SHOULD JUVENILES BE TRIED AS ADULTS? WHAT AGE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE?

A chain link fence. Prior to the 20th century, there was no "juvenile justice system" in the United States. The initial purpose of juvenile courts was to treat or rehabilitate juvenile offenders. Now, the emphasis has shifted to punishment, with many courts seek to hold juvenile offenders accountable for their actions. [PhotoDisc]

A 15-year-old boy rapes and kills a 14-year-old girl. How should society handle this teenager? Focusing exclusively on the behavior, many states put convicted murderers to death for their actions. But this case is different. Why? Because the offender is a minor or juvenile; that is, he has not reached the age at which society considers him an adult. In the United States, we have created a separate system to deal with juvenile offenders, youths under a specified age who are accused of committing an act that violates the law. Society recognizes the harm caused by the actions of the youth described above, but also distinguishes between the behavior of adults and children. Nevertheless, the way in which the justice system would handle the 15-year-old varies significantly depending on the historical period in which he committed the act. Over the past few hundred years, our approach to juvenile justice has changed dramatically. 

Juvenile justice as we know it today is a relatively recent institution. Prior to the 20th century, there was no "juvenile justice system." As a result, deviant youth were handled in the same manner as adult criminals, and often detained in the same facilities. English common law held that children under the age of seven years old could not be punished for their behavior because they were unable to form criminal intent. Children between the ages of seven and 14 could be held responsible for their behavior, but their age could be used to justify a reduced punishment. Historically, children as young as 14 or 15 were considered adults and were frequently subject to brutal corporal punishment and extended periods of confinement. 


In England, the Latin concept parens patriae (state as parent) was used by kings to exercise their control over others, particularly children, in their kingdom. In the United States, state authorities have used parens patriae as justification to intervene in the lives of families to protect children who are not being protected by their parents. Delinquency is taken as a sign that parents are failing to control their children and therefore the state must step in as surrogate parent. 

In the mid-1900s, there came the realization that the juvenile court had failed to live up to its promise. Many children were being detained for extended periods for relatively minor offenses. For example, in 1964, Gerald Gault, a 15-year-old from Arizona, was sentenced to six years at a state training school for making a prank phone call. The same offense committed by an adult carried a maximum sentence of two months in prison and a $50 fine. The United States Supreme Court reviewed the Gault case and found that his constitutional rights had been violated. The decision established that due process rights must be provided in delinquency adjudication hearings. That is, children who face the possibility of confinement have many of the same constitutional rights as adults during adjudication (right to assistance of counsel, protection against self-incrimination, right to confront accusers, etc.). The Gault decision is arguably the most important Supreme Court decision ever rendered concerning juvenile justice, because it reshaped the juvenile system into one that is effectively very similar in look and feel to the adult system. 


The 1980s and 1990s also witnessed significant changes in the juvenile justice system. Increases in violent crime led to public demand for "get tough" approaches to criminals of all ages. Some observed that America had become soft on juvenile delinquents because the authority of the juvenile court expired at a certain age (usually 17 or 18). That is, kids who killed could only be punished in the juvenile court until the age of 18 or so. As a result, many states sought to extend the age jurisdiction of the juvenile court and make it easier to try kids in adult court. This process is called waiver. In some states, certain juvenile offenders (such as those accused of murder or rape) are automatically waived into adult court. As discussed above, the initial purpose of the juvenile court was to treat or rehabilitate juvenile offenders. Now, many juvenile courts seek to hold juvenile offenders accountable and protect public safety by detaining delinquent youth. This has led some observers to comment that we no longer need a separate court to handle juveniles, because the juvenile court has evolved into a mirror image of the adult court.