
Jordan Brown is a 12-year-old kid who was almost tried as an adult at the age of 11 for allegedly killing his father’s eight-and-a-half-month pregnant fiancé. After Brown's lawyer made an argument that the judge was violating the young boy’s fifth amendment, he was not tried as an adult. According to the police report, Jordan walked into his father’s room and shot his step mother with a hunting rifle and got on his school bus and headed to school. Jordan's little sister, who was seven years of age, claimed that she saw Jordan kill his step mother. Jordan's stepmother's side of the family viewed the boys as a troubled kid, who was aggressive and showed little self-control. Jordan's father saw him as an untroubled youth, and described his son as, “a happy-go-lucky quarterback of his peewee football team.” According to Brown’s lawyer, the boy's brain was not fully developed, especially in the area that controls decision making. Jordon was not mentally capable enough to know right from wrong. When Jordan spent some time in the juvenile detention center his father stated that he was in there with harsh children and it had some serious effects on Jordan’s development and character. He also said the environment Jordan was in was causing him to break down. If Jordan was tried as an adult, he would face life without parole and would be in a juvenile detention center until the age of 17. When Jordan is sent to a prison he will still not be physically and mentally ready to be in a prison with adults. He could be a victim of rape, beatings, and many other things that could be torture towards the kid.

Raising the age of youth getting tried as an adult would help Jordan and the many others who are going through the same thing as Jordan. This topic has been an on-going debate for many years, but still nothing has been done to raise the age of youth getting sent to prison. The current juvenile justice system needs to be altered by raising the age that juvenile offenders can be tried as adults, because they are not mentally and physically ready for adult prison, and research has shown that it is not beneficial to individuals or their communities to be tried as adults. Youth that are tried as adults leave prison and then later down the paths of their life are re-incarcerated. Many are incarcerated because of the life they had in prison is all they grew up knowing and then later could not adapt back to society later after they were released from prison. The communities of these troubled youth will also benefit from raising the age because it will make things safer for the people there because the troubled youth will not be corrupt if they go through cognitive behavioral therapy and other programs that research has shown to be successful in altering the life choice outcomes of youth.

In a YouTube video Julia Whaipooti gives several reasons why the age of youth offenders should rise when facing adult prison. Julia Whaippoti focused on social justice while attending college so she is a reliable subject to this matter. In the video she claims that studies that she conducted while looking into the juvenile justice system show if youth are sent in an adult system they are more likely to reoffend. From a personal experience I feel that this is true. A friend of mine was sent to an adult jail at the age of 17 and has been in and out of jail multiple times. He constantly finds himself in the same situation because the juvenile systems did not help him in any way.  Julia Whaipooti is not the only one with this point of view. Dr. Hinemoa Elder, who is an Associate Professor of Te Whare Wananga o Awanuiarangi, that has been recognized by Worldwide Branding for showing dedication, leadership and excellence in higher education, also agrees that the age should be raised. She thinks that the mind of a young individual does not fully develop until the age of twenty-five. This means that putting young people under 17 in a jail with people that are considered mentally developed can endanger youth offenders and taint them rather than prevent and help them from becoming re-incarcerated. In Dr. Elder's opinion, youth courts are more beneficial than sending children to adult courts. Overall, she thinks that raising the age is going to have a positive impact on the youth offender’s life and I have to say that I agree. 

In Nancy Dowd’s book A New Juvenile Justice System, she provides a history of the justice system for her readers. She mapped out an overview on how the system is set up for troubled youth across America. One of the things that Dowd claims in her book is that the American juvenile justice system claims to be beneficial to troubled youth, but this is not necessarily true since America has the most youth getting re-incarcerated than any other country. Also, the way the juvenile system is set up, it makes it harder for offenders to reenter society and adapt back to the regular world. She argues that bringing a kid into the juvenile justice system sets the child up to get in trouble in the future and renter into the adult system. The child will have to have a probation officer which increases the child’s chance of being locked up again. Dowd feels like the current system is a failure in every aspect because she thinks it does not serve the kids well and does not keep the community safe. 

The county plays an important role in the juvenile justice system. When a youth commits a crime the police submits a petition to probation to the district attorney to make the decision on weather or not the charges should be filed. When a juvenile offender commits a very serious crime, such as murder, then the district attorney’s office has the option of “direct filing” the case, which means the juvenile can be tried in adult criminal court (Glenn, 2012). Direct file gives prosecutors the ability to file directly to adult court and override the juvenile or family court jurisdiction of the child's case. One of the main problems with the direct file system is the fact that it allows the prosecutor to have full control over the child's life. When these prosecutors are in this position to make this choice it could be extremely problematic because prosecutors often want to go for the most severe punishment.  

Currently there are 16 states with the direct file system. “Some states that previously had a direct file systems chose to discontinue the practice because, not only does direct file omit a disinterested arbiter for the child’s best interests, it plunges youngsters — and increasingly those charged with nonviolent crimes — into the much more punitive adult system.” (Harwell, 2011). Additionally, it has been found that direct file has had little effect on violent juvenile crime. If these direct file capabilities of the prosecutor fail to affect juvenile crime, then why are they needed in the first place? The states who are still allowing the direct file systems are CA, MI, DC, FL, LA, GA, PA, MT, NE, OK, VT, WY, VA, AZ, AK, CO. Some of these states are working on moving away from the direct file system that allows the juvenile the ability to be tried in adult criminal court. For example, California and Florida are working to move towards more equitable juvenile justice systems through ending the direct file system (Harwell, 2011).  Moving away from direct file ability will ensure that judges are making transfer decisions for youth after a consideration of several different factors rather than prosecutors.

  When tried as a juvenile there is no right to a jury, the case is determined as either “true” or “not true”, rather than “guilty” or “not guilty” (Glenn, 2012). If youth are tried as juveniles with the judge, they are recommended to a program by the judge. This program could include being supervised at home, or at a probation juvenile center depending on what their crime is. This allows these kids the opportunity to undergo rehabilitation and not punishment. 

Despite popular belief nationwide juvenile crime rates have been in decline since the 1990’s. Many people believe that crime rates have stayed the same or even gone up since then. That could be because some of the mass shootings that have happened, but this is not representative of the nation’s youth crime rate overall. Neal Howe is an American author, historian and consultant he has lots of works he has successfully published. According to Neal Howe, the decrease in youth crime rates can be attributed to several different hypotheses, including: social and environmental changes, decreased substance abuse, and changes in the criminal justice system. One hypothesis even goes as far to claim that the decrease in juvenile crime rates can be attributed to the 1970 clean air act and the phasing out of led from paint products. The argument is based on the idea that the led in the paint was making youths more aggressive. There are other articles that go on to claim that the decrease in recent youth crime rates can be a result of a decrease in the severity of punishment for crimes.

According to an article I came across while researching my topic, “The Raise the Age Criminal Justice Reform”, increased sentences and harsher punishments for crimes does not decrease the crime rate, rather over a long term horizon there is an increase of crimes. This information supports the idea that it would be more beneficial for youths to not be tried as adults with such severe sentences. Though this statistic may take some by surprise The Raise the Age Criminal Justice Reform explains that youths are not deterred from doing crimes in the face of harsher punishments. Instead these harsher punishments mean they are in jail longer. Thus this is more time that this harsh environment is influencing their character, which is causing an increase reoffender rate among those who spend a longer time in prison. 

The programs that the juvenile justice system has for youths that have mental health needs is not very beneficial. 

Children with mental health needs sometimes enter a juvenile justice system ill-equipped to assist them. Between 65 percent and 70 percent of the 2 million children and adolescents arrested each year in the United States have a mental health disorder. Approximately one in four suffers from a mental illness so severe it impairs his or her ability to function as a young person and grow into a responsible adult. (Mental Health needs of Juvenile Offenders) 

Most youth cannot properly return to school from a juvenile detention center. Most of the youth that come from a juvenile justice system tend to drop out of school because they are mentally damaged. Being in a detention center also increases the risk of self-harm for troubled youth that has to go through the juvenile justice system. “The Ofﬁce of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention reports that 11,000 youth engage in more than 17,000 acts of suicidal behavior in the juvenile justice system annually” (Holman 9). This is not beneficial for the juvenile offender nor the family of this person because it would cause depression for the family and friends if the juvenile offender that commits suicide. 

The justice system continues to be lacking in the financial efficiency of government run institutions. According to Holman, the government will see a greater return on their investment if they put juvenile offenders in multi-systematic therapy compared to county detention centers. For every dollar that the government spends they get $1.98 on return for county detention centers, versus $13.36 for every dollar they spend on multi systematic therapy. The government is not efficiently or effectively utilizing their funds. If a youth offender is given a life sentence, then it is estimated that the government will spend $1.7 million on the offender over the course of their sentence (Holman 11). This money comes from the communities that these offenders live in, so to make the system more efficient they should utilize the multi systematic therapy option over the detention center option. In the long run this will be much more financially beneficial for the government, and the communities, while also improving the life of the offenders.

Many people may disagree with my view on the juvenile justice system. In Kellie Dworaczyk’s article she pointed out how raising the age is very costly because of the thousands of teenagers that are being arrested and put into the juvenile justice system. The cost of supervisions, programs, and treatment are what most of the states money towards the juvenile justice system would go to. Costs of supervision and programs in the juvenile justice system are more intense therefore it would cost more money than being sent to an adult prison. Also, it would cost more by  providing services for the older youth while keeping caseloads low because it will be expensive for the states and countries. In her article Kellie Dworaczyk said that “[they] estimated a cost of 6.7 million dollars for the first biennium of implementation, costs would increase significantly after that”(Dworaczyk). This is implying that the state would lose a significantly large amount of money if they were to raise the age for youth getting sent to prison with adults. She also gave examples of how much the cost would go up and it would reach a fiscal note of 108.8 million dollars.  

Alex Mierjeski also presented a disagreement with my view on the argument in  his article “Why is Texas Still Sending 17-Year-Olds to Adult Prison”. Since 1918 Texas has been cramming 17 year old's in adult prison for misdemeanors. It would cost fifty dollars a day to incarcerate adults and three hundred and seventy six dollars to incarcerate juveniles because of the needs of youth offenders such as schools and things of that nature. Also Alex mentioned how it would cost their state two hundred billion dollars a year to raise the age. Alex Mierjeski feels that 17 year old's should still be sent to adult prison to save their state money. However, I feel that the state should not be afraid to spend extra money in order to benefit a youth offenders life.

Currently there are many people trying to send a message to the juvenile courts in America so they can possibly raise the age of getting sent to adult prison. Kids cannot vote, buy alcohol, join the military or buy cigarettes, yet they are able to be tried as adults on trial. Raising the age is the current movement in place which is trying to push the remaining states to ensure that those who are 18 and under are seen in the juvenile court system, rather than the adult court system. The raise the age reform was passed in 2013, though it is still working to be applicable in all states and still has downfalls within the system

In my perspective, the entire Juvenile Justice system seems to be broken. Even though there are things in place to fix this broken system, I still think that it would benefit by making improvements. One thing that I think can be done to help this issue is to isolate the offenders from ages 17-19 into a different part of the juvenile detention center. At this point, it could prevent them from entering the adult system early and would prevent them to be in the juvenile detention center with younger inmates. By doing this it allows the youth to continue to let their mind develop and will not destroy their lives by throwing them in jail with adults. This will also allow the juvenile court system to focus on creating programs to benefit these who apart of the troubled youth. 

All in all, the justice system should raise the age because at the age in which youth are being tried as adults. Adults will take advantage of youth offenders because of the mindset and physical appearance, therefore, youth are not physically and mentally ready to be locked away with grown inmates. Financially this can be a problem, but it could be resolved by budgeting programs carefully. Raising the age will help kids who are getting in trouble develop in ways where they can benefit successfully. As we know, sending kids to prison with adults will almost guarantee that they will recidivism will happen after being released. So raising the age can prevent a lot of youth from going back to prison and give them a opportunity to get their lives on the right path before their life is ruined forever. 
