Whether or not juveniles should be prosecuted as adults has been an extensive and emotional argument.  For many years people have fought each other over whether the answer is yes or no.  While researching, I have found that there is no in between. People have either felt strongly against it and think it's wrong, or people think it's what they deserve and it's not too harsh. The question is not whether they should or should not be prosecuted, but rather when is it acceptable for juveniles to be prosecuted as adults?  Many states have changed their laws several times over the years to try and appease the argument. Whenever a state feels that a juvenile case has been mishandled it usually results in the court changing the law. The problem with that is people don't look at the crime when arguing against the prosecution of juveniles only their age and innocence, whereas people who do want them prosecuted look at the crime and its severity. There are many opinions on the topic of juveniles being tried as adults, while some think it should be standard for everyone, actually how juveniles are tried should depend on the following factors: crime, age, situation, background and many others.  

For many years the judicial system has set up many ways to try and punish juvenile cases without sending them to jail. In the article, Juvenile Offenders, it states that "separate juvenile courts and institutions were established to deal with this largely urban problem. These detention facilities, called reform schools or reformatories, were designed to rehabilitate the offender and keep him or her separate from the adult prison population, which was known to be both a danger and a corrupting influence to minors. (Juvenile Offenders)" The first reform school was opened in 1846 and then within the next few decades more schools similar to this began popping up around the United States.  The most significant court decision on the rights of juvenile offenders came in the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on In re Gault. The case was about a fifteen-year-old boy, Gerald Francis Gault, who was detained by the local sheriff in June of 1964 after a neighbor reported that he made a prank phone call to her house. Gault was known to authorities for two previous incidents -- both involving theft -- and was already on probation.  After taken into custody, Gault was summoned for two hearings.  After the second one the ruling was that the judge declared him to be a juvenile delinquent and sentenced him to the Arizona State Industrial School in Fort Grant until he turned twenty-one and the Arizona juvenile law did not allow for an appeal to be filed. If the court had charged Gault with making a lewd phone call as an adult, Gault would have faced a maximum penalty of fifty dollars and two months in jail (Juvenile Offenders).  

This is where many people find the law to too harsh.  The punishment for an adult seems less severe than the juvenile punishment.  Because of the outrageous sentencing, Gault's parents fought the case and the case ended up going to the Supreme Court.  The Court found that several violations of due process had taken place in sentencing Gault to more than five years in the state school.  No transcripts were recorded of Gault's meetings with the sheriff or judge. "Neither the fourteenth amendment nor the Bill of Rights is for adults alone," the Supreme Court asserted in its ruling, which forced juvenile court systems across the United States to comply with a new set of fair standards for minors (Juvenile Offenders).

In the article, "Juvenile Offenders in the Adult Criminal Justice System", the author, Donna Bishop, talks about how in most states have instituted reforms in regards to the quickly rising rates of youth crimes.  The reforms include provisions that transfer an increasing number and range of adolescents to criminal courts to be prosecuted as adults.  This proposes that the criminal prosecution will insure more effective punishments and deterrence.  However, she clearly states that there is hardly any evidence to prove putting these provisions in effect are doing any good and achieving the purpose they have. Many non-threatening cases get sent to adult court and are handled poorly or are a waste of time (Bishop).  

The law for juvenile offenders under most state juvenile codes of law around the time of the Gault case was that underage offenders did not have to be informed of the charges against them, did not have the right to have a lawyer present during questioning, and did not have any legal protection against making self-incriminating statements. All of these protections, however, were constitutionally guaranteed to adults.  Now, the police must tell your child about his or her legal rights (called "Miranda rights").  These rights include that a child has the right to remain silent, anything the child says will be used against him or her in court, and the child has the right to a lawyer and if you or your child cannot pay for one, the court will appoint one (Juvenile Delinquency).  This being the standard law for juveniles right now, how many juveniles do you think actually know of the law and the consequences?

Most people are not aware of how the transfer laws work for juveniles and because they don't know the process, and they can't make an accurate judgement on the argument. In the article, "When are Juveniles Tried as Juveniles and When as Adults?" the author, Christopher Slobogin,  talks about how between 1979 and 2000 every state enacted provisions that eased transfer of juveniles to adult court. A few of the provisions listed are that numerous states increased the types of crimes that trigger transfer and most also lowered the age at which it could occur. A majority of states passed laws permitting waiver of juvenile court jurisdiction for ten-year-olds charged with murder, and many other states created a presumption of transfer for juveniles older than twelve or thirteen who committed a serious or second felony (Slobogin). This means that they passed provisions so that if a twelve or thirteen year old commits a serious crime then they will be held accountable.  This state believes that is an age where they are thinking for themselves and should be held accountable. A third of the states authorized prosecutorial waivers or "direct files" to transfer juveniles, while the number of jurisdictions that adopted "automatic" transfer regimes for designated crimes doubled (rather than leaving that decision to the discretion of the juvenile court or the prosecutor) (Slobogin).

In the article, "What Do Juvenile Offenders Know about Being Tried as Adults?" the authors, Richard Redding and Elizabeth Fuller, talk about how it's important to look and examine whether or not juveniles are aware of what the transfer laws are. The authors question if juveniles knew about the laws, would this deter criminal behavior? Also whether juveniles believe the laws will be enforced against them would affect the outcome of more criminal behavior. The authors talk about a case study that was done where they examined the juvenile's knowledge and perception of the transfer laws. They asked thirty-seven juveniles structured interview questions obtaining quantitative as well as qualitative data.  The results showed that most juveniles were not even aware of the transfer laws and stated if they had known it may have deterred them from their crime (Redding, Fuller).   This should be a red flag for the justice system.  The fact that many juveniles who have already experienced the system say that if they had known the law they wouldn't have done the crime is an easy way to know how to fix the problem of the rising crime rates.  Make a way for juveniles to be educated about the system and how it works and make that available to them to learn about.

In the article, "Getting Tough with Juvenile Offenders", the author, Daniel Mears, talks about how he examined many neglected explanatory factors, including links between marital status, political orientation, and the philosophy of punishment.  He talks about studies that suggest that marital status and philosophy of punishment are associated when a juvenile is being prosecuted as an adult when the offense involves any of these three offenses: selling illegal drugs, committing property crime, or committing violent crimes. He also goes into depth with analyzing and comparing how serious the crime was to what the child's home life is like.  He believes the worse the home life is for the kid then the more severe the crimes will get (Mears). Throughout the article Mears makes it clear he thinks it's wrong to prosecute juveniles as adults. He believes there is always more to the story behind the crime and you will never know the whole truth so it's unfair to prosecute them as adults.  He thinks the worse the home life is for the kid the more severe crimes they will commit through their lifetime.

Just like in the article "Prosecuting Juveniles in Adult Court: An Assessment of Trends and Consequences" by Malcolm Young and Jenni Gainsborough, both articles express the one side of the argument stating it is clearly wrong to prosecute juveniles as adults no matter what.  Young and Gainsborough talk about how moving juveniles to the adult court system is a radical and unjust thing to do (Young).  The authors talk about how most people involved in the system are starting to recognize that adult courts are inappropriate settings for children who are still developmentally immature and that puts them at a disadvantage at every stage in the system.  They state the growing evidence that shows the long-term and damaging consequences suffered by children who are held in adult prisons.  Putting juveniles in adult prisons has also shown there is a high chance they will commit more crimes later on (Young, Gainsborough).  

This is what most people out there use as their main argument against prosecution of juveniles.  Many say that until a certain age your brain hasn't fully developed and matured so therefore you can't be held accountable for your actions.  Another big factor to look at on why juveniles shouldn't be prosecuted as adults is the long-term damages from being held in an adult prison.  Many studies show that kids are more likely to get raped and attacked than the other adults.  Talking these points into consideration, it makes it seem inhuman to prosecute juveniles and put them in adult prison no matter what crime they committed.  No child should have to go through that kind of torture.

In the article, "7 Vital Pros and Cons of Juveniles Tried as Adults", by Crystal Lombardo she gives key points to both sides of the arguments in an unbiased way.  To support the side for no prosecution as adults she gives the following reasons: risks of adult prison, lack of hope, provoke child offenders, and lifetime effects. When child offenders are tried as adults, they go through the same process as adult offenders. There is the risk they may not be able to cope well in a correctional facility where they comingle with adult criminals convicted with horrible crimes. When trying juveniles as adults there is a risk of showing them society's hopelessness in giving them another shot at living clean, normal lives. It seems that once a child commits a crime, they are no longer able to quit. Young people have many years ahead of them, which may be channeled for doing good.  Some kids (even adults) have experienced a negative reaction against strict punishment and rigid rules. They may become more aggressive, more hopeless, and more violent (Lombardo). They may pick up even worse behavior while in an adult prison. When taking into consideration the lifetime effects a child with criminal record will always live with the stigma for the rest of their lives, and this gives them a hard time blending in with society and leading normal lives. They may have limited options for school, work, business, and even finding a future partner. This could have lasting ill effects on their mental, social and emotional lives (Lombardo).

On the flip-side of this argument the pros for prosecuting juveniles as adults are not letting them think they can get away with everything, reduce crime, teach accountability, and trial by jury. If you don't give a sufficient punishment to every offense, it lets the belief that the offense done is acceptable or tolerable. Child or adult, the criminal violated the law, and made someone suffer greatly. If you do the crime you should have to do the time. There is a rising number of crimes being committed by juveniles. Over the years, these young offenders are free to cultivate criminal minds and behaviors all because of the absence of ample punishment. When kids are being tried as adults, it discourages them from doing unlawful acts.  Punishing juveniles for their wrongdoings no matter what the severity of the crime is teaches them accountability. When talking about a trial by jury most people see juvenile trials as a joke so there's no need to be truthful.  If prosecuted as an adult there is the more serious factor held in adult court (Lombardo).

In the Chicago Tribune there was a case posted that displayed exactly why age should not be the determining factor for prosecution as an adult or juvenile. The story was about two cases in Illinois that are very similar to each other but were handled very differently.  In the first case a fourteen year old boy shot another young boy while he was riding his bicycle around the block. When asked why he shot him he said he was proving himself to his gang.  A few months later, not related to this one, another case is reported of a fifteen year old shooting another younger boy to prove his alliance to his gang. Since the fifteen year old had turned fifteen before his crime his case was sent to adult court where he received twenty-eight years in adult prison.  The other boy was still fourteen so his case was handled in juvenile court.  The fourteen year old is due to be released after he turns 21 the other boy won't be out until he's 43.  This caused tension to rise about the law for prosecution of juveniles and so it cause legislators to make changes.  Both boys admitted they knew what they were doing and for what reason.  It is wrong for the fourteen year old to get off easier just because of his age.  This is a good example of why you should not just look at age when determining the prosecution of the criminal (Eldeib).  

However, the law becomes tricky in cases like the one in the video "Adult Crime, Adult Time: The Jacob Ind Story."  The video is the broadcast of the trial.  In the video they explain that the case is about Jacob Ind, a fifteen year old boy, who slaughtered his parents while they were in bed.  Because of the severity of the crime, they decided to prosecute him as an adult.  As the trial went on rumors of child abuse arose and people began to change their stance on the case.  Once itwas time for sentencing the jury didn't have enough sympathy for him because they found him guilty. Because he was tried as an adult he received life in prison without parole.  People became outraged because of how young he was.  People began questioning that the laws should be changed. When there are rumors of abuse but no one has the proof do you still carry out the case in adult court?  When outside factors come into play like that it creates the lines between what is right and what's wrong in the situation.

The reason that the counter argument doesn't make sense is because of cases like the Chicago Tribune story.  Why would you want to let a juvenile criminal get away with murdering someone else's child just because they were fourteen and were under the age of being prosecuted as adults?  If the juvenile knows what they were doing and can tell someone why, then the counter argument cannot stand.  The counter arguments main stance is that kids at that age haven't matured and can't be held responsible for their actions.  However, if the child can say they committed the crime because of a specific reason, then at shows them thinking on their own and making that decision. They should be held accountable. This is why I believe that you shouldn't look at only age when a crime is committed.  You should look at how severe the crime was and did the child know what they were doing and why.  However, that's not to say there are not flaws in how we prosecute juveniles. 

In the video, "Should Juveniles Be Tried As Adults?" the people are talking about this story of a fourteen year old boy who tries out this wrestling move he saw on television on his friend, but he ends up hurting his friend so badly he died. The fourteen year old ends up going to adult prison for first degree murder.  The speaker in the video thinks it's ridiculous and that it shows how messed up the laws are.  The boy did not intentionally kill his friend, but he ended up with the same punishment as someone who does mean to kill someone.  The speaker talks about how people think prosecuting juveniles as adults is a deterrent to keep kids from committing crimes when in reality most of the young adults out there are not even aware of the rules (Robertson).  This is another example of a case where it makes it clear that you need to look at all factors of the case when making the decision on how to prosecute the juvenile.  This case would be more problematic because he did kill his friend but he didn't mean to.  So should he have to pay for the crime as if he meant it, or be prosecuted as a juvenile and receive a lower sentencing?

Many people think that a standard law is the best way to prosecute juveniles, however, how juveniles are tried should depend on the following factors: crime, age, situation, background and many others. Most people are going to hold to their side of the argument whether it's for or against the prosecution of juveniles as adults.  The reason is because most people don't even understand the way the system works they just have their version of what's right and what's wrong.  The best way to determine whether or not the juvenile should be prosecuted as an adult or a juvenile is looking at the crime, age, situation, and motive.  If the juvenile admits they knew what they were doing when they killed someone then why should they get off with a mild punishment because of their age?  Before you can make the decision you think is right I think it's best to be informed on the law and how it works.  Many cases that don't need to be sent to adult court do get sent and the cases that do need to go to adult court get overshadowed and stay in juvenile court.  There are many problems with the way the system works and it needs to be fixed.  However, it is wrong to say that juveniles should never be prosecuted as adults.  There is a crime and situation where it will be appropriate to prosecute juveniles as adults.  The courts need to be able to make that decision when the time is necessary.  In order for there to not be any more cases that are mishandled, the juvenile system needs to be prepared to look at the whole case and make a decision based on what is appropriate for the criminal.

