Juveniles Sentenced as Adults
In the United States, the justice system has a non-standard approach to juvenile justice. According to the current legislation, children from 11 to 13 years old and adolescents up to 18 years old are brought to trial on a general basis, and after reaching the age of 18, are automatically transferred to adult prisons. Contrary to expectations, the recidivism rate among young people is increasing after being transferred to adult prisons. Another problem is the lack of special programs to protect the interests of juveniles, including due to their vulnerability to adult criminals in prisons. Courts often fail to recognize that children cannot fully assess the consequences of their actions and make deliberate decisions. This paper aims to discuss the opposing viewpoints regarding whether it is reasonable to sentence juveniles as adults.
The juvenile justice system and the juvenile rehabilitation system need changes. Graber (2019) notes that the current practice is “unconstitutional and immoral” as it violates the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, according to which all US citizens have the right to due process and cannot be deprived of their life, liberty, or happiness (p. 3). The author implies that justice should be carried out to improve the situation for the better and protect all parties, not to punish offenders. It is a critical aspect in understanding why the trial and imprisonment of minors on a general basis is unfair.
Young people between the ages of 11 and 18 who are subjects of juvenile justice are physiologically and mentally different from adults. Graber (2019) emphasizes that “the brain does not have a fully developed frontal lobe until about age 21, which results in adolescents being unable to make decisions and analyze situations like adults” (p. 3). The scientist notes that adolescents make decisions more impulsively and are less inclined to analyze their actions than adults. It is imperative that judges and prosecutors consider this fact when deciding on a case and conducting interrogations. Rehabilitation of adolescents should also regard their differences and special needs.
Interrogation of minors deserves particular attention, as offenders may not understand their rights during trial and interrogation. Redlich et al. (2020) state that “under interrogation, while explicit statements of leniency are unacceptable, implicit statements are permitted” (p. 555). Scientists point to a situation where law enforcement officials interrogate defendants using not entirely legal interrogation techniques, such as condescension or putting subtext in the spoken words. Minors cannot fully assess prosecutors’ intentions and discern implications, so this practice should be categorically excluded in relation to juveniles.
Given the differences between adolescents and adults, most scholars are unanimous that juveniles should not be sentenced as adults and propose programs to help achieve justice. Lane (2018) states that effective responses will help reduce adolescent crime rates dramatically. The scientist suggests making sure that adolescents receive help and support, professional protection, and are treated without prejudice. Lane (2018) recommends tackling community-level problems, developing personalized approaches, building better data systems, and investing in children and adolescents serving their sentences.
Often, stereotypes influence how juveniles are perceived in court and during sentencing. Greene et al. (2017) concluded that there is a bias against children and adolescents who have committed serious crimes due to which they are perceived as superpredators. The scholars note that “we described a 13, 17, or 21-year-old offender who killed a stranger or abusive parent and asked if he should be taken to a criminal court and sentenced to LWOP; as support for the superpredator stereotype grew, so did support for these practices” (p. 841). These results indicate strong prejudice against juvenile offenders, especially when they commit serious crimes.
The most common arguments in defense of the current situation may include the need to create an example that injustice is always punished, especially when it comes to murder. On the one hand, advocates of the practice may argue that it typically affects adolescents aged 16-17, who make up most juvenile offenders. Appropriate punishment for adolescents can positively impact a sense of justice for victims. On the other hand, these arguments do not consider the physiological and mental age differences and the unique needs of children during imprisonment. Moreover, the transfer of children to adult prisons aggravates the crime situation, which indicates the inexpediency of such practice.
Violation of the 8th Amendment
The Supreme Court’s decision to limit the severity of sentences for juveniles convicted of murder was a revolutionary step for the US justice system. This decision was based on the latest proven facts about the physical and mental differences between children and adults and their potential for rehabilitation. The new approach should justify itself since, according to scientists, persons convicted of murder in adolescence demonstrate a low level of recidivism and an even lower level of re-conviction for any other violent incident (DiCataldo et al., 2017). The study analyzed a period of 7.8 years, which is long enough to conclude a lower propensity for delinquency among adolescents who have been released from prison compared with adult offenders. Scientists also believe that people who commit crimes in adolescence better adapt to society after being released.
The decision to limit the severity of punishment uses cases of Roper v. Simmons (2005), Graham v. Florida (2010), Miller v. Alabama (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016). In particular, Miller v. Alabama (2012) prescribes that several factors should be considered when sentencing. These are “a) the age of the minor and its characteristics, including immaturity, irascibility, and inability to assess the consequences; b) family and home environment, from which young people are less able to escape than adults; c) the circumstances of the offense, including the role of the minor and the degree of peer pressure” (DiCataldo et al., 2017, p. 90). The critical factors also include “d) the incompetence of young people due to immaturity, which could lead to inconvenience in dealing with the police or participating in criminal proceedings; and e) youth potential for rehabilitation” (DiCataldo et al., 2017, p. 90). Therefore, the Supreme Court’s decision considers physical and mental development, as well as socio-economic factors to improve the system of juvenile justice.
Notably, the review of the juvenile justice system by the Supreme Court began with Roper v. Simmons (2005), which prohibits the death penalty for offenders before the age of majority. Further, Miller v. Alabama (2012) formulated a prohibition on sentencing with a mandatory “juvenile life without parole” (JLWOP) approach for a murder committed by minors. Finally, Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016) implies that the decision to ban mandatory JLWOP should be applied retroactively to all people who have homicide as juveniles. Despite such significant indulgences, the United States is still the only country in the world to use JLWOP for juvenile crimes.
Analysis of Roper v. Simmons’ (2005) findings led lawmakers to understand that adolescents’ immaturity allows them to be classified as a class and suggests that they are less guilty of a crime than adults. In addition, in this case, the findings include the concept of adolescents’ greater propensity for rehabilitation and the “positive effects of growing up” (DiCataldo et al., 2017, p. 89). The analysis of the results in this case also led to the fact that minors were no longer considered among the most severe offenders. Nowadays, court members are increasingly referring to the peculiarities of neurobiological development supporting the decision to cancel the mandatory JLWOP. Moreover, the JLWOP for Minors is seen as a violation of the 8th Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.
Racial and Ethnic Discrimination
Despite such positive shifts concerning the juvenile justice system in general, here, as in many other areas of the US social life, scientists often observe the effects of racial and ethnic discrimination and inequality. Scientists analyzed the influence of such aspects as ethnicity and race on the severity of punishment in courts. They concluded that not only adults but also adolescents are subject to associated adverse effects (Lehmann et al., 2017). In particular, an analysis of 913 defendants convicted in Florida showed that “reveals that Black transferred juveniles are more likely to be sentenced to jail or prison and are given longer prison sentences than Whites, but Hispanic youth are only penalized in the sentence to jail” (Lehmann et al., 2017, p. 99). The study results also showed that Black males were sentenced to harsh punishment in comparison with other groups, irrespective of age. The study demonstrated that the aspects of race and ethnicity were conditioned by violence, sex, and a drug offense.
Thus, different viewpoints regarding whether it is reasonable to sentence juveniles as adults were discussed. This practice allows implementing justice in the case of serious crimes committed by adolescents and demonstrating to society that such actions as murder are fully punishable by law, regardless of the offender’s age. However, this approach is not entirely reasonable and practical since it does not regard the mental and moral development of children and adolescents. The practice of court and interrogation does not consider that juveniles cannot fully understand the essence of the process and their rights. Therefore, the existing stereotypes and increased severity in relation to crimes committed by children exacerbate the situation.
References
DiCataldo, F., Linder, C., Neddenriep, J., Christensen, M., Domas, S., & Kinscherf, R. (2017). The Recidivism of juveniles convicted of homicide and released as adults. Today’s Children are Tomorrow’s Parents, 45-46, 88-101.
Graber, R. L. (2019). Is it acceptable for juveniles to be tried as adults? Criminal Justice Capstone Research Papers, 1, 1-26.
Greene, E., Duke, L., & Woody, W. D. (2017). Stereotypes influence beliefs about the transfer and sentencing of juvenile offenders. Psychology, Crime & Law, 23(9), 841-858.
Lane, J. (2018). Addressing juvenile crime: what have we learned, and how should we proceed? Criminology & Public Policy, 17(2), 283-307.
Lehmann, P. S., Chiricos, T., & 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.
Redlich, A. D., Shteynberg, R. V., & Nirider, L. H. (2020). Pragmatic implication in the interrogation room: A comparison of juveniles and adults. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 16(4), 555-564.