Transcript Juveniles charged for adult crimes

Juveniles Charged for Adult
Crimes
CRE 101
Group #6
Kenzo Iida
The Pros for Juveniles Charged for
Adult Crimes.
 Protection of the public safety demands strict sentences
even to children by the criminal justice system.
 The vast majority of teenagers understand the difference
between right and wrong.
 Prosecuting juvenile offenders in adult court is a tool
reserved for the most serious, violent and chronic
offenders.
 Violent-offenders have to be punished seriously before it
is too late.
Article by James C. Backstrom
Prosecuting juvenile offenders in adult court is appropriate and necessary in certain cases to
protect public safety and hold youths appropriately accountable for their crimes. Contrary to
opponents' claims, this sanction is not being overused by prosecutors. Few jurisdictions prosecute
more than 1-2 percent of juvenile offenders as adults. This is a tool reserved for the most serious,
violent and chronic offenders, who should face more serious consequences for their crimes than
those available in juvenile court.
Don't be misled by claims that large numbers of youths are being prosecuted as adults for lowlevel offenses, because these statistics come from the 13 states where laws classify 16- or 17year-olds as adults for purposes of any prosecution. This has nothing to do with transferring
juveniles to adult court.
Recent scientific studies have shown that the brain is not fully developed until the early to mid-20's
and that the last portion of the brain to reach full maturity is the frontal lobe governing impulse
control. While this may explain why some youths lack the reasoning ability to fully appreciate the
consequences of their actions, it does not mean they should not be held accountable for their
crimes. The vast majority of teenagers understand the difference between right and wrong and
know it is wrong to torture or kill someone. This is why our laws rightfully allow adult prosecution
for these and other violent crimes.
Juveniles who commit serious and violent crimes, particularly older youths, should face potential
adult court sanctions. So, too, must this remedy be available for youngsters who have a long
history of convictions for less serious felonies for which juvenile court disposition has not been
effective. About one-third of our states also utilize "blended sentencing" models that combine both
juvenile and adult sanctions for serious, violent or habitual juvenile offenders whose crimes have
been determined not to warrant prosecution in adult court.
Prosecutors and judges thoughtfully and professionally enforce juvenile codes with fairness and
impartiality every day, taking into consideration both mitigating factors — such as a juvenile
offender's age, maturity and amenability to treatment and probation — and aggravating factors,
such as the severity of the crime, the threat to public safety, the impact upon the victim and the
offender's criminal history. After properly weighing these factors, the difficult decision to prosecute
a juvenile offender as an adult is warranted in some cases.
Analysis of Article
 Is it appropriate way to ignore 1-2 percent of juvenile offenders as
adults under the same constitution and laws?
 Is it enough to decide that the present laws and justice systems are
appropriate just by the research of 13 states?
 Why do the government and writer agree to prevent a child from
driving a car, voting, drinking alcohol or serving in the military
because of an age disability but considers 13- year-olds capable of
understanding adult criminal procedures and surviving in adult
prison?
 Writer says that the vast majority of teenagers understand the
difference between right and wrong, but do the children who commit
a crime are in the majority?
 He has appropriate career and experience to talk about this topic.
Photograph
Drew Golburgh. “Perkins 14: Who Are the Monsters?” 2009, August 11. 2009, December 5,
<http://beyondthedarkhorizon.com/main/?p=3159>.
Analysis of photograph
 The photo shows the image of crime by
the murder of children at the public
bathroom.
 The effect is that even the murder is child,
he have made the outcome as same brutal
as adult murder. It tells us why only
children have the right to reduce their
outcome compared to the adult.
The Cons for Juveniles Charged for
Adult Crimes.
 The current juvenile justice process may be
unconstitutional, and it definitely does not reduce crime
or enhance public safety.
 The juvenile laws were passed without any scientific
evidence, but they were counterproductive to protecting
the public safety.
 Children in adult prisons are subject to abuse, sexual
harassment, suicide and murder. Those that survive
become more dangerous and reoffend at more serious
levels very soon after release from prison.
 The government should make rehabilitation and
treatment for youth, which is virtually non-existent in the
adult criminal justice system, instead of sentencing the
youth in adult court.
Article by Liz Ryan
When criminologists predicted in the 1990s that a new generation of youthful "superpredators"
was on the horizon, state officials responded by passing laws to make it easier to try youths as
adults. They intended, understandably, to make their communities safer. However, the latest
research suggests the opposite effect: Youths prosecuted as adults are much more likely to reoffend.
For example, in August, the Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention released a report — "Juvenile Transfer Laws: An Effective Deterrent to Delinquency?"
— which found that prosecuting youths as adults has little or no deterrent effect on juvenile crime.
In fact, it said, youths prosecuted as adults are more likely to re-offend than youths handled in the
juvenile justice system. And late last year the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
released a report that showed virtually identical results.
Polling shows the public rejects punitive approaches and supports rehabilitation and treatment for
youth, which is virtually non-existent in the adult criminal justice system. Two recent MacArthur
Foundation polls showed that 89 percent of Americans agreed or strongly agreed that
rehabilitative services and treatment would help reduce crime.
States have different laws for transferring youth under age 18 to adult court. In 44 states and the
District of Columbia juvenile court judges under certain circumstances may send a youth to adult
court, and 14 states and D.C. allow the prosecutor to directly file cases in adult court. Thirteen
states prosecute 16- or 17-year-olds in adult court for any offense. Connecticut, New York and
North Carolina try all 16- and 17-year-olds as adults. Connecticut recently raised the age of
juvenile court jurisdiction to 18, beginning in 2010.
Many of the youth prosecuted as adults are placed in adult jails pretrial, where they are at risk of
harm, abuse and suicide. A November 2007 report released by the Campaign for Youth Justice
showed that up to 7,500 youths are in adult jails on any given day, but half to a third of these
youngsters are ultimately sent back to the juvenile justice system or not convicted at all,
suggesting that their offenses did not merit placement in the adult criminal justice system.
Based on this new research, several states have begun to re-examine and even reverse these
harmful statutes. Other state officials should seriously re-examine their state policies governing
the trial, sentencing and incarceration of youths as adults.
Analysis of article
 The writer has many experience in the topic’s area, but she is not so
famous in its area and not known all over the states.
 Do the children are attacked by the others in adult prison because
they are weak compared to adults? Then, do not adult weak
prisoner be suffered by the other’s violence in the prison? Is it only
problem of children?
 Do all of people who answered the research want to have a
rehabilitation system without any punishment to the children who
committed a crime? Is it enough that children are just rehabilitated
after having committed such as murder?
 Do the families who were killed their relations agree that the
children’s murder will not be punished by any laws in the prison?
Photograph
“Kid Lit on Fire.” Anabolex Forums. 2009, October 16. 2009, December 5,
<http://www.anabolex.com/forums/showthread.php?p=870827>.
Analysis of photograph
 This picture shows that the three children
are in the court during the trial as offender.
 Most of people who saw this picture will
think that the children don’t have
appropriate abilities to understand what is
going on the trail even helped by their
attorney. The present justice system
seems to make adult system, but not for
the children.
Solution to Juveniles Charged for
Adult Crimes
 One way is that the government needs to
change the present justice system for the
children by creating rehabilitation institution for
the children and preparation for the juveniles
laws.
 The other way is that the government has to
research the details how the present law system
prevent children who committed a crime from
doing it again in all states, which helps to create
new law system.
Should juveniles who commit serious
crimes be charged as adults in Idaho?
It started with a 14-year-old Caldwell murder suspect and a handful of local protesters.
Now advocates want to launch a statewide push to eliminate Idaho's mandate that anyone 14 or older must be tried as an adult if
charged with murder or certain other serious crimes.
A rally is planned in Boise on Tuesday afternoon, and a Nampa man is urging lawmakers to take a hard look at studies that indicate
adult prosecution is not a productive way to get tough on juvenile crime.
University of Idaho professor Eric Jensen, who has studied juvenile justice issues for more than 30 years, agrees.
Jensen says judges, not lawmakers, should determine whether an underage offender should be tried as an adult. State law should
establish clear criteria - such as age, severity of the crime and criminal history - to determine when a minor can be legally
treated as an adult rather than automatically being routed into the adult system, he said.
Idaho's judges do have discretion to send many teens convicted as adults to juvenile detention rather than an adult prison, but that
option - called blended sentencing - cannot be used for teens convicted of murder or treason. Jensen supports blended
sentencing but believes there should be no exceptions, he said.
"I think kids are not fully cognitively developed, and we have to take that into account," he said Friday. "The mens rea ('guilty mind' in
Latin) issue is huge here."
Nampa advocate Dennis "Kelly" Christensen made a similar argument in a July letter to Idaho lawmakers.
"Children ... are impulsive and do not think about the far-reaching consequences of their actions, only the immediate result, such as
make it stop," Christensen wrote. "All of which are reasons why they are not able to vote, enter into a binding contract and a
host of other things. So how can this hypocritical double standard possibly make sense?"
"A basic tenet of criminal law is that a person must form the intent to commit a crime to be found guilty of committing the offense,"
Jensen said. "The juvenile justice system (was) founded, in part, on a belief that juveniles are not fully cognitively developed.
This basic principle has been swept aside by policymakers since the Reagan revolution with the expansion of mandatory or
legislative waiver statutes."
Idaho was an early part of that nationwide sweep to crack down on teen crime, passing a mandatory waiver law in 1981. Jensen coauthored a 1994 Crime & Delinquency journal article on that law, concluding that mandating adult prosecution for young
offenders was not a deterrent: The number of juveniles arrested for violent crimes in Idaho increased in the five years after the
law took effect, while the arrest rates went down in Montana and Wyoming, where a waiver to adult court was not mandatory,
his study found.
More recent research drives home that point on the national level, Jensen said. He cited national studies from 2007 and 2008 that
indicate transferring young offenders to the adult system increased the likelihood of future violence and made them more likely
to commit future crimes than counterparts retained in the juvenile system.
LAWMAKERS ASKED TO WEIGH IN
One of about a dozen protesters who have rallied outside the Canyon County Courthouse each time Zachary Neagle
has a hearing, Christensen hopes to prevent similar prosecutions in the future and is leading the charge to revise
Idaho's law.
Neagle, 14, faces an adult charge of first-degree murder in the May 16 shooting of his father. Under Idaho law, that
charge must be heard in adult court, carrying a maximum penalty of life in prison.
Christensen would like to see Idaho outlaw charging anyone under 18 as an adult but take a second look at murder,
rape and other heinous cases after the offender turns 18, at which point he or she could face prison time.
In mid-July, Christensen e-mailed a letter to all members of Idaho's House and Senate judiciary committees, urging
them to work toward changing the law.
As of Thursday night, he had heard back from only one lawmaker, Rep. Grant Burgoyne, D-Boise.
"I think it's worth looking at," Burgoyne, a civil attorney, said Friday. "These are really difficult issues. I really don't know
what to tell you about how receptive the Legislature will be, and I don't know how interested the public is in
change."
One problematic aspect of juvenile prosecution for serious crimes is that all juvenile cases are sealed and the offenders
get to remain anonymous - something that's not appropriate for a crime such as murder, Burgoyne said. One way
to revamp Idaho's law might be to create a separate class of juvenile prosecution for certain serious crimes, with
public proceedings and stiffer penalties, he said.
Rep. Steve Kren, of Nampa, and Sen. Patti Anne Lodge, of Huston, both Republicans serving on judiciary committees,
told the Statesman earlier that they are not predisposed to think juvenile-waiver laws need changing, but they are
willing to study the issue and consider potential legislation.
ADVOCATES WANT TO GET MORE PEOPLE INVOLVED
Christensen said he hopes Tuesday's rally will gather more voices and momentum for efforts to change the law.
So does his wife, Teresa Bennett, who has spearheaded protests around the Zachary Neagle case.
Courthouse rallies held so far have drawn positive response from passers-by but remain limited to a small, dedicated
group of regulars, although an evening vigil drew about 40 people.
Bennett said she believes there are many more people out there who think juveniles should not be tried and imprisoned
as adults, and she has been frustrated by not being able to draw those people out.
"If those people are out there, come out and join us," she said. "This is our country, and these are our kids. Let's do this
thing."
Analysis of article
 This article shows the problems that most of
children are treated in Juvenile court, but not the
children who convicted of murder or treason.
 It also claims that the government should make
clear age which divide people into children and
adult.
 I think that most of people think that children are
not enough to be treated as same as adult in the
court and prison. The government has to make
some specific institutions and laws to treat the
children by asking the people’s opinion.
Political cartoon






Police: Place your hand on the bible
and repeat after me.
Kid: Place your hand on the bible and
repeat after me.
Police: No. Don’t repeat that!
Kid: No. Don’t repeat that!
Police: Your honor make him stop!
Kid: Your honor make him stop!
Another long day in Juvenile Court.
“Juveniles #2.” The Cartoonist group. 2009, April
4. 2009, December 5,
<http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/searc
h/results.php>.
Analysis of cartoon
 This cartoon shows a view that a kid
doesn’t understand what is going on at the
court.
 Also shows that the juvenile system
doesn’t work well for the kid.
 It implies us that the adult court doesn’t
have worth to sentence the kid with
protecting kid’s right and satisfaction of
people’s will.
Works cited
James C. Backstrom. “Juvenile Justice –Pro/Con.” The CQ Researcher online. 2008,
November 7. 2009, December 5,
<http://library.cqpress.com.ezp.mc.maricopa.edu/cqresearcher/>.
…. “James C. Backstrom's Biography - Dakota County Minnesota.” Dakota County,
Minnesota. 2008, Decmber 8. 2009, December 5,
<http://www.co.dakota.mn.us/Departments/Attorney/About/BackstromBioIntro.htm>.
Liz Ryan. “Juvenile Justice –Pro/Con.” The CQ Researcher online. 2008, November
7. 2009, December 5,
<http://library.cqpress.com.ezp.mc.maricopa.edu/cqresearcher/>.
“Biographies- Liz Ryan.” Barkeley Law University of California. 2007. 2009,
December 5, <http://www.law.berkeley.edu/centers/bccj/conferences/gault/bios.html>.
KRISTIN RODINE. “Should juveniles who commit serious crimes be charged as
adults in Idaho?” Local News/ Idaho. 2009, August 3. 2009, December 5,
<http://www.idahostatesman.com/LocalNews/story/853965.html>.