The United States stands alone as the only nation that sentences those charged with violent crimes to life without parole before turning 18 years of age.  Seems odd that no other country in the world subjects young people to the harshest sentencing possible, with no other country following in their footsteps. Are they leading the pack, or, falling behind, how do we really need to be treating these young people? The topic of minors being imprisoned is a largely debated topic, especially in the United States. Even though our legal system expects people to be held accountable for their crimes, it still begs the question at what age should citizens of the United States be held responsible? Many times “kids too young to drive a car or go to a scary movie by themselves are sentenced to imprisonment until they die, without absolutely no chance of parole or release. In many states, 13 and 14 years olds are subject to the harshest possible prison sentence despite widespread acknowledgement by experts, parents, teachers, doctors, and courts that children tend to be incapable of making mature choices, that they are vulnerable to negative influences and peer pressure and that they are powerless to protect themselves from dysfunctional and dangerous home environments.” (Cohen, The Atlantic). The question we need to be asking is when should these minors be held accountable for their crimes? If they need to be held accountable, then how can we facilitate that? Maybe our current system of jailing them isn’t the best option, although there is a possibility it might be. Three aspects of minor imprisonment that our legal system needs to reevaluate are: the cost, brain development in minors, and comparing and contrasting different states (including their laws) to find out which is the best course of action for our nation when dealing with minors in our legal system.

When looking at the cost of prisons, we find that New York City paid $167,731 per inmate, to feed, house and guard each inmate in 2013 (not specific to minors), (Santora, The New York Times).  Personally this seems outrageous that a city will pay much more than the average income per year to house someone who is in jail for a crime against our society. We need to find a way to cut down on these costs or develop a new method of punishment for crimes that are being committed in our society.  Prisons in the USA are becoming overcrowded because there are people too many people sentenced to jail. Unfortunately, this is a problem America has created for itself. As of 2012 there were over 2.4 million people incarcerated for crimes. "The United States has about 5 percent of the world's population, but we have 25 percent of the world's prisoners, we incarcerate a greater percentage of our population than any country on Earth," said Michael Jacobson, director of the non-partisan Vera Institute of Justice. (CBS News). It seems outrageous and makes one wonder what other countries are doing to keep jails less crowded because it is only costing us to keep these criminals locked up. There must be other prevention strategies supplementary to the one we are currently using. Even though these numbers do not reflect the crimes of minors (but all inmates) it is difficult to see how many minors are actually part of these statistics. Minors account for 11% of all violent crimes. When looking at juvenile detention we found that these facilities cost the U.S. between $32,000 and $65,000 per year, which is still expensive but clearly not anywhere close to a regular prison. To help save the country millions of dollars every year, as well as provide education and proper care to those youth in trouble with the law, a better method is evidence based programs such as Foster Care Treatment programs or different types of therapy groups for troubled children. These programs could save the country up to $13 in savings per child and early intervention in preventing a youth at high risk from becoming a repeat offender could save the USA almost $5.7 million in over a lifetime (Campaign for Youth Justice). By changing the way the US deals with criminals, cutting the government could save millions, and use those fund continue to support youth with programs that keep them out of trouble. 

A second concern that has been at the heart of the issue of minor imprisonment is brain development. The question of when a human’s brain is fully developed has always been a largely debated topic. Recently it has been proven that juveniles are more vulnerable and can be pressured more heavily through peer pressure. Nearly 80% of minor offenders have witnessed some type of violence at home and over half witnessed weekly violence in their neighborhoods. (The Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth). This in turn forces them into an environment where they feel they have less control. Studies have shown that juveniles aged 16 and 17 are more impulsive, aggressive, emotionally volatile, likely to take risks, reactive to stress, vulnerable to peer pressure, prone to focus on and overestimate short-term payoffs and underplay longer-term consequences of what they do when compared to adults. They are likely to overlook alternative courses of action. Usually adolescents who do not show violence as younger people have a small chance of showing violence later in life, this means if we can slow the rate of crimes in younger people that would potentially help the crime rate as a whole. Clearly we need to get these young people the help they need before they turn to violence and crime and make it apart of their lifestyle. Violence toward others also tends to peak in adolescent years, says psychiatrist Peter Ash of Emory University. It's most likely to start around age 16, and people who have not committed a violent crime by age 19 only rarely start doing it later (Ritter, ABC News). A lack of impulse control is an indicator of less brain development.  This is key to keep in mind when we look at teens, since they tend to have less ability to control their impulses. Peer pressure also plays a large role in this and biologically teens are more vulnerable to be more impulsive and care more what others think when compared to their adult counterparts. When looking at brain scans between adolescents and adults it is clear to see that biologically minors have increased vulnerability in falling to peer pressure. Focusing on the lobes at the front of the brain we find that the nerve circuitry ties together from other parts of the brain (Dr. Jay Giedd of the National Institute of Mental Health). This circuitry weighs how much priority to give incoming messages like "Do this now" versus "Wait! What about the consequences?" In short, the frontal lobes are key for making good decisions and controlling impulses. Brain scans have shown that the frontal lobe will not be completely developed till age 25, this therefore proves that impulsive decisions will never be fully developed until later on in life. This makes complete sense why adolescents are shown to have poor judgment, having high emotions and being easily overwhelmed.  This is a direct correlation to the overpowering of the circuitry in the frontal lobe. As Steinberg sees it, a teenager's brain has a well-developed accelerator but only a partially developed brake. So what this means is specific functions have begun to develop but it takes time for the brain to be able to function at full capacity. Things like being able to focus and showing emotions have developed but the finer aspect of being able to control the way peer pressure makes us feel has not been developed in the way it is in adults. This in fact takes years and there is nothing we can do to speed this process up other than wait. "It's not like we go from becoming all accelerator to all brake," Steinberg said. "It's that we go from being heavy-foot-on-the-accelerator to being better able to manage the whole car." (Ritter, ABC News). This does not mean adolescents cannot make rational and appropriate decisions, it means that it is more common for adults to be able to make sound decisions without falling to peer pressure. This also does not mean that minors cannot differentiate the difference between right and wrong because this also is not true. "It does mean, particularly when confronted with stressful or emotional decisions, they are more likely to act impulsively, on instinct, without fully understanding or analyzing the consequences of their actions." (Steinberg). By around 15 or 16, the parts of the brain that arouse a teen emotionally and make them pay attention to peer pressure and the rewards of action, the gas pedal are probably all set. But the parts related to controlling impulses, long-term thinking, and resistance to peer pressure and planning, the brakes, mostly in the frontal lobes are still developing. (Juvenile Crime Law, HG.org).  Developmental psychology has been enriched by recent research on the way the adolescent brain, still in development, differs from that of adults. What this means is teenagers and younger people have a hard time understanding the consequences of their actions in the moment and have a much easier time deciding in the moment if it is a good or bad idea. For example, they may see a bunch of candy and think it looks like a good snack but they would not as easily think of the potential stomach ache it might cause them afterwards. In short, they have a hard time realizing there are often downfalls to choices and most times they may have to find out the hard way before they can really begin to learn and adapt their behavior to make smarter decisions for themselves. Thus, increasingly, courts consider whether a child is competent to stand trial or whether a child’s confession was voluntary in light of developmental and scientific research about the distinctive characteristics of children and adolescents (Juvenile Crime Law, HG.org). 

Lastly, it is important to look at how different states are going about trying to slow crime rates in minors, often these laws are different when comparing minors to adults, especially when looking at how court works. Comparing how different states go about treating this issue is important in solving the problem of how we should deal with minor in our judicial system completely. Even though rehabilitation is the country’s main goal it seems to be failing since so many of our prisons are currently overpopulated. While generally minors are considered to be under the age of 18, most states would consider minors to be under the age of 21. Although many times courtrooms are open to the general public this is not the case in juvenile court, this is for the purpose to protect children from the burdens of their crimes into adulthood and this also makes their lives a little more confidential. Even though courtrooms are confidential for minors this does not mean that their records are automatically expunged or sealed. These records can have a long lasting impact on a minor’s life. They may have difficulty obtaining employment, serving in the military or obtaining financial aid for college. Educational and therapeutic programming may be provided in the child’s community or the child may be placed out of the home in a residential program (Juvenile Crime Law, HG.org). Some states have no lower age for trying children as adults and many youths receive long, adult sentences that are the equivalent of life without parole. In several states, some minors are classified as incorrigible or status offenders when they refuse to obey their parents and/or commit acts, which while not considered criminal by adults, are prohibited due to the age of the minor offender. This includes school truancy, running away from home, curfew violations, drinking alcohol, or behaving in an unsafe or unhealthy manner. Juvenile courts hear cases dealing with juvenile delinquents, incorrigible youth or status offenders, and issues of child neglect, abandonment or abuse (juvenile dependency cases). These courts are considered civil, not criminal and the minor is charged with committing a delinquent act, rather than a crime. For status offenders this can include suspension of their license, paying a fine, community service and ordering counseling or specialized classes. In delinquency cases the juvenile can be ordered to complete the same things and more, such as probation, home confinement, placement in a relative’s home or in a foster or group home, and even incarceration in juvenile corrections. In extreme cases the judge can send the youth to an adult jail or state prison. In addition to specialized courts of law for juvenile offenses, they are also detained in separate facilities, usually called juvenile corrections, (and often referred to as juvie). These include short term facilities called juvenile halls or juvenile detention facilities and for longer terms, secured juvenile facilities. This corrections system includes social workers and probation officers with the end goal being to rehabilitate the offender and deter them from repeat offenses. They strive to help the juvenile avoid a life of crime by teaching helpful and effective coping and social skills. Historically, it was established that minors were too young to be held responsible for criminal behavior and the juvenile law system was set up to handle these offenders, with a focus on rehabilitation, not punishment. However, although still under the legal age of majority, it is becoming more and more common for a minor who commits a serious crime (such as murder), to be charged as an adult and tried in a criminal court of law. They are then no longer under the juvenile system, but enter the criminal law system. Most of the crimes that sentence youth to life without parole occur in just five states; California, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan and Pennsylvania. (The Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth). Many states, including these, have determined that children as young as 13 are now legally responsible for their repeated criminal behavior, or heinous (Juvenile Crime Law, HG.org). Often times these children do not realize what they are getting themselves into but once they are seen as a criminal there is not much anyone can do, including their parents. It ultimately lies in the hands of the judge and/or jury to seal their fate for good. 

In conclusion, imprisonment of minors is clearly a controversial topic and it is important to understand how imprisonment works for people under the age of 21 alongside our justice system. Imprisonment of minors could affect you next through a child, grandchild or friend. This is a topic that will continue to be discussed and it is doubtful there will ever be a true ‘fix’ for this unfortunate problem. Before we can even come close to finding a ‘fix’ for the problem we need to understand the financial spending and how the government chooses to spend money in our prisons, how brain development happens in minors to influence their choices and the way different states govern and choose punishment for crimes that minors are guilty of committing. It needs to be understood that those sending youth to jail we are unnecessary “taxing” the system. The costs to jailing youth are significantly higher to the American people than providing them with more appropriate correctional solutions. As well, our prisons are already bursting at the seams and this reduction in youth in our prisons would help allow prisons to properly detain the serious adult offenders.  Brian development is also not complete in those under than age of 25 and this begs to question if we should be treating minors the same way we treat adults?  Instead juvenile detention may be better to educate the youth who are in trouble.  Thirdly, with different states punishing our youth in different ways it seems curious that the country cannot stand united with this decision, which makes it even more important to decide what really is best for these young people. This is not a problem we can just ignore or worry about later. The choices that our legal system make to determine the punishments for these young criminals will define their lives whether they like it or not.
