
To what extent should juveniles be charged as adults for crimes?  I chose this research question because this is a controversial topic in the United States.  Juveniles commit their fair share of crime in this country.  Some of their offenses are minor, but some should get them several years in prison.  Some officials try these minors as adults for these extreme crimes, but this brings up a problem because it is scientifically proven that the brains of minors are not fully developed and lack full judgement skills.  Also, it is a problem to put these kids in a prison with full grown adults.  I am interested in this topic because in high school many minors commit crimes, but most of them are just common offenses, such as fighting or stealing.  These kids make these mistakes because they were careless and immature.  I believe it is much more different for a 15 year old to commit these crimes than a full grown adult.  A 15 year old person is most likely a freshman in high school.  It is unjust to put them in the same category as a 40 year old man.  

This affects my values because as a kid we make immature mistakes and don’t realize the possible outcomes and possibilities of what might happen.  An immature mind should not be treated the same.  These people are minors for a reason.  Those who should care about this research are the men and women who work in the criminal justice field.  More minors are being tried as adults and this should show them the facts and laws involving these juveniles.

The first article is titled “Juvenile Justice: Too Young for Life in Prison?”.  This is an ABC News article and it discusses the right to imprisoning minors as they would adults.  The article also describes how a 16 year old male faces 110 years in prison.  This minor was charged as an adult.  The article is more on the side that supports trying minors as adults.  The source also lists a fact that 10% of all homicides are committed by people under 18.  This fact gains major support to start charging teens as adults more.  The people who would agree with this source are judges who support trying minors as adults and the people who disagree would be the minors reading this article.  The credibility of the source is high because it is ABC News, which is one of the biggest news stations in the country.  They have never been known to give false news reports, but since it is a news station they could exaggerate the story trying to gain publicity.

The next source is from the American Bar Association and the article is titled “Should Juveniles Be Charged as Adults in the Criminal Justice System?”.  This article opens up with a case where a 14 year old boy was charged as an adult with two felonies when he threw a rock at a police officer.  The boy’s attorney claimed that the court system is ruining this child because it is unlawful to throw a 14 year old in jail with adults.  Then the article goes on to discuss the evolution of the juvenile court system.  It wasn’t until 1825 that minors had their own court system.  The major values of this article is to show that juveniles are being unlawfully charged as adults and the impact it had on the juveniles.  The readers who would agree with this article are lawyers and judges because it is mostly laws and facts that they rule by.  The people who would disagree with the article are those who believe a 14 year old boy should not be treated as an adult.  The credibility of the article is also high because it is the American Bar Association, which is highly trusted.  There are technically no biases because it is a law website.

The third source is from the Vanderbilt law website and the article is titled “Should Juveniles Be Tried As Adults?”.  The article opens up with the familiar saying “Old enough to do the crime, old enough to do the time”.  Then the author quickly refutes it by saying it is completely wrong.  The author is a firm believer that juveniles have not matured and neither have their brains.  He also makes the point that they are under developed making them less responsible and more impulsive.  The main point he claims is that they are juveniles for a reason, or else it wouldn’t be a term.  He believes they should still be charged, but in a juvenile facility because it is safer than prisons.  The main values of the article is that juveniles should be treated as juveniles when it comes to laws because their brains aren’t developed.  The readers who would agree with this would be juveniles and doctors because of the points he makes with the juvenile brain.  Those who would disagree would be justice officials who want to charge minors as adults.  This author is very credible because he writes for the famous newspaper The Tennessean and it was published in the Vanderbilt Law website, which is a very prestigious university.  He does have personal bias because this topic is also about opinion, but he backs it up with laws and facts. 

Furthermore, this next piece of support is a scholarly article written and published by SAGE Journals.  The article is about the decision making of teens.  It relates to the teens brain maturity and how when they commit crimes this has to be taken into consideration.  Teens were noticed to be much more vulnerable to pressure than adults.  The brain is what is in charge of our decision making processes and this is what gives crimes value.  This is basically the same thing as pleading insane.  Having a weak frontal lobe that is underdeveloped is what make teens vulnerable in court.  Many people do not take this into consideration.   On the other hand, major violent crimes committed by any type of person isn’t tolerable and the offender should be punished.  For example, this article doesn’t support the automatic assumption that you can not charge a teen for crimes.  If a teen shoots and kills a civilian, they should be punished appropriately.  The article is simply supporting the fact that these biological factors should be accounted for and should influence the outcome of the court case.  Therefore, this is more proof that teens are underdeveloped and their maturity cannot go unnoticed.  

On the other hand, this argument does have another side.  The National Criminal Justice Reference System offers plenty of support that juveniles should be tried to the full punishment.  This organization strictly focuses on teenage boys.  The NCJRS states that teenage boys have the same sexual maturity as an adult male.  For example, teenage boys who commit rape should not be excused.  The rape sentence should be the exact same consequence for teens as it is for adults.  Also the NCJRS states that, “Between 1987 and 1991, the number of juveniles arrested for such violent crimes as rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and homicide increased by 50 percent.”  This shows the increase of teen crimes and something should be done.  Offering the evidence that teen males are sexually as mature as adult males gives the justice system reason to not let juveniles off the hook.  The NCJRS gives a great counter argument that strengthens this question and gives more awareness to this controversial issue.

In addition to the fact that juveniles should not be punished, the novel written by Alicia Hasselm Crimes: Causes, Types, and Victims, offers more support.  This book is about all types of crimes committed and the consequences and causes in our United States justice system.  The introduction stated simply that it will discuss all major types of crime and the causes.  For example my topic is juveniles being charged as adults.  Chapter 7 of this book is called Jurors’ Perceptions of Juvenile Offenders Tried in Adult Criminal Court.  This chapter is perfect for my research because it gives the jurors’ view of how they look at these juveniles.  Hasselm states at the beginning of the chapter that juvenile justice changes during the 90’s because of the “growing “get tough” attitude”.  Jurors are now harder on these kids because they believe they were fully capable in making these crimes and have no excuse.  The only time they thought there was an excuse is when there was a study that showed if the criminal was 12 they would not be charged, but at 15 they would.  Also, Hasselm gets into the fact that if the criminal was an abused teen would the jurors care.  The book showed that “jurors are not generally sympathetic to juveniles who were abused” because this shows tendency to commit future crimes and be more unstable.  Now to the developmental side of juveniles since claims show teens aren’t as developed as adults.  This claim does not stand here because “juvenile offenders are disproportionately likely to be intellectually disabled (i.e., mentally retarded) (Kazdin, 2000), perhaps in part because disabled juveniles have impaired psychosocial and decision-making capacities”.  Hasslem says there is really no correlation here, but does agree that they have impaired decision making processes.  In her conclusion, she states that there are several factors that can try a juvenile as an adult because it is in the jury’s hands.  Even though the jury can make this decision she does admit that “Youthful offenders are among the most developmentally vulnerable individuals who enter our legal system”.

This question is arguable because there are cases where juveniles have been tried as adults and minors for crimes. As a result, the outcomes and consequences of each sentencing can be analyzed to see to what extent it is harmful or helpful to charge juveniles as adults. In addition, information about how laws and sentences have changed can be useful to argue for either side. All the sources seem to agree that minors have the potential to change even after committing serious crimes, and the rehabilitation that juvenile courts offer is beneficial. The articles disagree on how to define juveniles and if different crimes should affect if the offender is tried as an adult or not. The information about the different court systems and the studies of the different sentences of criminals provided by the articles make me believe that juveniles are better off being tried as minors if the crimes are not too severe. My research questions could be revised to be more specific about who is considered a juvenile and could focus on a particular type of crime, such as murder.
