrate the practical implications of the issue and show why it matters.

Edit and Proofread

Once you have written your essay, be sure to edit and proofread it carefully. Check for errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation, and make sure your writing is clear and concise. Overall, writing should juveniles be tried as adults essay requires careful research, consideration of different perspectives, and attention to detail. In general, ​​ informative essay writing it is a skill that is not easy for everyone to learn. By following these tips, you can produce a well-researched, persuasive, and compelling essay on this complex and vital issue.

Related posts:

• The Great Gatsby (Analyze this Essay Online)
• Pollution Cause and Effect Essay Sample
• Essay Sample on What Does Leadership Mean to You
• The Power of Imaging: Why I am Passionate about Becoming a Sonographer

Improve your writing with our guides

Youth Culture Essay Prompt and Discussion

Why Should College Athletes Be Paid, Essay Sample

Reasons Why Minimum Wage Should Be Raised Essay: Benefits for Workers, Society, and The Economy

Get 15% off your first order with edusson.

Connect with a professional writer within minutes by placing your first order. No matter the subject, difficulty, academic level or document type, our writers have the skills to complete it.

100% privacy. No spam ever.

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Youth in the Adult Criminal Justice System

The origin of the juvenile justice system was guided by the concept of rehabilitation through individualized justice (OJJDP, n.d.; Snyder and Sickmund, 2006; Robinson and Kurlychek, 2019). The juvenile court system is based on the legal principle of parens patriae or “state as parent” (Robinson and Kurlychek, 2019:37; McGowan et al., 2007:S8) and was intended to provide positive social development to youths who may not be receiving this support in their homes or communities. Over the last three decades, states have implemented various legislative changes in response to youths’ crimes, making it easier for them to be prosecuted as adults (OJJDP, n.d.; Kolivoski and Shook, 2016). This trend has contributed to increases in the numbers of youths incarcerated in adult correctional facilities (Loeffler and Grunwald, 2015; Redding, 2010). 

This literature review describes the legal mechanisms by which youths can be processed and incarcerated with adults and provides the most recent data on the number of youths in adult jails and prisons. (For the purposes of this review, juveniles are defined as the population of individuals under age 18 with the potential for or actual contact with the juvenile justice system; youth refers to the general population of individuals under 18.) The review also provides a historical policy overview; discusses outcome evidence for relevant policies; presents the theoretical foundation for sending juveniles to the criminal justice system and incarcerating them with adults; highlights disparities in the transfer of juveniles to adult court; and discusses the impact of these practices and policies on youth. (In this review adult system and criminal court are used interchangeably, as are juvenile system and juvenile court. ) Additionally, the review identifies gaps in knowledge and data and offers suggestions for further research.  

Definitions

This section defines the mechanisms by which juveniles are tried and convicted in the adult criminal justice system and the facilities where they can be held. Figure 1 shows which mechanisms states use to impose adult sanctions on youths who commit crimes.

The upper age of jurisdiction is the oldest age at which a juvenile court has original jurisdiction over an individual for law-violating behavior (Statistical Briefing Book [SBB], 2021). Individual states determine the age cutoff for juvenile court jurisdiction, and the upper age is 17 in most states (SBB, 2021). (For more information on the age limits, see the Model Programs Guide literature review, Age Boundaries of the Juvenile Justice System .)

Juvenile transfer is the process of moving a case involving a juvenile (and therefore a delinquency matter) under the original jurisdiction of the juvenile court to the jurisdiction of the criminal court for trial as an adult. [The criminal court has jurisdiction only over youths who committed law-violating acts that would be criminal (delinquent acts); status offenses are limited strictly to juvenile jurisdiction.] The most common mechanisms used to transfer juveniles to adult court include judicial waiver, statutory exclusion, and direct file (Weston, 2016; Zane et al., 2016).

A judicial waiver is the mechanism whereby a juvenile court judge waives jurisdiction over a case and refers it to criminal court jurisdiction.

Statutory exclusion is a state law mandating that youths who commit certain crimes automatically are processed as adults (Dempsey, 2020; Weston, 2016; Zane et al., 2016).

Prosecutorial direct file as a mechanism of transferal means that the initial decision to bring charges against a minor in juvenile court or adult criminal court rests solely with the prosecutor or district attorney (Weston, 2016; Zane et al., 2016). 

Blended sentences allow certain juveniles who have committed certain offenses to receive both juvenile and adult sentences. The specific requirements, including eligible offenses and age criteria, differ by state (SBB, 2022a). For example, under Texas’ blended sentencing law, juveniles are sent to a state juvenile correctional facility until a decision is made either to release them to the community (with or without supervision requirements), or to send them to an adult prison to continue serving the adult portion of their blended sentence (Trulson et al., 2022). In some cases, a blended sentence may offer juveniles the opportunity to avoid the adult sentence if they comply completely with the juvenile sentence, which is served first (Lehmann, 2022; Sewell, 2020). 

The once an adult/always an adult policy means that when a “juvenile age” person has been convicted or had sanctions imposed by a criminal court, any future allegations of delinquency involving that individual must be brought before the adult criminal court. As of the end of the 2019 legislative season, 35 states had this policy (SBB, 2022b). 

Juveniles who enter the adult criminal justice system through any of these mechanisms can be held in adult jails and prisons. Jail is a confinement facility that usually is intended for individuals pending arraignment and awaiting trial, conviction, or sentencing or for those with a sentence of 1 year or less. Jails are usually managed by a local law enforcement agency (sheriff, police chief, or county or city administrator), and they are intended for those being processed through criminal court but can also hold individuals being processed through juvenile courts, either before or after adjudication, or juveniles pending their transfer to juvenile authorities (Carson, 2020; Zeng, 2022). Prison is a long-term confinement facility that is managed by a state or the federal government and holds individuals with sentences of more than 1 year imposed by state or federal courts (Carson, 2020). (In this review, adult facilities refers to both adult jails and prisons.)

Scope and Characteristics

This section provides data on the number of juveniles transferred to adult court, waived to criminal court, and held in adult jails and prisons.

Transfers/Waivers of Juveniles to Adult Court

All states have procedures for transferring juveniles to adult criminal court for the most serious and violent crimes (Reidy, Sorensen, and Cihan, 2018; Park and Sullivan, 2021). In 2015 an estimated 75,900 juveniles younger than 18 were transferred to adult court in the United States (Dempsey, 2020; Puzzanchera, Sickmund, and Sladky, 2018) through the various transfer mechanisms. In 2019, this estimate was 53,000 juveniles (Puzzanchera, Sickmund, and Hurst, 2021). Notably, this is an estimate based on multiple assumptions and extrapolating from juvenile court waivers, transfer counts from a limited number of states that report, and juvenile court case volumes. Few states publish counts of juveniles transferred to adult courts, and there is no national data collection from which to derive a reliable estimate of the number of juveniles transferred to adult court.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s (OJJDP’s) National Juvenile Court Data Archive compiles national estimates of delinquency cases handled by U.S. courts with juvenile jurisdiction, including waivers from juvenile court to criminal court. In 2020, 2,731 delinquency cases involving individuals ages 17 and younger were waived to criminal court as the result of a waiver hearing in juvenile court. Of the 2,731 total waived cases, 2,537 involved a male juvenile, 194 involved a female juvenile, 825 involved a white juvenile, and 1,490 involved a Black juvenile. Further, of the 2,731 cases waived to criminal court, 1,653 were offense-against-persons cases, 654 were property offense cases, 221 were drug offense cases, and 203 were public order offense cases (Sickmund, Sladky, and Kang, 2022). However, 2020 was the onset of the COVID–19 pandemic, which may have affected policies, procedures, and data collection activities regarding referrals to and processing of youth by juvenile courts. Further, stay-at-home orders and school closures likely impacted the volume and type of law-violating behavior by youths referred to juvenile court that year (Sickmund, Sladky, and Kang, 2022). 

Youth in Adult Jails and Prisons

This section provides the most recent data on the number of youths held in adult jails and prisons. As discussed in the Definitions section, jails and prisons have different operational purposes and detain individuals, including youths, for different reasons. Jails hold individuals with a sentence of 1 year or less; individuals pending arraignment, trial, conviction, or sentencing; and juveniles pending transfer to juvenile authorities (Zeng, 2022). Prisons are intended for longer-term confinement, typically holding individuals with sentences of more than 1 year imposed by state or federal courts (Carson, 2020). 

The number of youths held in adult facilities (that is, adult jails and prisons) has decreased significantly in recent years, in part because of the growing body of research and knowledge about adolescent development and the negative effects of incarcerating youths with adults (e.g., Cauffman et al., 2018; Casey et al., 2020), in addition to declining youth crime rates (SBB, 2022) and the steady decline of U.S. jail populations in general (Zeng and Minton, 2021). Figure 2 depicts the trends over time in the number of youths held in adult facilities. 

 The number of youths incarcerated in all U.S. adult facilities peaked in 2008, when 10,420 youths were incarcerated in both adult jails and prisons (Zeng, Carson, and Kluckow, 2023). From the peak in 2008 to 2021, there was a 78 percent decline in the number of youths held in adult jails and prisons. In 2021, youths made up 0.12 percent of the total incarcerated population of adult jails and prisons (Zeng, Carson, and Kluckow, 2023). Specifically, state and federal adult prisons held 290 youths in 2021 (Zeng, Carson, and Kluckow, 2023), while local jails had custody of 1,960 youths that same year (these jail data are based on a 1-day count of the jail inmate population confined on the last weekday in June, and the prison data are based on a 1-day count of persons in the custody of state or federal correctional facilities as of December 31).

From 2000 to 2021, the number of youths in adult prisons fell 93 percent (SBB, 2023). By the end of 2021, fewer than 300 youths ages 17 and younger were in the custody of state prisons (SBB, 2023). (Custody refers to individuals physically held in state prisons, regardless of sentence length or authority that has jurisdiction.) 

Regional/State Differences.  There are regional and state differences in the number of youths held in adult jails. For example, in 2019 (the most recent year in which state-level data of youth under age 18 in adult jails is available), North Carolina held the largest number, with 307 total on a 1-day count at midyear (Zeng and Minton, 2021). In 2019, 670 youths younger than 18 were held as juveniles in local jails and 2,210 youths were held as adults in local jails. Of youths held as adults nationwide, 1,940 were in urban jails and 270 were in rural jails (BJS, 2019). Regionally, the South incarcerated the most youths in local jails in 2019 (1,665 total), followed by the Midwest (343 total), the West (221 total), and the Northeast (195 total) [Zeng and Minton, 2021]. In 2021, Florida held the most youths ages 17 and younger in state prisons, with 48 total (Carson, 2022). 

Demographics.  Federal agencies (such as the Bureau of Justice Statistics) track demographic information, including race/ethnicity and gender, for individuals held in adult facilities. Although the information is reported for all individuals held in local jails, it is not broken out by age. Data from 2009 (the most recent year for which data are available) showed that 87 percent of youths younger than 18 newly admitted to state prison that year were male. White individuals younger than 18 accounted for 42 percent of new prison admissions, 39 percent were Black, 17 percent were Hispanic, and 2 percent were of other races/ethnicities (West, 2010; Sickmund and Puzzanchera, 2014). (These data were reported in OJJDP’s Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2014 National Report; the most recent versions of this report do not include data on youths’ demographic characteristics or on the offenses of youth in adult state prisons.) 

Studies of individual jurisdictions have provided more recent, but limited, demographic information. For example, of 49,479 juveniles (ages 10–18 at first arrest) in the juvenile or adult criminal justice systems in Marion County, IN, from January 1, 1999, to December 31, 2011, Black juveniles accounted for 69 percent of all juveniles transferred to adult courts, and 90 percent of juveniles transferred to adult court were male (Aalsma et al., 2016). Trulson and colleagues (2022) examined a subset of juveniles ( n = 202) convicted of serious and violent offenses and adjudicated under Texas’ blended sentencing law, as well as transferred from juvenile detention to adult prison to serve the adult portion of their blended sentences. Of this subsample, 96 percent were male, 48 percent were Black, 37 percent were Hispanic, and 16 percent were white. 

Offense Types. As with information on demographic characteristics, data on the type of offenses committed that resulted in individuals being held in local jails are not broken down by age. 

Among youths younger than 18 who were newly admitted to state prisons in 2009 (the most recent year for which data are available), 71 percent had committed a violent offense, including 7 percent who had committed a homicide and 39 percent who had committed a robbery offense; 19 percent had committed a property offense; nearly 3 percent had committed a drug offense; and 7 percent had committed a public order offense, including 5 percent who committed a weapons offense (Bonczar et al., 2011).

Policy Responses to Crime Committed by Youth 

Illinois’ Juvenile Court Act of 1899 established the nation’s first juvenile court (Dempsey, 2020). The court’s goal was to rehabilitate youths rather than punish them. The court was intended to be a place where youths would receive individualized attention and protective supervision. By 1925, all but two states had established some form of juvenile justice services, and by 1945 all states had juvenile courts (Ferdinand, 1991). Juvenile justice practices were primarily a function of state and local jurisdictions. Juvenile court judges traditionally held the power to waive certain juveniles from the juvenile system to the adult system. The decision to transfer often was based solely on the judge’s view of whether a particular juvenile was beyond “rehabilitative repair” or capable of being rehabilitated within the juvenile justice system (Myers, 2003; Tanenhaus, 2000:29; Thomas, 2016; Steiner, 2009:81; Zane, 2017). 

In 1974, Congress enacted the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act. The legislative objective was to limit the placement of youth in adult facilities (Snyder and Sickmund, 2006; Puzzanchera, Hockenberry, and Sickmund, 2022), although “a juvenile who has been transferred, waived, or direct-filed or is otherwise under the jurisdiction of a criminal court does not have to be separated from adult criminal offenders pursuant to the separation requirements of the JJDP Act” (McCarter and Bridges, 2011:171). 

During the 1980s and 1990s, rising crime rates coincided with increased media attention on crime committed by youth, fueling fears of “juvenile superpredators” (DiIulio, 1996). The superpredator theory posited that a small but significant and increasing population of impulsive (often urban) youths were willing to commit violent crimes without remorse (Boghani, 2017). Policymakers in most states responded by advocating for tougher sentences for youth (Benekos and Merlo, 2019). These policies reflected growing support for more serious sentencing options for youths who committed violent offenses and less public tolerance for leniency and treatment-oriented programs for youths who engaged in delinquency, based on the idea that increasing the perceived severity of punishment—consistent with deterrence theory—would reduce youth engagement in crime (Augustyn and McGloin, 2018; Zane, 2017; Circo and Scranton, 2020). (See the section on the Consequences of Juvenile Transfers to Adult Court  for more information on deterrence theory). The resulting punitive policies included changes to juvenile waiver and transfer laws (Augustyn and McGloin, 2018). These reforms lowered the minimum age for transfer, increased the number of transfer-eligible offenses, and revised and expanded mechanisms of transfer (Fagan and Zimring, 2000; Redding, 2003; Redding and Mrozoski, 2005). Traditional discretionary waiver decisions by juvenile court judges were augmented with, or replaced almost entirely by, broad statutory exclusion and prosecutorial waiver laws that barred juveniles from the potential benefits of juvenile court (Kurlychek, 2016; Dempsey, 2020). 

Between 1992 and 1997, new laws in 45 states made it easier to transfer juveniles who offended from the juvenile to the criminal justice system; laws in 31 states gave criminal and juvenile courts expanded sentencing options; laws in 47 states modified or removed traditional juvenile court confidentiality provisions by making records and proceedings more open; laws in 22 states increased the role of victims of juvenile crime in the juvenile justice process; and, as a result of new transfer and sentencing laws, juvenile correctional administrators developed more punitive programs such as boot camps for youths who offended and “scared straight” programs for at-risk youth (Lawrence and Hemmens, 2008; Snyder and Sickmund, 2006:96–97). 

The Role of the Supreme Court in Juvenile Justice

In the 1960s, the federal government expanded its role, which previously had been nonexistent, in juvenile justice matters (Lawrence and Hemmens, 2008). The present era of juvenile justice is marked by several Supreme Court decisions ( Roper v. Simmon s, 2005; Graham v. Florida,  2010; Miller v. Alabama,  2012) that increased protection for youths who offend. In Kent v. United States (1966) the Supreme Court suggested specific factors that courts should consider when deciding which juveniles warranted waiver to adult court—for example, the nature of the alleged offenses, the juvenile’s maturity, and his or her potential for rehabilitation (Murrie et al., 2009). Further, in the Kent decision, the court determined that youths are entitled to the same level of due process while under the juvenile court’s jurisdiction as adults, and that proper investigation is necessary before a juvenile is waived out of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction. Sixteen years later, the Supreme Court in Eddings v. Oklahoma (1982) argued that an individual’s age and mental and emotional development should have been considered, in their decision to reverse the death sentence of a 16-year-old who was tried and convicted in criminal court. Roper v. Simmons (2005) raised the issue of culpability and prohibited the death penalty for youths younger than 18 (Benekos and Merlo, 2019; Cauffman et al., 2018; Puzzanchera, Hockenberry, and Sickmund, 2022). In Graham v. Florida (2010), a 16-year-old was tried as an adult after committing armed burglary and attempted armed robbery, among other offenses. He was sentenced to concurrent 3-year terms of probation but was later sentenced to imprisonment without parole for the original burglary after he violated the terms of his probation (Graham v. Florida, 2010). The Supreme Court ruled that the Eight Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishments clause does not permit a person under the age of 18 who has offended to be sentenced to life in prison without parole for a crime other than homicide (Casey et al., 2020; Graham v. Florida, 2010). Moreover, the Miller v. Alabama (2012) decision, which involved a 14-year-old juvenile transferred to criminal court in Alabama, deemed mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole unconstitutional for youths under the age of 18 convicted of homicide (Benekos and Merlo, 2019; Puzzanchera, Hockenberry, and Sickmund, 2022). 

Many of the decisions reached by the Supreme Court were based on research about adolescent development and the acknowledgment that youths should not be processed in the same system or manner as adults because they are different from adults (Cauffman et al., 2018; Casey et al., 2020; McCarter and Bridges, 2011). This research has found that adolescents are still developing neurologically and psychosocially, and that compared with adults they have lower impulse control, are more susceptible to peer influence, and are less likely to consider their actions in context (Steinberg, 2009; National Research Council, 2013; Cohen et al., 2016; Monahan, Steinberg, and Piquero, 2015; Cavanaugh, 2022). (For more information, see the Model Programs Guide literature review, Age Boundaries of the Juvenile Justice System .)

Overview of State-Level Reforms

Issues associated with youth in the adult justice system have captured the attention of researchers and policymakers, although states have not made a great deal of effort to reform juvenile transfer laws (Butts and Mitchell, 2000; Zane, Welsh, and Mears, 2016). However, some attempts have been made to change the minimum and maximum age of juvenile court jurisdiction. The age of juvenile court jurisdiction may be responsible for the majority of youths who appear in criminal court (Butts and Mitchell, 2000). Unlike juvenile transfer laws, the age of jurisdiction affects all offending youths above the state’s age cutoff for juvenile court jurisdiction (for example, if the maximum age of juvenile court jurisdiction in a state is 16, then 17-year-olds are automatically sent to adult court, regardless of other factors), while transfer laws usually affect youths who commit certain types of crimes, although no known data are currently available to compare the two populations (Butts and Mitchell, 2000; Cox et al., 2021; Puzzanchera et al., 2018). Conflicts over juvenile transfer and the upper age limit represent differences in thought regarding the culpability and reformability of youths who have offended. Research on adolescent development (discussed under The Role of the Supreme Court in Juvenile Justice ) has been a driving force behind more recent state-level reforms to increase the minimum age at which youth must be processed in the adult court (Cauffman et al., 2018; Cohen et al., 2016). (See the Model Programs Guide literature review, Age Boundaries of the Juvenile Justice System , for more information on minimum and maximum ages of jurisdiction.) 

One approach that some states have taken to increase the maximum age of juvenile court jurisdiction (thus ensuring that youths stay in juvenile court) is the passage of raise-the-age legislation. For example, in 2010, Illinois raised the maximum age from 17 to 18 for misdemeanor offenses (before this, 17-year-olds were prosecuted for misdemeanors in the adult system). Further, in 2015, the state legislature of Illinois passed a bill (HB 37180, 2015) that eliminated automatic transfers to adult court for 15-year-olds and limits the transfer of juveniles ages 16 and 17 to only those who have committed the most serious crimes. 

Other states have also focused on raising the maximum age of juvenile court jurisdiction. For example, Connecticut passed a law in 2007 to raise the maximum age from 16 to 18, thus expanding juvenile jurisdiction to include 16- and 17-year-olds (Loeffler and Chalfin, 2017; Circo and Scranton, 2020). In an effort to give the state time to plan, the law went into effect on January 1, 2010, for 16-year-olds, and on July 1, 2012, for 17-year-olds (Loeffler and Chalfin, 2017). 

The governor of Louisiana signed the state’s Raise the Age Act into law in 2016, joining 41 other states in including 17-year-olds in juvenile court jurisdiction; however, the law still permits prosecutors to charge them as adults when deemed necessary (Raise the Age Act 501, 2016). In 2018 the Missouri General Assembly raised the juvenile court’s upper age of jurisdiction from 17 to 18 (HCS SB 793, 2018). As of 2021, three states (Michigan, New York, and Vermont) have raised the maximum age of juvenile court jurisdiction to 18, meaning that young adults can remain under the purview of juvenile courts until they turn 19. (See the section on the Outcome Evidence  for information on evaluation studies examining the effectiveness of raise-the-age legislation). 

Additionally, 28 states (as of 2019) have passed “reverse waiver” laws that permit criminal courts to send juveniles who have been transferred to criminal court back to juvenile court for trial or disposition. Also referred to as “decertification” (Jordan and Myers, 2007), this type of law is considered a “mitigating provision” and allows for more individualized consideration of which juveniles should remain in the juvenile court system (Puzzanchera, Hockenberry, and Sickmund, 2022; SBB, 2022c).

Disparities in Juvenile Transfer Decisions and Sentencing Outcomes

Disparities in juvenile transfer to adult court.

The decision to transfer a juvenile to the criminal court system is based on a variety of factors, including amenability to treatment, history with the juvenile justice system, and threat to public safety if released back into the community (Feld, 1981; Podkopacz and Feld, 1996). However, research suggests that these factors may not be the only aspects that court actors (prosecutors, judges) consider when making transfer decisions (Bishop and Frazier, 1996). Research has found that older adolescents, racial/ethnic minorities, and males are more likely than younger adolescents, white juveniles, and females to be waived (Bryson and Peck, 2020; Lehmann, Chiricos, and Bales 2017; Lehmann, 2018; Hockenberry, 2021). 

Bryson and Peck (2020) examined both the individual and combined impact of a youth’s race and gender on judicial waiver decisions, using a sample of transfer-eligible juveniles ( n = 56,541) in a northeastern state. All models in the analyses included control variables such as crime severity and prior referrals. The results showed that Black males had the highest likelihood of being judicially waived, followed by white males, and then Black females. White females were most likely to be retained in juvenile court, and older juveniles were more likely to be judicially waived (Bryson and Peck, 2020). Other state-level research has found similar results. While Black males make up 27 percent of all juveniles who enter the juvenile justice system in Florida, they constitute more than half of the juveniles sent to adult courts (Dempsey, 2020; Morales, 2014). Specifically, during 2021–22, Black juveniles constituted 66 percent of all arrested youths transferred to adult court in Florida, while white juveniles constituted 21 percent and Hispanic juveniles constituted 12 percent (Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, 2022). Further, national data from OJJDP’s National Juvenile Court Data Archive showed that, in 2020, offenses-against-person cases involving juvenile males were nearly eight times as likely to be judicially waived to criminal court as cases involving juvenile females (Sickmund, Sladky, and Kang 2022). Additionally, the data showed that males accounted for 93 percent of all cases waived from juvenile to criminal court, although they accounted for 73 percent of all delinquency cases formally handled by U.S. courts with juvenile jurisdiction. Further, 53 percent of all cases waived from juvenile to criminal court involved Black juveniles (Sickmund, Sladky, and Kang 2022). 

Disparities in Sentencing Outcomes

Disparities exist not only in decisions to transfer a juvenile to the criminal court system, but also in the severity of their sentences once they are transferred. Using a sample ( n = 30,913) of youths ages 17 and younger sentenced in Florida, Lehmann, Chiricos, and Bales (2017) examined whether Black and Hispanic transferred youths were more likely than white transferred youths to be sentenced to prison or jail rather than community supervision, and if they were sentenced to prison or jail, whether Black and Hispanic transferred youths received longer sentences than white transferred youths. Additional analyses also looked at the influence of other factors, such as age, sex, and offense types. The results indicated that Black and Hispanic juveniles who were transferred to criminal court were significantly more likely than white juveniles transferred to criminal court to receive a sentence to jail; Black juveniles had greater odds than white juveniles of receiving a prison sentence; and Black juveniles were given longer prison sentences than white juveniles. Interaction analyses suggested that Black males were sentenced more harshly regardless of age, and the effects of race and ethnicity were influenced by offense type (that is, violent, sex, or drug offenses) [Lehmann, Chiricos, and Bales, 2017]. For example, when looking at sentences to jail compared with sentences to supervision, Black juveniles were more likely than white juveniles to receive a sentence to jail for all offense types, and Hispanic juveniles were more likely than white juveniles to receive a sentence to jail for sex and property offenses. 

In addition to gender and racial and ethnic disparities, evidence suggests that contextual factors (such as the racial/ethnic composition of a community) play an important role in sentencing outcomes of transferred juveniles. Using data on individuals who committed felony offenses and who were sentenced in Florida circuit courts between 1995 and 2006, Lehmann (2019) examined whether certain factors such as juvenile status (i.e., juveniles waived to adult court compared with adults) was associated with a sentence to jail or prison (rather than a sentence to community supervision) as well as with sentence length (if the individual was sentenced to jail or prison). Additional analyses also looked at the impact of race/ethnicity, gender, and the county-level racial/ethnic population composition. The study controlled for a variety of individual- and contextual-level variables including offense type, prior prison commitment, economic disadvantage, and index crime rate. Lehmann (2019) found that transferred juveniles were more likely to receive a prison sentence and receive longer jail sentences, compared with adults, if the juveniles came from counties with a greater minority presence—and especially if minority population growth was observed. For example, for adults in the sample, an increase of 1 percent in the county-level Hispanic population is associated with a 3 percent decrease in the odds of being sentenced to jail, compared with juveniles transferred to adult court (suggesting that juvenile transfers are disadvantaged in sentencing when looking at the percentage of the county population that is Hispanic). Moreover, these effects of the county-level racial/ethnic context were found to be stronger for Black and Hispanic juveniles who offended than for white juveniles who offended (Lehmann, 2019). 

Consequences of Juvenile Transfers to Adult Court

Despite the decline of juvenile transfers in recent years, juveniles are still processed through the adult criminal justice system, held in adult jails, and incarcerated in adult prisons. Transferring juveniles to adult courts can lead to serious negative consequences for them and for society at large (Casey et al., 2020; Augustyn and Loughran, 2017; Lehmann et al., 2018; Zane et al., 2016). 

According to Williams (2020), adult correctional facilities are not designed for youths and can be extremely detrimental to their development, especially for youths who have been seriously affected by adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), resulting in trauma. ACEs are 10 childhood experiences researchers have identified as risk factors for the occurrence of chronic disease in adulthood and risk factors that increase the likelihood of youth delinquency, violence, and juvenile justice system contact (Williams 2020; Evans–Chase 2014; Petruccelli, Davis, and Berman, 2019; Graf et al., 2021). For example, Trulson and colleagues (2022) found that juveniles with a history of trauma (in this context, if the youth had experienced either physical abuse, neglect, emotional abuse, or sexual abuse) had higher rates of violent misconduct in the adult system. Further, youths held in adult facilities do not have as much access to rehabilitation programs and other services, such as mental health, that are generally more available in institutions for juveniles (Farrington, Loeber, and Howell, 2017; McCarter and Bridges, 2011). Research also shows that programming and services in adult prisons do not address the developmental needs of youth (Kolivoski and Shook, 2016).

Justice-Related Consequences

Court actors, such as judges, may perceive juveniles who are transferred to criminal court as “high risk and beyond rehabilitative repair,” in contrast to their young adult counterparts in criminal court (Steiner, 2009:81; Zane, 2017). According to Williams (2020), juveniles who are tried in adult courts are at risk of being treated as adults and of receiving longer and harsher sentences, compared with juveniles tried in juvenile courts for the same offense (Cauffman et al., 2018; Kupchik, Fagan, and Liberman, 2003). Lehmann and colleagues (2018) found that transferred juveniles in Florida were less likely than adults to be incarcerated but are given longer sentences. Under Florida’s Criminal Punishment Code, judges can assign juveniles “split sentences,” which consist of a mitigated sentence to state prison followed by a community supervision term upon release (Bales et al., 2010; Lehmann, 2022). Lehmann (2022) found evidence of a “youth discount,” meaning that juveniles are more likely than adults to receive split sentences. However, the pattern of giving transferred juveniles split sentences is observed even when the guidelines do not recommend a prison sentence—that is, even when a split sentence represents an upward dispositional departure (or harsher penalty). 

Deterrence is the primary theory underlying policies to prosecute and incarcerate youth in the adult system (Redding, 2010; McGowan et al., 2007; Zane, Walsh, and Mears, 2016; Circo and Scranton, 2020). The theory posits that youths will be deterred from committing crimes because they perceive the adult justice system as more severe and punitive than the juvenile system (McGowan et al., 2007; Redding, 2010; McCarter and Bridges, 2011). The theory addresses two types of deterrence: specific and general. Specific deterrence refers to the idea that prosecuting juveniles who have offended in the adult system will lead to reductions in their future offending. General deterrence posits that trying and sentencing youth in the adult system will deter the general population of youths who may commit an offense from doing so (Redding, 2010; McGowan et al., 2007).

Studies conducted over the last 40 years have examined transfer laws and other mechanisms for prosecuting juveniles in the adult criminal justice system and subsequently incarcerating them in adult facilities, and have found mixed results regarding their deterrent effect on youth crime (McGowan et al., 2007; Augustyn and McGloin, 2018; Circo and Scranton, 2020). Some research has found that transferring juveniles to the adult system has no statistically significant effect on their recidivism (Zane, Welsh, and Mears, 2016), while other research has found evidence for both higher rearrest rates and lower reoffending rates in transferred juveniles (McGowan et al., 2007). For example, Redding (2010) reviewed studies investigating the general and specific deterrent effects of transferring juveniles to adult criminal court. Overall, the author found inconsistent and mixed results. Across six published studies examining the specific deterrent effects of laws allowing transfer from juvenile to criminal court, findings suggested that juveniles tried in adult criminal court generally had higher recidivism rates, compared with juveniles adjudicated in juvenile court. However, one study found that juveniles prosecuted in criminal court had a lower likelihood of rearrest for drug offenses, compared with juveniles adjudicated in juvenile court. The research on general deterrence was more mixed, with five of the six reviewed studies finding no evidence that state transfer laws reduce youth engagement in crime. One study found decreases in youth crime (as measured by arrest rates for violent crime) as youths reached the age of criminal responsibility, but only in states where the juvenile and criminal justice systems differed in severity of punishment (or punitiveness, defined as the ratio of the number of incarcerated individuals to the number of total individuals who had committed an offense in each state system for different age groups).

Further, Zimring and Rushin (2013) examined the deterrent effect of state legislation that resulted in more punitive responses toward youths who commit crimes. They compared the change in the juvenile homicide rate over time (1980–2009) with the change in the homicide rate over time for young adults (18–24 years old) who were unaffected by legislation that increased the punitiveness of the juvenile justice system (for example, that expanded juvenile eligibility for adult court, expanded sentencing authority in juvenile court, or removed some confidentiality protections from juvenile proceedings). They found that the changes in juvenile homicide rates were statistically significantly similar to the changes in young adult homicide rates, despite legislation in most states in the 1990s targeting juveniles who had offended. In other words, there was no unique decline in the juvenile homicide rate after the passage of punitive juvenile justice system legislation, compared with the young adult homicide rate. Overall, there was little evidence that punitive legislation deterred youth from offending (Zimring and Rushin, 2013).

McGowan and colleagues (2007) conducted a systematic review of general and specific deterrence studies examining violent crime rates of juveniles transferred to the jurisdiction of the adult criminal justice system. Across the six studies that examined specific deterrence (juveniles transferred to the adult justice system, compared with juveniles retained in the juvenile system), which had follow-up periods ranging from 18 months to 6 years, only one found evidence that transferring juveniles to the adult system deterred either violent or other reoffending; one found no effects; and four found that transferred juveniles committed more subsequent violent and total crime than those retained in the juvenile system. Overall, transferred juveniles were roughly 33.7 percent more likely to be rearrested for a violent or other crime than were juveniles retained in the juvenile justice system. McGowan and colleagues (2007) also found mixed evidence regarding general deterrence across three studies that evaluated the effects of changes to a state’s transfer laws on the incidence of violent offenses among the general population of youths under age 18. One study reported no effects, one reported mixed effects, and one reported a counter deterrent effect. Augustyn and McGloin (2018) also examined recidivism by tracking the monthly arrest rate from age 19 onward in a subset of juveniles from the Pathways to Desistance study who were waived to criminal court and incapacitated in an adult facility (“waived and incapacitated”) for at least 3 days in any given month before age 18. The authors found that individuals who were waived and incapacitated in an adult facility had slightly higher recidivism rates (more arrests), compared with individuals who were retained by the juvenile justice system and detained in a juvenile facility. However, the results were not statistically significant (Augustyn and McGloin, 2018).

Although the evidence is mixed, research overall indicates that many juveniles who are transferred to adult criminal court and incarcerated in adult facilities have continued justice system involvement into their adult years (McGowan et al., 2007; Augustyn and McGloin, 2018).

Institutional Misconduct

Youths and young adults in adult prisons tend to be involved in institutional misconduct at higher rates than older individuals in prison (Park and Sullivan, 2021; Trulson et al., 2022). This tendency may be explained by the fact that they are developmentally different from adults, and they react differently to prison environments as a result (Kolivoski and Shook, 2016). Trulson and colleagues (2022) examined violent assaultive misconduct in a sample of juveniles who had committed serious and violent offenses and were sentenced under Texas’ blended sentencing law (that is, juveniles who started their sentences in a juvenile facility and were then transferred to an adult facility to serve that portion of their blended sentence). They found that juveniles who were immediately transferred from a state juvenile facility to adult prison exhibited a statistically significant higher rate of misconduct during their first stay in an adult prison, compared with “delayed arrival” juveniles (i.e., those who were released from juvenile confinement to the community, but ended up in adult prison because of a technical violation or a new offense). Juveniles who had the highest rates of violent misconduct in juvenile facilities also were more likely to engage in violent misconduct in adult facilities (Trulson et al., 2022). Park and Sullivan (2021) also examined behavior problems within correctional settings and found that juveniles in an adult prison had statistically significant higher rates of general involvement in institutional misconduct, compared with juveniles in a juvenile facility. Additionally, in a sample of individuals ages 17 and younger at time of admission to an adult correctional facility in Florida, Kuanliang, Sorensen, and Cunningham (2008) found that for each type of misconduct examined (fighting, rioting, robbery, weapon possession, threatening an officer, and assault with or without a weapon), both the prevalence and frequency among youth inmates was higher than that of comparable inmates who were at least 18 at time of admission. Finally, Kolivoski and Shook (2016) examined the relationship between age and prison misconduct in a sample of Michigan juveniles in an adult facility and found that the younger the individual was at the time of commitment, the more misconducts they accumulated.

Mental and Physical Health Consequences

Studies have found that incarceration in adult facilities can make a negative impact on mental health and access to needed mental health services for youths younger than 18. Mental health services usually are more accessible in juvenile facilities than in adult facilities (McCarter and Bridges, 2011). Ng and colleagues (2011) examined depression as a result of incarceration in adult prisons in Michigan and found that youths placed in adult incarceration had a higher likelihood of depression, compared with all the other groups (including comparable juveniles incarcerated in juvenile facilities), after controlling for the other factors that might predicate depression. Research has also found that youths incarcerated in adult facilities have higher scores (indicating greater distress or treatment needs) on various subscales of the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument–Version 2—including alcohol/drug use, angry-irritable, depressed-anxious, somatic complaints, suicide ideation, and thought disturbance—compared with juveniles detained in juvenile facilities (Murrie et al., 2009). Further, mental health issues can negatively affect correctional outcomes; Kolivoski and Shook (2016) found that youths with a known mental health issue accumulated 35 percent more total misconducts in a Michigan adult prison, compared with youths without known mental health issues.

Research also found that incarceration in adult facilities is associated with serious detrimental impacts on physical health, including early mortality. Silver, Semenza, and Nedelec (2023) examined the effect of incarcerating youth in adult correctional facilities. They found that roughly 8 percent of youths incarcerated in adult correctional facilities were likely to die by age 39, while only 5 percent of youths arrested before age 18 and just over 2 percent of youths without any legal system contact before age 18 were likely to die by age 39. These findings suggest that contact with the legal system as a youth, especially incarceration in adult facilities, was associated with an increased risk of death before age 40. Additionally, Aalsma and colleagues (2016) investigated how early mortality varied in a sample of youth based on race, gender, and the severity of justice system involvement. More specifically, they examined the criminal and death records of 49,479 youths (ages 10–18 at first arrest) who had committed an offense and were involved in the juvenile or adult justice systems in Marion County, IN, from 1999 to 2011. They found that of the 518 youths within the sample who died during the studied timeframe, the majority were Black (56 percent) and male (83.8 percent). The most common age of death was between 19 and 21 years (29.3 percent). Youths transferred to adult court (meaning they were excluded from processing in the juvenile justice system and tried in adult court because of the seriousness of their alleged offenses) were more likely to die, compared with detained juveniles (who were held in juvenile detention centers for an average of 2 weeks, most often pre-adjudication or pre-disposition). Overall, their findings suggested that the severity of criminal justice involvement is a strong indicator of early mortality among youths who have offended.

Outcome Evidence

Juvenile transfer to adult court is a well-known crime-control response in juvenile justice. But rigorous program evaluations, such as randomized controlled trials, of this state legislative action is limited. The following programs and practice, which are featured in the Model Programs Guide, provide a brief overview of how juvenile transfer has been implemented and evaluated in the United States.

Before the mid-1990s, Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Act (Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission, 1992: Section 6355) allowed judges to waive juveniles to adult court based on their perceptions of treatment amenability within the juvenile system. In response to increasing youth violence in Pennsylvania during the mid-1990s, state legislators modified their juvenile code. Revisions to the Commonwealth’s Juvenile Act excluded from juvenile courts any juveniles between the ages of 15 and 18 who were charged with murder or a violent offense (rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, aggravated assault, robbery, robbery of a motor vehicle, aggravated indecent assault, kidnapping, voluntary manslaughter, or an attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit any of these offenses) and used a deadly weapon during the offense. Additionally, the Act excluded any juveniles who had been previously adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court for any of the aforementioned offenses, except aggravated assault. However, the revised code allows for all excluded cases to be transferred back to juvenile court if the youth being charged establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a reverse waiver will serve the public interest. The impact of transferring juveniles charged with violent offenses to adult courts in Pennsylvania was evaluated, with inconsistent results. Although the findings of a study by Myers (2003) suggested that transferring juveniles to adult courts could statistically significantly increase their likelihood of recidivating, the results from a later study by Jordan (2012) suggested that juveniles transferred to adult courts had lower recidivism rates compared with those processed in juvenile courts (a statistically significant difference).

Zane, Welsh, and Mears (2016) conducted a meta-analysis that aggregated the results from nine studies (including those discussed above by Myers [2003] and Jordan [2012]) assessing the specific deterrent effect of  juvenile transfer to adult court . All studies took place in the United States, with two samples based in New York and New Jersey, two in Florida, and two in Pennsylvania. The sample size of the treatment group (transferred juveniles or juveniles prosecuted in adult court) was 6,150, and the sample size of the comparison group (juveniles who were adjudicated in juvenile court) was 6,175. The ages of juveniles included in the studies ranged from 14 to 17. Five of the nine studies in the meta-analysis reported an increase in recidivism for juveniles transferred to adult court, compared with juveniles who were not transferred; however, the aggregate effect across studies was small and not statistically significant.

Several studies have examined the impact of states’ efforts to increase the age of juvenile court jurisdiction. For example, Loeffler and Grunwald (2015) examined the impact on juvenile recidivism after Illinois raised the age of majority from 17 to 18 for misdemeanor offenses. The change in the age of majority had no statistically significant effect on recidivism when juveniles were processed by the juvenile courts. The finding suggested that, although changing the age of majority in Illinois did not reduce juveniles’ risk of recidivism, it also did not increase their likelihood of recidivism and threat to public safety. In addition, three studies have examined the impact of the raise-the-age legislation in Connecticut, with mixed results. For example, Loeffler and Chalfin (2017) examined the impact of the legislation and found no statistically significant effect of raising the age on measures of crime and juvenile delinquency. Circo and Scranton (2020) also examined the effect of Connecticut’s legislation, specifically looking at the impact on motor vehicle thefts (a crime committed predominately by juveniles). Their analysis found no statistically significant effect on rates of motor vehicle theft after the age of jurisdiction was changed. Conversely, Robinson and Kurlychek (2019) examined the effect of the legislation and found that 2-year recidivism rates of the 17-year-olds who remained in juvenile court after the policy change were slightly greater than the recidivism rate of the 17-year-olds who were processed in adult court before the policy change.

Gaps in the Research

Several gaps exist in the research on juveniles transferred to the adult court system. For instance, owing to data collection limitations, the number of juveniles processed through criminal court nationally is unknown (Puzzanchera, Sickmund, and Sladky, 2018; Puzzanchera, Sickmund, and Hurst, 2021). The National Juvenile Court Data Archive collects juvenile court data on judicial waivers; however, there are no national data currently available on juveniles transferred to criminal courts through statutory exclusions and prosecutorial discretion. With 11 exceptions (Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Washington), states do not publish counts of juveniles transferred by these mechanisms (Puzzanchera, Sickmund, and Hurst, 2021). The most recent national estimate of the number of juvenile transfers was reported in 2019 and was extrapolated from a) the data on juvenile waivers, b) the 11 states that report counts of juveniles transferred by statutory exclusion and prosecutorial direct file, and c) juvenile court case records (Puzzanchera, Sickmund, and Hurst, 2021). Additional research on the different transfer mechanisms—especially those that lack clear and specific guidelines, such as direct file—could produce important findings, including more nuanced information on the disproportionate use of transfer mechanisms for certain juveniles (Thomas, 2016). 

Moreover, numerous federal sources track characteristics of individuals in adult correctional facilities, by most serious offense types and by race/ethnicity, but these data are not disaggregated by age. Although detailed information exists about youth in juvenile residential placement (Puzzanchera, Hockenberry, and Sickmund, 2022) and previous reporting provided characteristics and offense information about youth in adult prisons (Bonczar et al. 2011; West, 2010; Sickmund and Puzzanchera, 2014), demographic and offense information disaggregated by age is currently not reported at the federal level.

In addition, few studies published since 2015 address the risk and protective factors associated with transfer to adult court. Further, most research in this area concentrates on disparities in terms of demographic characteristics such as gender and race/ethnicity, with limited research focusing on geographic and contextual risk factors (Bryson and Peck, 2020; Lehmann, Chiricos, and Bales, 2017; Lehmann, 2018; Lehmann, 2019; Hockenberry, 2021).

Research has been conducted on the deterrent effect of incarcerating youth in the adult system, but the results are mixed. Youths’ experiences in adult facilities may actually have an adverse effect, in that greater exposure to adults who have offended may normalize criminal behavior (Redding, 2010; Kuanliang, Sorensen, and Cunningham, 2008; Augustyn and McGloin, 2018). Further, for the transfer of juveniles to the adult system to be an effective deterrent to crime, youths need to be aware of these more punitive laws and policies that will prosecute them in criminal court (Redding, 2010). Recent research examining youths’ knowledge of such laws is limited.

Finally, research and reporting exist on youths’ offending and their involvement in the juvenile and criminal justice systems. However, the financial costs of transferring juveniles to the adult criminal system, compared with retaining them in the juvenile system, have not been extensively researched (McGowan et al., 2007).

Historically, increases in youth crime have led to policies that caused more youths younger than 18 to enter the adult criminal justice system. Recent declines in youth arrest rates for violent crimes (Puzzanchera, Hockenberry, and Sickmund, 2022), combined with increased research on adolescent development and research highlighting the negative effects of incarcerating youth in adult facilities (including the stigma of a public criminal record [Augustyn and McGloin, 2018]) have inspired state-level reform efforts (Cauffman et al., 2018; Benekos and Merlo, 2019; Casey et al., 2020) that have decreased the number of juveniles transferred to adult court (Zeng, Carson, and Kluckow, 2023). 

Overall, research indicates that adolescent brain development and maturation continue well into young adulthood, with no defined age determining the full maturation of neurological and psychological capacities (Casey et al., 2020; Casey et al., 2022). This research has attributed youths’ problem behaviors, such as delinquency and criminal activity, to their developmental immaturity (Monahan, Steinberg, and Piquero, 2015). While state-level mechanisms remain in place to impose adult sanctions on youth in certain circumstances, the aforementioned reform efforts and mitigating provisions (such as reverse waiver and blended sentencing [Puzzanchera, Hockenberry, and Sickmund, 2022; SBB, 2022c]) support two important goals of the juvenile justice system: rehabilitation and individualized justice (OJJDP, n.d.). 

Aalsma,   M.C., Lau, S.L., Perkins, A.J., Schwartz, K., Tu, W., Wiehe, S.E., Monahan, P., and Rosenman, M.B. 2016. Mortality of youth offenders along a continuum of justice system involvement.  American Journal of Preventive Medicine  50(3):303–310.

Augustyn, M.B., and Loughran, T.A. 2017. Juvenile waiver as a mechanism of social stratification: A focus on human capital. Criminology 0(0):1–33.

Augustyn, M.B., and McGloin, J.M. 2018. Revisiting juvenile waiver: Integrating the incapacitation experience.  Criminology  56(1):154–190.

Baglivio, M.T., Epps, N., Swartz, K., Sayedul Huq, M., Sheer, A., and Hardt, N.T. 2014. The prevalence of adverse childhood experiences (ACE) in the lives of juvenile offenders. OJJDP Journal of Juvenile Justice 3(2):1–14.

Bales, W.D., Gaes, G.G., Blomberg, T.G., and Pate, K.N. 2010. An assessment of the development and outcomes of determinate sentencing in Florida. Justice Research and Policy 12(1):42–70. 

Benekos, P.J., and Merlo, A.V. 2019. A decade of change: Roper v. Simmons, defending childhood, and juvenile justice policy.  Criminal Justice Policy Review  30(1):102–127.

Bishop, D.M., and Frazier, C.E. 1996. Race effects in juvenile justice decisionmaking: Findings of a statewide analysis.  Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 86:392–414.

Boghani, P. 2017. They were sentenced as “Superpredators.” Who were they really?  Frontline .  Boston, MA: PBS.  https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/they-were-sentenced-as-superpredators-who-were-they-really/

Bonczar, T.P., Hughes, T.A., James, D.J., and Ditton, P.M. 2011. National Corrections Reporting Program: Most Serious Offense of State Prisoners, by Offense, Admission Type, Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin . Washington DC: DOJ, OJP, BJS.  https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/national-corrections-reporting-program-most-serious-offense-state-prisoners

Bryson, S.L., and Peck, J.H. 2020. Understanding the subgroup complexities of transfer: The impact of juvenile race and gender on waiver decisions.  Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 18(2):135–155.

Butts, J.A., and Mitchell, O. 2000. Brick by brick: Dismantling the border between juvenile and adult justice.  Criminal Justice  2:167–213.

Carson, A.E. 2020. Prisoners in 2019 . Washington, DC: DOJ,OJP, BJS.

Carson, A.E. 2022. Prisoners in 2021 . Washington, DC: DOJ,OJP, BJS.

Casey, B.J., Simmons, C., Somerville, L.H., and Baskin–Sommers, A. 2022. Making the sentencing case: Psychological and neuroscientific evidence for expanding the age of youthful offenders.  Annual Review of Criminology  5:321–343.

Casey, B.J., Taylor–Thompson, K., Rubien–Thomas, E., Robbins, M., and Baskin–Sommers, A. 2020. Healthy development as a human right: Insights from developmental neuroscience for youth justice.  Annual Review of Law and Social Science  16:203–222.

Cauffman, E., Fine, A., Mahler, A., and Simmons, C. 2018. How developmental science influences juvenile justice reform.  UC Irvine Law Review  8:21.

Cavanagh, C. 2022. Healthy adolescent development and the juvenile justice system: Challenges and solutions.  Child Development Perspectives  16(3):141–147.

Circo, G., and Scranton, A. 2020. Did Connecticut’s “Raise the Age” increase motor vehicle thefts?  Criminal Justice Policy Review  31(8):1217–1233.

Cohen, A.O., Bonnie, R.J., Taylor–Thompson, K., and Casey, B.J. 2016. When does a juvenile become an adult: Implications for law and policy.  Temple Law Review  88:769.

Cox, S.M., Allen, J.M., Hanser, R., and Conrad, J.J. 2021.  Juvenile Justice: A Guide to Theory, Policy, and Practice . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dempsey, A. 2020. Transfer law and today’s youth: Rehabilitating or creating lifetime criminals? A comparative analysis of juvenile transfer law in Kentucky, Florida, and New York.  University of Louisville Law Review  59:519.

DiIulio, J.J. 1996.  How to Stop the Coming Crime Wave . New York, NY: Manhattan Institute, Center for Civic Innovation.

Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 (U.S. 104). 1982.  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/455/104/  

Evans–Chase, M. 2014. Addressing trauma and psychosocial development in juvenile justice–involved youth: A synthesis of the developmental neuroscience, juvenile justice and trauma literature. Laws 3(4):744–758.

Fagan, J., and Zimring, F.E., eds. 2000.  The Changing Borders of Juvenile Justice: Transfer of Adolescents to the Criminal Court . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Farrington, D.P., Loeber, R., and Howell, J.C. 2017. Increasing the minimum age for adult court: Is it desirable, and what are the effects? Criminology and Public Policy 16(1):83–92.

Feld, B.C. 1981. A comparative analysis of organizational structure and inmate subcultures in institutions for juvenile offenders.  Crime & Delinquency   27 (3):336–363.

Feld, B.C. 1987. The juvenile court meets the principle of the offense: Legislative changes in juvenile waiver statutes.  Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology  78:471–533.

Ferdinand, T.N. 1991. History overtakes the juvenile justice system.  Crime & Delinquency  37(2):204–224.

Florida Department of Juvenile Justice. 2022.  Delinquency Profile Dashboard 2022. Tallahassee, FL.  https://www.djj.state.fl.us/research/reports-and-data/interactive-data-reports/delinquency-profile/delinquency-profile-dashboard  

Graf, G.H.J., Chihuri, S., Blow, M., and Li, G. 2021. Adverse childhood experiences and justice system contact: A systematic review. Pediatrics 147(1):e2020021030.

Graham v. Florida, 130 (S Ct 2011). 2010.

Graham v. Florida, 560 (U.S. 48). 2010.  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/560/48/  

HB 3718, 99th General Assembly (Illinois). 2015. https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=3718&GAID=13&DocTypeID=HB&SessionID=88&GA=99#actions HCS SB 793, 99th General Assembly (Missouri). 2018. https://www.senate.mo.gov/18info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=69675271#:~:text=This%20act%20raises%20the%20offense,14%20years%20of%20age%20or

Hockenberry, S. 2021. Delinquency Cases Waived to Criminal Court, 2018 . Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, OJJDP.  https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/delinquency-cases-waived-2018.pdf

Hockenberry, S., and Puzzanchera, C. 2023. Juvenile Court Statistics 2020 . Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Jordan, K.L. 2012. Juvenile transfer and recidivism: A propensity score matching approach.  Journal of Crime and Justice   35 (1):53–67.

Jordan, K.L., and Myers, D.L. 2007. The decertification of transferred youth: Examining the determinants of reverse waiver.  Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice   5 (2):188–206.

Kent v. United States, 383 (U.S. 541). 1966. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/383/541/  

Kolivoski, K.M., and Shook, J.J. 2016. Incarcerating juveniles in adult prisons: Examining the relationship between age and prison behavior in transferred juveniles.  Criminal Justice and Behavior  43(9):1242–1259.

Kuanliang, A., Sorensen, J.R., and Cunningham, M.D. 2008. Juvenile inmates in an adult prison system: Rates of disciplinary misconduct and violence. Criminal Justice and Behavior 35(9):1186–1201. 

Kupchik, A., Fagan, J., and Liberman, A.2003. Punishment, proportionality, and jurisdictional transfer of adolescent offenders: A test of the leniency gap hypothesis. Stanford Law & Policy Review 14(1):57–83. 

Kurlychek, M.C. 2016. Effectiveness of juvenile transfer to adult court: Implications from current research and directions for future study.  Criminology & Public Policy   15 :897.

Lawrence, R., and Hemmens, C. 2008. History and development of the juvenile court and justice process. In Juvenile justice: A Text/Reader.  Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/19434_Section_I.pdf , pp. 19–38.

Lehmann, P.S. 2018. Sentencing other people’s children: The intersection of race, gender, and juvenility in the adult criminal court.  Journal of Crime and Justice  41(5):553–572.

Lehmann, P.S. 2019.  Race, Ethnicity, Threat, and the Sentencing of Transferred Juveniles in Florida Criminal Courts.  Doctoral dissertation. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University.

Lehmann, P.S. 2022. Split sentencing and the “Youth Discount” in Florida criminal courts.  Crime & Delinquency 00111287221141967.

Lehmann, P.S., Chiricos, T., and Bales, W.D. 2017. Sentencing transferred juveniles in the adult criminal court: The direct and interactive effects of race and ethnicity.  Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice  15(2):172–190.

Lehmann, P.S., Chiricos, T., and Bales, W.D. 2018. Juveniles on trial: Mode of conviction and the adult court sentencing of transferred juveniles.  Crime & Delinquency   64 (5):563–586.

Loeffler, C.E., and Chalfin, A. 2017. Estimating the crime effects of raising the age of majority: Evidence from Connecticut.  Criminology & Public Policy   16 (1):45–71.

Loeffler, C.E., and Grunwald, B. 2015. Decriminalizing delinquency: The effect of raising the age of majority on juvenile recidivism.  Journal of Legal Studies   44 (2):361–388.

McCarter, S.A., and Bridges, J.B. 2011. Determining the age of jurisdiction for adolescents: The policy debate.  Journal of Policy Practice   10 (3):168–184.

McGown, A.K., Hahn, R.A., Liberman, A.M., Crosby, A.E., Fullilove, M.T., Johnson, R.,  Moscicki, E.K., Price, L., Snyder, S., Tuma, F., Lowy, J., Briss, P.A., Cory, S., and Stone, G. 2007. Effects on violence of laws and policies facilitating the transfer of juveniles from the juvenile justice system to the adult justice system: A systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 32(4S):S7–S28. 

Miller v. Alabama, 567 (U.S. 460). 2012.  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/567/460/  

Monahan, K., Steinberg, L., and Piquero, A.R. 2015. Juvenile justice policy and practice: A developmental perspective.  Crime and Justice  44(1):577–619.

Morales, A. 2014. Branded for Life Florida’s Prosecution of Children as Adults Under Its “Direct File” Statute. New York, NY: Human   Rights Watch.  https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0414_ForUpload%202.pdf       

Murrie, D.C., Henderson, C.E., Vincent, G.M., Rockett, J.L., and Mundt, C. 2009. Psychiatric symptoms among juveniles incarcerated in adult prison.  Psychiatric Services  60(8):1092–1097.

Myers, D.L. 2003. The recidivism of violent youths in juvenile and adult court: A consideration of selection bias.  Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice  1(1):79–101.

National Governors Association. 2021. Age Boundaries in Juvenile Justice Systems.  Washington, DC.  https://www.nga.org/publications/age-boundaries-in-juvenile-justice-systems/#:~:text=The Ceiling: Raising the Age Beyond 18&text=As of 2021, three states,courts until they turn 19

National Research Council. 2013.  Reforming Juvenile Justice: A Developmental Approach . Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Ng, I.Y.H., Shen, X., Sim, H., Sarri, R.C., Stoffregen, E., and Shook, J.J. 2011. Incarcerating juveniles in adult prisons as a factor in depression. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health 21(1):21–34. 

(OJJDP) Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. n.d. Juvenile Justice System Structure and Process . Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, OJJDP.  https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/overview.html

Park, I., and Sullivan, C.J. 2021. Youth in adult and juvenile correctional facilities: Comparison of services and behavioral management.  Criminal Justice Policy Review   32 (9):992–1017.

Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission. 1992.  The Juvenile Act. 42 PA C.S. Sec. 6301 et seq. Harrisburg, PA: Juvenile Court Judges Commission.

Petruccelli, K., Davis, J., and Berman, T. 2019. Adverse childhood experiences and associated health outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Child Abuse & Neglect 97:104–127.

Podkopacz, M.R., and Feld, B.C. 1996. The end of the line: An empirical study of judicial waiver. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology  86:449.

Puzzanchera, C., Hockenberry, S., and Sickmund, M. 2022. Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report.  Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.  https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/2022-national-report.pdf  

Puzzanchera, C., Sickmund, M., and Hurst, H. 2021. Youth Younger Than 18 Prosecuted in Criminal Court: National Estimate, 2019 Cases . Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Puzzanchera, C., Sickmund, M., and Sladky, A. 2018 . Youth Younger Than 18 Prosecuted in Criminal Court: National Estimate, 2015 Cases.  Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice. 

Raise the Age Act 501, SB 324, Regular Session (Louisiana). 2016. https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/BillInfo.aspx?i=229908

Redding, R.E. 2003. The effects of adjudicating and sentencing juveniles as adults: Research and policy implications. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 1(2):128–155. 

Redding, R.E. 2010. Juvenile Transfer Laws: An Effective Deterrent to Delinquency? Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, OJJDP. 

Redding, R.E., and Mrozoski, B. 2005. Adjudicatory and dispositional decisionmaking.  Juvenile Delinquency: Prevention, Assessment, and Intervention 232.

Robinson, K., and Kurlychek, M. 2019. Differences in justice, differences in outcomes: A DID approach to studying outcomes in juvenile and adult court processing.  Justice Evaluation Journal   2 (1):35–49.

Rock, D. 2019. Florida legislature must stop letting prosecutors charge children as adults. Juvenile Justice Information Exchange .  https://perma.cc/8BQR-LT32

Roper v. Simmons, 543 (U.S. 551). 2005.  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/543/551/

(SBB) Statistical Briefing Book. 2021. Jurisdictional Boundaries . Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, OJJDP .  Released on May 21, 2021.  https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/qa04101.asp  

(SBB) Statistical Briefing Book. 2022a. Juvenile Court Blended Sentencing Offense and Minimum Age Criteria, 2019.  Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, OJJDP .  Released on April 18, 2022 . https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/statistical-briefing-book/structure_process/faqs/qa04113  

(SBB) Statistical Briefing Book. 2022b. Juveniles Tried as Adults.  Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, OJJDP .  Released on April 18, 2022 . https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/qa04115.asp?qaDate=2019

(SBB) Statistical Briefing Book. 2022c. Provisions for Imposing Adult Sanctions on Minors, 2019.  Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, OJJDP .  Released on April 18, 2022 . https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/qa04115.asp  

(SBB) Statistical Briefing Book. 2023. Juveniles in Adult Jails and Prisons . Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, OJJDP .  Released on January 10, 2023. https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/corrections/qa08701.asp?qaDate=2021  

Sewell, R.J. 2020. It’s time to have an adult discussion about Alabama’s juvenile transfer laws.  Cumberland Law Review 50:5.

Sickmund, M., and Puzzanchera, C. 2014. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2014 National Report. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Sickmund, M., Sladky, A., and Kang, W. 2022. Easy Access to Juvenile Court Statistics: 1985–2020. National Center for Juvenile Justice.  https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezajcs/  

Silver, I.A., Semenza, D.C., and Nedelec, J.L. 2023. Incarceration of youths in an adult correctional facility and risk of premature death. Journal of the American Medical Association Network Open 6(7):e2321805:1–10.

Snyder, H.N., and Sickmund, M. 2006. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report.  Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, OJJDP.

Steiner, B. 2009. The effects of juvenile transfer to criminal court on incarceration decisions. Justice Quarterly 26:77–106. 

Tanenhaus, D.S. 2000. The evolution of transfer out of the juvenile court. In The Changing Borders of Juvenile Justice: Transfer of Adolescents to the Criminal Court, edited by J. Fagan and F.E. Zimring. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 13–43.

Thomas, G.M. 2016. The fate of Black youth in the criminal justice system: The racially discriminatory implications of prosecutorial discretion and juvenile waiver.  Rutgers Race & Law Review  17:267.

Trulson, C.R., Craig, J.M., Caudill, J.W., and DeLisi, M. 2022. Violent institutional misconduct in the transition from juvenile to adult correctional facilities.  Prison Journal  102(5):519–541.

West, H. 2010. Prison Inmates at Midyear 2009—Statistical Tables . Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, BJS.

Weston, B. 2016. Balancing rehabilitation and punishment: Combing juvenile court waiver mechanisms to create a balanced justice system.  American Criminal Law Review  53:235.

Williams, A. 2020. Early childhood trauma impact on adolescent brain development, decisionmaking abilities, and delinquent behaviors: Policy implications for juveniles tried in adult court systems. Juvenile and Family Court Journal  71(1):5–17.

Zane, S.N. 2017. Do criminal court outcomes vary by juvenile transfer mechanism? A multijurisdictional, multilevel Analysis. Justice Quarterly 34(3):542–569.

Zane, S.N., Welsh, B.C., and Mears, D.P. 2016. Juvenile transfer and the specific deterrence hypothesis: Systematic review and meta‐analysis.  Criminology & Public Policy 15(3):901–925.

Zeng, Z. 2022.  Jail Inmates in 2021—Statistical tables . Washington DC: DOJ, OJP, BJS.  https://bjs.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh236/files/media/document/ji21st.pdf

Zeng, Z., Carson, E.A., and Kluckow, R. 2023.  Juveniles Incarcerated in U.S. Adult Jails and Prisons, 2002–21 . Washington DC: DOJ, OJP, BJS.

Zeng, Z., and Minton, T.D. 2021. Census of jails, 2005–19—Statistical tables. Census of Jails . Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, BJS. 

Zimring, F.E., and Rushin, S. 2013. Did changes in juvenile sanctions reduce juvenile crime rates? A natural experiment. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 11(1):57–69.

About this Literature Review

Suggested Reference: Development Services Group, Inc. 2024. “Youth in the Adult Criminal Justice System.” Model Programs Guide.  Literature Review. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/model-programs-guide/literature-reviews/youth-in-the-adult-criminal-justice-system  

Prepared by Development Services Group, Inc., under Contract Number: 47QRAA20D002V. 

Last Update: March 2024

22 Should Juveniles Be Tried as Adults Pros and Cons

The United States is the only country in the world where the justice system will sentence children to death behind bars for the crimes that they commit. Although the conduct is usually deemed to be violent, which makes the individual a threat to the general population, there is no way out of the system if you are a juvenile tried as an adult and then sentenced to life in prison.

Cyntoia Brown is one story of about 10,000 who was sentenced as a juvenile for killing a man when she was just 16 years old. She was given clemency in 2019 after serving 15 years in prison for the crime. She has always maintained that her actions were in self-defense because the man she killed had purchased her for sex.

Brown reportedly shot the man while he was sleeping, and then stole his cash, guns, and truck as she fled the scene. Prosecutors argued that her motivation for killing was motivated by robbery instead of self-defense.

25% of the people who were sentenced to life in prison as a juvenile have no possibility of parole. As a nation, the pros and cons of having juveniles being tried as an adult is a subject with which many have been grappling for generations. It was as early as 1899 when the United States began creating the first courts for youth offenders. These are the key points to consider.

List of the Pros of Trying Juveniles as Adults

1. It offers a suitable penalty for severe crimes that some juveniles commit. Even though they are juveniles because of their age, people under the age of 18 can commit severe crimes. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, there are approximately 350 killed each year because of a lone juvenile offender. Although this number is roughly 75% less than what it was in the early 1990s, it is still one of the highest rates in the world today. Approximately 40% of the murders that occur which involve a juvenile include an adult as well.

2. It reduces the chance that a repeat offender will commit multiple severe crimes. From data released in 2016, the OJJDP reports that known juvenile offenders were involved in approximately 700 murders in the United States. That represents about 7% of all the known murder offenders which are in the country. Between 2003 to 2006, the estimated number of juvenile murder offenders increased by 32% after the drop from the 1990s before it was able to fall by 31% through 2016.

3. It treats teens who are almost adults as part of the adult system for the purpose of justice. The severity of a crime that a juvenile commits typically increases as they get older. This trend is especially prevalent for homicide offenses. In 2016, approximately 9% of the known juvenile homicide offenders were under the age of 15. Within that same data set, 79% of the offenders were either 16 or 17 years old at the time they committed the crime. By sentencing them in a way that is similar to what an adult would receive, these older teens do not receive “credit” for the fact that they may only be a few months away from becoming a legal adult in the United States.

4. It creates a level of certainty in the justice system for victims. Although it does not happen often, young children sometimes decide to commit premeditated crimes, including homicide, and the criminal justice system must respond appropriately. There is a case of a 10-year-old girl in the state of Wisconsin who was charged in 2018 in the killing of a 6-month-old, and state law requires anyone who is age 10 or above to have their case brought in adult court.

In this case, the 10-year-old girl allegedly dropped the baby boy, who then hit his head and began to cry. The girl then allegedly panicked, choosing to stomp him on the head to get him to be quiet. She told authorities that she was afraid that she would get into trouble. Prosecutors charged her with first-degree intentional homicide.

5. It provides a measure of consistency for the severity of the crime. In 2006, the bodies of Marc and Debra Richardson, along with their 8-year-old son, were discovered in their home by an even younger boy who saw them through the window. The couple’s 12-year-old daughter was missing from the home, so the first inclination for law enforcement was to think an abduction occurred. The reality of this crime scene is that Jasmine Richardson killed her parents and brother, stabbing the young boy in the chest while her boyfriend slit his throat. Her boyfriend was 23 and a “self-proclaimed 300-year-old werewolf.” Jasmine was given 10 years in prison.

She was scheduled to complete her sentence in 2015, but then was released to the community in 2012 despite being convicted of a triple homicide.

6. It can offer services to the youth that would not be available in the juvenile system. The juvenile system focuses on providing youth offenders with counseling, vocational development, and school access which allows them to continue with their studies. There may be some mental health supports available as well. When they are sentenced to the adult system, then they can take advantage of the additional programming that is available there, including addiction support, GED learning, and opportunity to continue an education.

7. It provides a way to teach accountability. Children are often a product of their home environment. If illegal actions seem like they are “normal” or “accepted” in their household, then they will see that as being an acceptable course of action to take in the rest of society as well. Juvenile courts do not offer records that provide an explicit proof of lenience that is based on age, but the sentences offered to kids that are comparable to adult crimes suggest that this is a conclusion one could draw from the data. At some point, society needs to teach all youth, no matter what their home background may be, that there are actions which are permitted and ones that are not for the greater protection of everyone. Juveniles being tried as an adult is one way that we can begin this lesson.

8. It treats severe crimes with the seriousness that they deserve. There are many crimes which children commit that are severe and draw into question how safe a community would be if they were allowed to be set free or serve a reduced or alternative sentence. Diante Pellum was 14 years old when he was accused of shooting another teen in the back of the head near Federal Way in Washington. Alexander Crisostomo was ordered to stand trial as an adult for killing a 41-year-old man when he was just 15. If these teens where given a standard youth sentence, then there is an excellent chance that they would be back on the street by the age of 25. Sentencing them as an adult gives the justice system the time it needs to offer a true chance at rehabilitation.

9. It provides the community with an opportunity to have a say in the process. When children are tried in juvenile court, then the judge presiding over the case will have the final decision as to what the outcome of the proceedings will be. That means the judge is responsible for determining the guilt or innocence of the juvenile, and what their sentence should be for their crime. By transferring the case to the adult court system, it provides an opportunity for the community to weigh in on what they believe the outcome of the case should be. If they feel like it is improper to have the case held there, then they can take permitted actions as a juror to make that preference known.

List of the Cons of Trying Juveniles as Adults

1. It does not take into account the maturity of the child. Laurence Steinberg works as an adolescent psychologist and he told Inside Edition in 2018 that it is rare to have juveniles tried as adults. In his opinion, this option for the justice system should be limited to teens who are at least 15 years old and are repeat violent offenders. In regards to the case of the 10-year-old girl in Wisconsin, Steinberg said that she wouldn’t likely pass a competency test to stand trial in the first place. It is unconstitutional to try someone in court who doesn’t know what is going on.

2. It does not usually offer an opportunity for rehabilitation. In another case from the state of Wisconsin, two 12-year-old girls were accused of repeatedly stabbing their classmate to honor the Internet character “Slenderman.” The Supreme Court for the state made the decision to try these two girls as adults. Both of them chose to plead guilty to the crime, of which their “friend” was able to survive. One girl was sentenced to 25 years in a mental institution, while the other was given 40 years. The adult system simply does not have the capacity to respond to the needs of children, especially those who are young, in ways that are developmentally appropriate.

3. It creates an element of risk for the child while they are in prison. There are approximately 10,000 children who are currently housed in adult prison or jails on any given day in the United States. This response to the crime places them at a needless risk because a child is five times more likely to be sexually assaulted when serving time in an adult prison than they are if they are in a juvenile facility. These kids are 36 times more likely to commit suicide as well. There are untreated mental illnesses to consider, limited experiences in managing anxiety or trauma, and impulsive actions that are related more to biological development than logical outcomes.

Kalief Browder was 22 years old when he eventually committed suicide in June 2015. He had spent several years in solitary confinement as a teen at Rikers Island because he had allegedly stolen a backpack.

4. It reduces the number of options that are available for sentencing. Judges who work in the juvenile justice system have multiple options available to them when sentencing children who commit a crime. Their options include house arrest, curfew, counseling, or treatment in residential programs in addition to juvenile facilities which are similar to jails or prisons. Moving a child into the adult court system exposes them to the mandatory sentencing guidelines which exist in most jurisdictions.

For the 10-year-old girl in Wisconsin who is accused of committing first-degree homicide, it is a Class A felony which can be sentenced to only life imprisonment. There are four articles of defense which can shift that penalty to something shorter, but it requires adequate provocation, unnecessary defensive force, the prevention of a felony, or the event occurred through coercion or necessity. There is very little wiggle room in these guidelines to address juveniles who are charged as an adult.

5. It creates more opportunities for youth to become repeat offenders. The recidivism rates of juvenile offenders are typically much lower than they are for adults who are sentenced to jail or prison. General rates usually range from a low of 7% at 1 year of follow up to a high of 79% after 7 years of their initial release date. For youth offenders the rates range from a low of 0% after 1 year to a high of 41% after 5 years when following up if they were sentenced to a youth facility. When juveniles are with adults in the justice system, then their rates begin to climb to match those of the older offenders.

Statistics gathered from 15 different states revealed that juveniles prosecuted in adult court and released from a state prison had a recidivism rate of 82% compared to a 16% rate for their adult counterparts.

6. It prevents a child from having a fresh start even after they make necessary changes. When children receive a conviction in the juvenile justice system, then their records are typically not accessible once they reach a specific age (usually 18 or 21, depending on their state). If the pre-teens or teens are tried and convicted as an adult, then this action stays on their permanent record. It becomes an accessible public record which employers, landlords, and others would research, which could limit their access to certain jobs or housing situations.

People who are convicted of a felony have an exceptionally difficult time trying to find employment in our current economy. Only 28 states have passed laws which ban employers from placing the conviction history of an individual on a job application. White males with a felony conviction receive a 17% callback rate, which is the highest of any demographic.

7. It does not reflect the understanding of the children in question. There is an argument to be made that a 17-year-old committing a severe crime understands what they are doing and is willing to take on the risk of experiencing the potential for legal consequences because of their actions. When 9-year-old Cameron Kocher fired a rifle out of a window, accidentally striking his 7-year-old neighbor who was riding a snowmobile, that may not be the case.

When deciding to charge the young boy as an adult, the district attorney argued that Kocher lied in his answer – and lying is an “adult” response. He also fell asleep during the pretrial motions of the case, which showed a “lack of remorse” to prosecutors. We must remember that children and adults think differently, so trying to place adult responses on youth is not always appropriate.

8. It does not always reflect a measure of culpability. Every day in the United States, offenders receive different sentences even if they caused the same harm because there are differences in culpability with each case. Adolescents are struggling with decision-making skills that are underdeveloped, immature, and impulsive. They do not experience future orientation in the same way that adults do. There is also a higher level of susceptibility to negative peer pressure in youth. Brain imaging reinforces the differences in physical structures that can impact the ability to reason or weigh the consequences of an action in children.

9. It does not provide them with youth-specific services. Although there are advantages to having older teens in the adult system because they can take advantage of the available services, younger children require a juvenile-specific approach that is not available if they are tried and convicted as an adult. When kids enter the adult court system, then they do not usually have the same opportunity to acquire critical skills, experiences, or competencies that are critical to their future success as an adult. They are instead subjected to an environment where adult offenders become their teachers and idols, which can often lead to an ongoing cycle of crime.

10. It is a process which seems to disproportionally target minority demographics. According to the 2016 juvenile justice report released by King County, WA, more than 85% of the defendants charged with robbery were 16 or 17 years old, with 50% of them using a firearm to commit their crime. Out of this group, African-American teens made up 43% of those who were filed upon during the study period for the report. When looking at the racial demographics of the county (which is where Seattle is located), only 6.2% of the population is African-American.

11. It does not give a defendant an opportunity to be tried by a “jury of their peers.” In the United States, you must be old enough to vote in order to sit on a jury. When teens under the age of 18 are charged with an adult crime, then one could argue that they are not having their case reviewed by people who are authentic peers. Someone who is in their 40s is going to have a very different life perspective than someone who is 16 years old. Although any crime deserves a potential consequence no matter how severe it might be, there is also a need to create a fair outcome which takes every element of the experience into consideration and that may not always happen when the decision is made to try juveniles as adults.

12. It can eliminate civil responsibilities for actions at the household level. If a juvenile is charged with an adult crime, then such an action may limit the civil responsibilities that the parents have for the conduct of their child. Because the individual is being treated as an adult in the situation, some jurisdictions limit how victims can civilly pursue for damages that they may have suffered in that situation. There are other parental rights which may disappear in this situation as well, further limiting the way the legal system can attempt to make things right. In the quest to achieve justice, it is very possible to lose sight of it.

13. It creates a lifetime of effects for the child in question. Charging juveniles in adult court will often cause exorbitant expenses that can often worsen the poverty that a family experiences. The economic burden of court costs, legal fees, restitution, and visitation can have long-term consequences for everyone involved. It creates a lifetime of negative impacts for the child because they have multiple obstacles in their way to create the change that is necessary – assuming that they are not serving multiple decades in prison for their crime in the first place.

The pros and cons of juveniles being tried as an adult are beginning to find some resolution. The Supreme Court of the United States declared that all states must retroactively apply a band on mandatory death-in-prison sentences for juveniles. Justice Kennedy at the time even wrote that children who commit heinous crimes are capable of changing. There is a need to protect the general population against violent actions. We also have a responsibility as a society to give our children a fighting chance for success.

Home — Essay Samples — Law, Crime & Punishment — Juvenile Justice System — Should Violent Juveniles Be Tried as Adults: Review of the Issue

Should Violent Juveniles Be Tried as Adults: Review of The Issue

• Categories: Juvenile Justice System

About this sample

Words: 688 |

Published: Dec 3, 2020

Words: 688 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

• Lipsey, M. W. (1999). Can Intervention Rehabilitate Serious Delinquents? The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 564(1), 142–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716299564001094
• Duke University. 'Juvenile offenders probably more criminal to begin with: 'Adult-onset' criminals are different, but not in expected ways.' ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 14 April 2016. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160414174419
• “Should Juveniles Be Charged as Adults in the Criminal Justice System?” American Bar Association, www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/childrens-rights/articles/2016/should-juveniles-be-charged-as-adults/
• “The Truth About Life Without Parole: Condemned to Die in Prison.” ACLU of Northern CA, 18 Oct. 2017, www.aclunc.org/article/truth-about-life-without-parole-condemned-die-prison
• Johnson, Sara B, et al. “Adolescent Maturity and the Brain: The Promise and Pitfalls of Neuroscience Research in Adolescent Health Policy.” The Journal of Adolescent Health: Official Publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Sept. 2009, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892678/.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Law, Crime & Punishment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1413 words

1 pages / 380 words

3 pages / 1335 words

6 pages / 3625 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Juvenile Justice System

Prop 63, also known as the "Safety for All Act," is a California ballot initiative that was approved by voters in November 2016. This initiative aims to strengthen gun control measures within the state. While proponents argue [...]

The case of Lionel Tate is one of the most controversial and thought-provoking cases in recent legal history. Lionel Tate, a 12-year-old boy at the time, was convicted of first-degree murder in the death of 6-year-old Tiffany [...]

The topic of juvenile crime is one that has long been a source of concern and debate in our society. The case of Derek and Alex King, as detailed in Chapter 2 of the book "When A Child Kills," provides a particularly poignant [...]

The question I try to answer in this essay is: Should juveniles be tried as adults for committing serious violent crimes? I believe yes, teens who commit violent crimes should be tried as adults. I feel this is appropriate for [...]

The problem presented in this paper is the school-to-prison pipeline. The explanation of the problem, a specific case, and a refutation will all be highlighted throughout this paper.To understand why something is a problem, you [...]

Juvenile delinquency is defined as “the habitual committing of criminal acts or offenses by a young person, especially one below the age at which ordinary criminal prosecution is possible.” or simply a minor committing a crime, [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• EssayBasics.com
• Pay For Essay
• Write My Essay
• Homework Writing Help
• Essay Editing Service
• Thesis Writing Help
• Write My College Essay
• Do My Essay
• Term Paper Writing Service
• Coursework Writing Service
• Write My Research Paper
• Assignment Writing Help
• Essay Writing Help
• Call Now! (USA) Login Order now
• EssayBasics.com Call Now! (USA) Order now
• Writing Guides

Should Juveniles Be Tried As Adults (Persuasive Essay Sample)

Should juveniles be tried as adults.

Whether to try juveniles as adults or as minors has elicited heightened controversy. The statistics today shows that individuals who commit criminal offenses have not gripped the notion that crime does not pay particularly among minors. Instead, according to the Justice Department, serious criminal offenses such as rape, assault, robbery with violence, drug trafficking have increased among juveniles to 30 percent with ten percent of all homicides being at the hands of juveniles. With such numbers, it is evident that juveniles are causing more harm to a country, and since, ‘they are old enough to commit serious crimes, then they are old enough to do the time.” Thus, they should be tried as adults.

Juvenile criminals deserve to receive serious punishment. The creation of the juvenile system aimed at providing rehabilitation services for minor offenders who commit crimes such as vandalism, stealing and shoplifting among others and according to Forensic Psychologist Andrew Day, it works. Nevertheless, youths in the current generation observing this system as a slap on the back and use it to commit heinous crimes because they know the juvenile law system will let them off. Thus, despite the fact that incarceration does not offer solutions to criminal problems in a country, punishing juveniles by trying them in adult courts is necessary. Protecting criminals because of their age derails the efforts of reducing criminal activities, loss of lives, providing justice to the victims and using it as a deterrent to further crime as they are likely to experience serious punishment. Moreover, giving second chances to every crime particularly the serious ones, the youths continue destroying people’s lives and the country at large because the law opts not to inflict severe punishment.

Opponents of trying juveniles as adults argue that juvenile criminals should not be put in adult prisons nor be treated as them as they are likely to be mistreated and abused, which is a good argument. Additionally, they argue that children and teenagers are capable of learning and changing thus, rehabilitation is the effective punishment. In my opinion, this argument is uninformed because these juvenile criminals commit unlawful activities that are at par with those committed by adults, thus I fail to see why their punishments should be different. Moreover, there are habits that juvenile criminals commit that they cannot forget. For instance, in the case of two teenagers Juan Castaneda seventeen and Eric Ramirez nineteen, who in 2008 committed theft and in the process killed two people, injured another and attempted to kill others. In my opinion, such actions are difficult to unlearn.

Accountability is necessary from criminals. Victims perceive the juvenile system as an injustice. Families of the rape, murder and violence victims watch as the law shield perpetrators of their loss and horror with leniency eliciting a feeling of lack of justice. It is true that teens’ cognitive development and the environment they grow in pushes them toward crime. However, they need to be responsible for their actions as each person even minors have the capability to understand that a certain behavior is a criminal offense and it is wrong. Therefore, treating them as adults sets a precedent that deter future delinquent behavior and makes a point that introduction of tough measures to them is a likelihood.

In conclusion, juvenile criminals such as murderers, rapists, and violent individuals, should be tried as adults and receive serious punishments. Just as their age does not prevent them from committing these heinous crimes, so should it not deter them from receiving the maximum penalties to enforce accountability for actions and punishment.

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Criminal Justice

Free Argumentative Essay On Should Juvenile Offenders Be Tried And Punished As Adults?

Type of paper: Argumentative Essay

Topic: Criminal Justice , Crime , Adulthood , Adult , Court , Supreme Court , Teenagers , Youth

Words: 1250

Published: 12/16/2020

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

Introduction

The given assay seeks to illustrate whether young criminals should be tried and punished as adults. In particular, the paper studies a current legislative position pertaining to a judicial treatment of juveniles and a prosecution of their offenses. Typical instances of referring adolescents to adult courts will be discussed, as well as real stories requiring that a criminal be sent to an adult court. THESIS: Juvenile offenders should be tried and punished as adults in cases where they have committed serious crimes (homicide, rape) and pose a serious threat to society.

Procedures of Transferring an Adolescent to an Adult Court and Protections Granted

Characteristically, the United States criminal system recognizes two types of criminal courts: adult and juvenile. The first court for trying adolescents turns out to have been set up in Chicago. However, the legislation allows in specific circumstances to bring adolescents to responsibility in adult courts with all their protections and procedures relevant to adult criminals (Ziedenberg 2). Evidently, within the United States there is no the sole and unified attitude of what age certainly indicates that an individual is to appear before an adult criminal court and be punished as an adult offender. Every state entrenches particular characteristics defining whether a criminal should stand an adult trial or be sent to a juvenile court with its appropriate proceedings. There exists an individual approach to each separate case evolving before judges and prosecutors (Steinberg 1 – 2). Generally, the United States criminal justice system has developed three certain ways of transferring an adolescent criminal to an adult court: “waivers by a judge or prosecutor” and “automatic transfers” prescribed by criminal statutes (Michon). A judge has the power to refer a young wrongdoer to an adult court in the circumstances where he has committed a severe offense and thus poses a serious threat to a community, or his records prove that he is unlikely to be suitable for a juvenile rehabilitation procedure (Michon). Despite a judge’s discretion power, a prosecutor is also entitled to ask a judge to transfer a juvenile to an adult court. In such instance, a prosecutor should prove a “probable cause” showing that a young wrongdoer has actually committed a crime. Then, a judge makes a final decision whether to allow a prosecutor’s motion based on the wrongdoer’s records and counts he is charged with (Michon). According to “automatic transfer” provisions, a juvenile offender is subject to adult trials mandatorily and that is directly laid down by statutes. Not all states provide for “automatic transfers”, but such a procedure is more likely to be instituted when a young criminal is 16 years-old and older and when an offense committed proves to be a homicide or rape (Michon). As a consequence of the campaign to grant adolescents a full complex of constitutional protections applied in the course of criminal proceedings, a judgment in the case of In re Gault held that juveniles shall be entitled to such protections as “Miranda rights”, right to counsel, safeguard against warrantless searches and seizures, “the right against self-incrimination” (Offices of the United States Attorneys). Hence, from this it follows that each separate case involving a young criminal will be a subject of a precise consideration on the part of a judge and prosecutor to determine whether an accused may be rehabilitated or it is more reasonable and fairer to send him to an adult court. A court will also decide if an adolescent offender has reached a required cognitive capability to grasp a seriousness of his action to try him as an adult.

Real Stories Proving a Necessity of Trying Adolescents as Adults

Jordan Brown Case A boy from Pennsylvania, named Jordan Brown, was found guilty and convicted of murder of his father’s fiancée. A girlfriend of his father was determined to have been pregnant and prosecutor contended that Jordan had been” motivated by jealousy” to the fiancée of his father. However, Jordan’s counsel claimed that the victim had likely been killed by her former boyfriend (Chen). Consequently, Jordan Brown was brought to responsibility as an adult. Currently, he is 17 years-old and is detained in the adolescent detention facility. Due to his good pattern of behavior, Jordan is allowed home visits. An appellate claim has been launched to reverse a previous judgment, because the evidence presented by the prosecution proved to be insufficient (Daley).

Another Young Criminal from Pennsylvania

A boy aged 10 proves to have confessed to killing an old woman – Helen Novak, aged 90 by explaining this event to his mother who brought him to a local police station. This young criminal used a cane: he put it around the woman’s neck and suffocated her. The accused explained that he had been angry due to the woman’s scolding him (Steele). A medical examination of the killed woman demonstrated that the boy’s testimony had been true. A 10 years-old boy was prosecuted as an adult in accordance with the requirements of Pennsylvania criminal legislation. The boy’s attorney said he would file a motion to have the accused released for he might have mental disorder (Steele). The cases mentioned above are not the sole ones where adolescents are convicted and punished as adults since their offenses clearly demonstrate that they should be isolated from a public due to a severity of actions committed.

The statement holding that juveniles should be tried and punished as adults in cases where they have committed serious crimes (homicide, rape) and pose a serious threat to society proves to be justified based on real facts and stories showing an enormous cruelty of young wrongdoers. Reasonable law enforcement officials are aware that a small portion of all juvenile offenders constitutes an exception and should be sent to adult courts and a current legislative trend in the United States follows this approach.

Works Cited

Chen, Stephanie. "Boy, 12, Faces Grown up Murder Charges." 15 Mar. 2010. Web. 14 July 2015. <http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/10/pennsylvania.young.murder.defendant/>. Daley, Elizabeth. "Teen Convicted Of Murder At 11 Seeks New Trial." 5 Mar. 2015. Web. 14 July 2015. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/06/11-year-old-convicted-of-murder-new-trial_n_6812382.html>. Michon, Kathleen. "When Juveniles Are Tried in Adult Criminal Court." Web. 15 July 2015. <http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/juveniles-youth-adult-criminal-court-32226.html>. Offices of the United States Attorneys. "121. Constitutional Protections Afforded Juveniles." Web. 14 July 2015. <http://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-121-constitutional-protections-afforded-juveniles>. Steele, Anne. "Why a 10-year-old in Pennsylvania Can Be Tried for Murder as an Adult ( Video)." 14 Oct. 2014. Web. 14 July 2015. <http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2014/1014/Why-a-10-year-old-in-Pennsylvania-can-be-tried-for-murder-as-an-adult-video>. Steinberg, Laurence. "Should Juvenile Offenders Be Tried As Adults? A Developmental Perspective on Changing Legal Policies." 19 Jan. 2000. Web. 15 July 2015. <http://www.willamette.edu/cla/debate/pdf/youth_forum/kpdc research/motion 2 affirm/bongo_DATA ON JUVENILES.pdf>. Ziedenberg, Jason. "Youth in Adult Criminal Justice Systems." 1 Dec. 2011. Web. 14 July 2015. <http://static.nicic.gov/Library/025555.pdf>.

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 2074

This paper is created by writer with

ID 283288350

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Investing book reviews, human nature book reviews, isolation book reviews, imagination book reviews, farming book reviews, grapes of wrath book reviews, hockey book reviews, reservation case studies, tension literature reviews, universe literature reviews, foundation literature reviews, presence literature reviews, defeat literature reviews, donor literature reviews, battlefield literature reviews, advantage literature reviews, snail essays, cocktail essays, hardship essays, dictator essays, hurt essays, spacing essays, sales force essays, suggestion essays, manor essays, proximal essays, connett essays, essay on plato aristotle and other philosophers, allergies research paper, example of design for change in nursing practice essay, ford motor company report examples, immigration course work sample, research paper on a algorithm, example of course work on immigration, free essay on death penalty, essay on investigating social media communication comparing and contrasting, how is the reader presented with an unresolved issue analysis report sample, free essay on contemporary social issues paper, information security term paper sample, research paper on quantitative reasoning in health care ma, duty god honor and country essay example, example of governments stopping poverty research paper.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

Home / Essay Samples / Crime / Juvenile Crime / Juvenile Justice System: Trying Minors as Adults

Juvenile Justice System: Trying Minors as Adults

• Category: Crime
• Topic: Juvenile Crime , Juvenile Justice System

Pages: 4 (2032 words)

• Downloads: -->

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Rape Essays

Hate Crime Essays

Identity Theft Essays

Broken Windows Theory Essays

White Collar Crime Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service  and  Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->