Juveniles in adult court
Human beings have gotten used to living in a society where they engage with each other on the basis of traits such as gender, age and social status. The various traits make it easy to determine what actions are acceptable and which are not depending on the nature of the individual they are being subjected to. In the legal system, for example, adults are treated differently from minors because adults are considered to be more informed and therefore wiser than the minors. An adult case is therefore treated with more seriousness than that of a minor even when both commit the same crime. The approach is intensely used by the legal system to the point where even the forms of punishment that adults are subjected to is different from that of minors. While adults are mostly punished as penance for their crimes and to deliver justice, punishing minors often involves approaches aimed at rehabilitating the offenders and ensuring that they do not go back to a life of crime. It is therefore important to ensure that minors are tried different from adults as wavering their cases to adult courts will deprive them of the opportunity to reform
Background
Before the 1700s, adults and juveniles were treated the same by courts as they paid more attention to the crime rather than the criminal (Scialabba, 2016). Courts were used as a tool for punishing criminals and those found guilty were punished accordingly regardless of their age. However, the act of imprisoning minors together with adults started to rise issues as children as young as 7 years old were held in the same cells with older men (Scialabba, 2016). To remedy the situation, new approaches were adopted by the legal system where the courts placed more emphasis on rehabilitating juveniles and this often required them to be separated from adults. In 1899, the first juvenile court was established in Cook County, Illinois with the intention of not only rehabilitating the juveniles, but also to provide guidance and support aimed at keeping them away from a life of crime (Scialabba, 2016). The decision to try juvenile cases differently from the adults was based on the belief that the juveniles lack enough knowledge and morals to help them discern right from wrong, instead of punishing the juveniles for crimes committed, the court opted to help them reform by teaching them right from wrong as they carry out the sentence served for crimes committed.
Although treating adults differently from juveniles was intended to reform juveniles and save them from the challenges present in adult prisons, they faced a lot of challenges especially arising from the judicial system itself. To begin with, judges would often exercise a lot of discretion when hearing juvenile cases and often did not use formal hearings and this caused a lot of disparities in the courts. An increase in crime in the 70s and 80s pushed the government to be tougher on crime and this resulted to more juveniles being sent to adult courts (Michon, 2019). In an attempt to reduce the number of juvenile offenders being sent to adult courts, new reforms were introduced and they made it easier to differentiate juveniles from adults during court proceedings.
Waivers were also introduced where juveniles could be sent to adult courts but only if the judge went through the case and deemed the crime worthy of being tried in an adult court even if the person being charged is a minor. Judges were given the authority to waiver the protection and benefits offered by juvenile courts for serious crimes or when dealing with repeat juvenile offenders (Flesch, 2005). Although adult cases offer more constitutional protection, there is the risk that the minors will be subjected to more serious punishments when tried as an adult. It is therefore important to reserve waivers for juvenile cases to be heard in adult courts especially because of the various risks exposed to juveniles who are prosecuted in adult courts.
Throughout history, waivers have been used to push juvenile cases to adult court and they often result in negative outcomes. At first, taking minors to adult court was considered an ideal deterrent to crime as it would show minors that such crimes are taken with the seriousness used when punishing mature adults (LaMance, 2018). Since adults faced punishment such as life imprisonment, long sentence and even the capital punishment, it was expected that such an outcome would scare minors and prevent them from engaging in a life of crime. For those who still engaged in crime even with adult trials as a consequence, the deterrence was intended to keep the minors from going back to crime after finishing their sentence, the experience in adult prisons was intended to be a teaching experience that would either help minors to realize the error of their ways or scare them enough to discourage them from ever going back to crime.
Waivers for juveniles to be tried in adult courts however failed to act as deterrent to crime and even led to higher recidivism rates. Minors that were tried and prosecuted in adult courts were 82% more likely to be rearrested after being released from prison which discredited waivers for minors to be tried in adult prisons as a deterrent to crime (Alen & Cox, 2007). Furthermore, hearing juvenile cases in adult courts denied minors opportunities offered to those tried as minors as they were placed in the same prisons as adults. Correctional facilities meant for minors often involved programs that equipped the inmates with skills and knowledge that they could use in their lives after they left the prison systems or when they became adults (Scialabba, 2016). However, when the minors were tried in adult courts, they were imprisoned together with men and forced to interact with criminals who were used to a life of crime and therefore negative role models for the minors. Instead of deterring crime, adult prisons forced minors to live with criminals who were far from reforming and if they became role models, the minors would be more likely to go back to a life of crime after finishing their sentences.
Juvenile cases waivered to adult courts also had far reaching effects on the overall well-being of the minors. Since adult criminal courts carried more social stigma than institutions that held minors, hearing such cases adult courts made it harder for the minors to fit back into society because they had been alienated and treated like criminals instead of minors in need of reforms Alen & Cox, 2007). Minors also found it harder to move on from the experiences they encounter in adult prisons compared to those that were sent to juvenile detention centers. Waivers therefore had negative consequences and should not be used when hearing cases involving minors.
Instead of wavering juvenile cases to adult courts, the legal system should come up with a way of determining which crimes or individuals warrant being sent to adult courts even when performed by minor. One approach to use is setting a limit for the age in which a minor can be tried as an adult and using the limit and not the crime to determine whether a minor goes to adult courts or not (Scialabba, 2016). When an age limit is set, it becomes easier to determine whether minors go through juvenile detention centers or they get sent to adult prisons regardless of the nature of crime. At present, the common age limit for those that can be tried in adult courts is 17 years (Scialabba, 2016). This however varies depending on the crime committed and thus becomes difficult to determine when to send minors to juvenile detention or adult courts. If one age limit is used, it becomes easier to sentence minors accordingly as the court already knows what proceedings to follow.
Conclusion
Waivers serve the purpose of determining when it is okay to try minor cases in adult courts. Since correctional institutions also serve the purpose of reforming criminals, it would be unethical to try minors as adults because their reasoning and stages of development are not as developed as adults. Instead of trying minors as adults, courts should focus more attention towards making juvenile correctional centers more equipped with the personnel and equipment needed to reform the juveniles, the aim should be to deter crime as much as possible as punishing minors only makes them aware of the crime they committed but fails to help them recognize the error in their ways. If the goal is to do away with crime, deterrence should be more of a priority than punishments and this could have a positive impact on the fight to end crime.
References
Allen M and Cox M, (2007) “Juvenile justice: A guide to theory, policy and practice” Sage Publications
Flesch M, (2005) “Juvenile crime and why waiver is not the answer” Family Court Review, retrieved from, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.174- 1617.2004.tb00671.x
LaMance K, (2018) “Juvenile waiver” Legal Match, retrieved from, https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/juvenile-waiver.html
Michon K, (2019) “When juveniles are tried in adult criminal courts” Nolo, retrieved from, https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/juveniles-youth-adult-criminal-court- 32226.html
Scialabba N, (2016) “Should juveniles be charged as adults in the criminal justice system?” American Bar, retrieved from, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/childrens- rights/articles/2016/should-juveniles-be-charged-as-adults/
