Young Prisoners in Adult Cells

The society has been facing a dilemma concerning whether or not to treat juveniles the same way as adults are being treated in connection with committing criminal offenses. Experts say that there are two ways to deal with such predicament: One is the reclassification of the offense committed by a juvenile as something that is less serious than a crime; the other one is the redefinition of the person who committed the crime as an older individual who does not fit the characteristics of a child. The American society has been treating young offenders who have committed crimes as delinquents who should be given a different treatment from adult offenders due to their immature stage. Barron’s Law Dictionary defines the term juvenile delinquent as 

“minors who have committed an offense ordinarily punishable by criminal processes, but who are under the statutory age for criminal responsibility. When a juvenile commits an offense it is considered an act of juvenile delinquency.” [Gifis, 284]. 

According to Laurence Steinberg, there are two guiding beliefs that are prevailing concerning young people: One is that “juveniles have different competencies that adults (and therefore need to be adjudicated in a different type of venue); and two is that “they have different potential for change than adults (and therefore merit a second chance and an attempt at rehabilitation). [par. 2] 

 According to studies and surveys, there are greater number of people who are in favor of transferring juveniles who have committed serious crimes to the adult system than the ones who are not in favor of such idea. The main reasons for their agreeing to have policy include the following: · 

• The offenders pose a legitimate risk to the safety of other young people of their age. · 
• The severity of the offense that they have committed should be subject to a more serious punishment; · 
• Their repetitive offenses may not be possible to be corrected through rehabilitation. Steinberg points out that the age range between 12 and 17 – adolescence age – is a period in an individual’s life wherein he or she is in the process of transition; this period is characterized by the following:

1.  · the adolescent is experiencing dramatic changes in his or her social, emotional, physical and intellectual capability; this, according to him, is the period wherein a person is between t borderline of possessing competence and incompetence; 
2. · the adolescent may be molded by experiences relating to his or her family, school and friends as well as his or her environment. For this reason, the idea of transferring juveniles to adult court and criminal justice system may not prove to be a rational unrestricted rule unless the adolescent possesses limited acquiescence. · 
3. There are numerous instances wherein the adolescent becomes greatly affected by experience. 

This should be something that must be considered should the transfer policies be implemented on a juvenile offender since a policy that is inadequately devised may result to consequences that may prove to be harmful to young people. For experts it is impossible to exclude the age in discussing concerns pertaining to policy for criminal justice. And it is only right to treat the case with utmost care and consideration, meaning there should be a concrete basis for the decision which involves the transfer of the young offender to the adult system. 

As much as people may want to justify that an adolescent can still be considered a child, it is ironic to learn that a child could commit a heinous crime the same way that adults do. One example is that case of Emily Johnson of Fergus Falls. She was a two-year-old girl who died the next day after she was sexually molested then thrown against a wall by the son of the daycare provider. The offender was a thirteen-year-old boy. Despite the protests, a bill nicknamed “Emily’s Law” (in memoriam of the little girl) was filed by Representatives Torrey Westrom and Bud Nornes and was approved by a Minnesota House Committee making it possible for an individual as young as 14 years old to be charged as an adult. 

One researcher drew a conclusion from a study conducted concerning the sentences received by juvenile offenders in New Jersey and in New York, wherein he was able to prove that adolescents who were transferred to adult courts were more likely to be sentenced and serve incarceration periods than those youth who are being detained in the juvenile system. Similarly, one study conducted in Texas in 1996 showed that those juveniles who were put on trial and were sentenced through adult system received longer terms than the ones being given by juvenile courts. In an article written by Fritsch, Caeti and Hemmens, they mention that: 

“Juveniles in this population consistently received longer sentences than are available in juvenile court. When actual time served was taken into consideration, however, these youth rarely served more lengthy sentences than are available in juvenile court, serving an average of only 27% of their original sentence.” [Fritsch, Caeti, & Hemmens, 593]. 

Contrary to what the majority believe concerning the treatment of young offenders, there are several reasons why juveniles must be treated the same as adult when it comes to serious offenses; one of which is the manner of treatment being given to juveniles by the society. Its recognition that young people are capable of deciding for themselves like mature individuals can as evidenced by the acquisition of driver’s license at the age of 16 or considering their age as age of consent. These instances and many others indicate that teenagers do not need the protection that is being provided by the state to minors. Similarly, if they can make logical decisions that resemble that of an adult, then they should be treated as adults even when it comes to punishment for criminal offenses. One article states that: 

Supporters of getting rid of juvenile courts center their arguments on the need to punish juvenile criminals and a concern for juveniles' rights. 1. The juvenile court is founded on false premises because its purpose is to shield youths from the consequences of their own actions. 2. The juvenile court fails to deter juvenile violence. 3. The current juvenile crime problem requires that we punish juvenile offenders in order to deter the next generation of juveniles from becoming predators. 4. Justice demands that juvenile courts be abolished—if juveniles are tried in adult courts, they will be afforded their full array of constitutional rights. [qtd. in CliffsNotes]. 

The argument of whether or not a juvenile should be charged as an adult has been in existence for a long time. The society should therefore weigh this matter in such a manner that the victims will be given due justice and the offender due punishment even if the crime was committed by a minor. It is therefore not the age that should be the basis for punishment but the severity of the crime. 

Works Cited 

CliffsNotes.com. Should Juveniles Be Tried as Adults?. 21 Apr 2011
<http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/topicArticleId-10065,articleId-10063.html>. Retrieved 20 April 2011.

Fritsch, T.J., Caeti, C.H., and Hemmens, C. "Spare the needle but not the punishment: the incarceration of waived youth in Texas prisons." Crime and Delinquency. 42.4 (1996): 593(17). Internet. INFOTRAC Searchbank: Expanded Academic ASAP. A18825104. 5 Nov. 1997.

Gifis, Steven H. Barron’s Law Dictionary.(5^th ed.). (2003). Hauppauge, New York: Barron’s Educational Series, Inc. 284.

Jensen, Eric L., and Linda K. Metsger. 1994. "A Test of the Deterrent Effect of Legislative Waiver on Violent Juvenile Crime." Crime and Delinquency 40:96-104, cited in "Bishop, Donna, "Juvenile Offenders in the Adult Criminal System," 27 Crime and Justice 81 (2000)

Steinberg, Laurence. "Should Juvenile Offenders Be Tried as Adults? - rehabilitation at issue". USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education). FindArticles.com. 19 Apr, 2011. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2668_129/ai_69698409/ Retrieved 20 April 2011.