By Crystal Luong
Staff Writer
He is a 13-year-old.
He is an impoverished 13-year-old who lives in the inner city.
He is an abused 13-year-old whose parents are the epitome of domestic conflict.
He is a 13-year-old whose education level is practically non-existent.
All his life scenes of violence, hatred and prejudice have surrounded him. He fits the profile of a juvenile offender. When he faces trial for a crime he was driven to commit, will the justice system consider his circumstances? Or will he be dismissed as an incorrigible criminal and considered an adult with a full understanding of his actions?
In California, the legal driving age is 16, the legal voting age is 18 and the legal drinking age is 21. These age requirements are in place for a reason. They judge the fact that those who are underage do not possess the full capabilities and understandings of responsibility that accompany certain personal actions.
If these assumptions are true for driving, voting and drinking, then there is a parallel application to juvenile offenders as well. At 13, a juvenile offender can be prosecuted as an adult in court, but where is the justification that this teenager fully understands the magnitude of his or her crime if he or she is judged to be unable to responsibly perform other tasks?
In recent years, the media has flooded the public with images of teen violence in school shootings. Most recently a Florida judge overturned the convictions for two teenage boys who allegedly beat their father to death. These examples of juvenile violence stir up public sentiment. Then, politicians play on the public’s emotions over these few highly publicized cases. They drive legislation for stricter reinforcements in the juvenile justice system so that more and more kids will be tried as adults. However, they fail to see that the issue of juvenile crime does not center on these rare, emotionally-charged crimes and the public thus becomes misinformed.
According to criminology studies, individual murders in the inner city are the most routine situations of juvenile crime. When this fact is taken into consideration, the issue of juvenile justice encompasses more than just well publicized small-town killings. It involves the environmental, domestic, educational and psychological backgrounds of the individual teens committing crimes.
Prosecuting juveniles as adults in federal courts only means longer prison sentences with a lack of rehabilitative services that are a necessity. Neither the juvenile offender nor society benefits from incarcerating the teen for longer sentences. Time in an adult prison may keep the teen off the street, but it also serves to ease the teen into the world of adult crime. In addition, what good is it when the teen is released after a 20- or 30-year sentence? Will he or she be better adapted to return to society and follow the rules of mainstream America?
Though the magnitude of a juvenile’s crime may be considered socially unacceptable, to dismiss the teen’s chances of reform by prosecuting the teen as an adult serves is a single-minded solution that does not recognize the complexity of the issue.
The American Psychological Association issued congressional testimony in support of the 1997 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act that says, “Many factors, both individual and social, contribute to an individual’s propensity to use violence, and are within our power to change. There is overwhelming evidence that we can intervene effectively in the lives of young people to reduce or prevent their involvement in violence.”
This testimony recognizes that juveniles can and should be rehabilitated for both their personal benefit and the benefit of the society that they will return to some day.
Before considering the prosecution of juveniles as adults, consider their backgrounds and stages of development and understanding. Furthermore, think about the future status of society if a vicious cycle of prosecution, imprisonment and a return to crime ensues for juveniles. Without the efforts of rehabilitation in the juvenile justice system, the future of juvenile justice is grim.
October 24, 2002