By: Emily Gill
Volume IX – Issue II – Spring 2024
I. Introduction
The first juvenile court in the United States was established in 1899 through the Illinois Juvenile Court Act, which gave this newly created court jurisdiction over “delinquent” minors in the state of Illinois, aged sixteen and under. [1] This set the precedent of minors being treated differently under the justice system, and in 1974 the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) was passed, creating the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to ensure that states had the support to be successful with their juvenile justice systems. [2] As of today, the federal government, as well as every state, has its own juvenile courts and justice processes. Just as the American adult criminal justice system has many problems relating to efficacy and ethics, so does the juvenile justice system. In the United States, too often minors are tried as adults and placed into the adult criminal justice system, prompting the question, why do we have a juvenile justice system?
II. The Juvenile Justice System Compared to the Criminal Justice System
The American criminal justice system is created through the cooperation between state and federal law enforcement, courts, and correctional facilities. These collaborating subsystems all have different goals including upholding the rule of law, protecting civil rights, national security, reducing crime, and protecting society from offenders. [3,4] As the departments and agencies involved in criminal justice come together, such as the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), there are slight fissures created in the overall mission: the DOJ’s mission statement is to “uphold the rule of law, to keep our country safe, and to protect civil rights,” whereas the BOP’s is to “protect society by confining offenders in the controlled environments of prisons and community-based facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure, and that provide work and other self-improvement opportunities to assist offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens.” [5,6] The juvenile justice system, alternatively, is not a formal centralized system, and discretion is given primarily to states, territories, and localities (juveniles can be tried adjudicated by a federal magistrate in certain circumstances, but this is uncommon). [7] The U.S. government states that the goal of juvenile justice is to maintain public safety, develop skills, rehabilitate, address treatment needs, and reintegrate juveniles into the community. [8] While there is more of a consistent and coherent goal throughout the juvenile system, it is less centralized, leading to inconsistent outcomes for juveniles who interact with the system. [9] The adult and juvenile systems both have disconnects and inconsistencies inside of the systems but also have disconnects between each other. One of such inconsistencies is that in the adult system, there is much more of a focus on retribution, as compared to the juvenile system where there is a great focus on rehabilitation, either through detention or diversion, and then reentry.
Another difference between these two systems is in their status. The juvenile court system is technically neither criminal nor civil; however, it does only have jurisdiction over criminal matters. Instead of being charged with committing a crime, juveniles are typically accused of “committing a delinquent act,” but this does differ by state depending on the state’s definition of a “juvenile delinquent.” In New York, juvenile delinquents are considered to be minors older than ten years old but younger than sixteen years old, while in New Jersey, juvenile delinquents are any minor under the age of eighteen. Additionally, because the juvenile justice system is not considered to be criminal, there have been questions about if the Sixth Amendment, which provides certain protections for criminal trials, such as the right to a lawyer and a public and speedy trial, applies to the juvenile system. [10,11]
Structurally, there are different paths taken by individuals in the adult system and by “delinquents” in the juvenile system. The adult system begins with an arrest, followed by the filing of charges, initial appearance, preliminary hearing, and then the arraignment process, where charges are formally read to the defendant. While there are multiple opportunities for release up to the point of the arraignment process, afterwards, unless charges are dropped, the individual must continue to progress through the justice system. [12] Alternatively, in the juvenile system, there are many more opportunities throughout the entire justice process for juveniles to be released or diverted into other settings such as psychiatric facilities or rehabilitation centers. [13] These differences in practice reflect the differences in goals between the systems; in contrast to the individuals involved in the adult criminal justice system, it is understood that juveniles have the capacity to change or be rehabilitated, which can be seen through the numerous opportunities for release. However, there is an incredibly arbitrary line drawn between when a juvenile has the capacity to be rehabilitated and when they do not. This decision is essentially left to the judge overseeing their case, who will decide whether or not the minor will be subjected to the adult criminal justice system.
II. Juvenile Justice Supreme Court Cases
One of the first landmark cases in juvenile justice was In re Gault (1967). In this case, a fifteen-year-old was arrested after allegedly making an obscene phone call and was committed to the State Industrial School until he was twenty-one years old. [14] He argued that the processes used to commit him violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Supreme Court, in an eight-to-one decision, decided in his favor. This decision is crucial for juveniles who interact with the justice system, as it means that they are required to receive protection against self-incrimination and be notified of charges. Another very important case for juvenile justice was McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971), which decided that jury trials are not required for juveniles. [15] This case explored the question of if the Sixth Amendment, which gives individuals the right to speedy and public trials by impartial juries, applied to states under the Fourteenth Amendment and required a trial by jury for juveniles. [16] The Court decided jury trials are not required because the juvenile system is neither a criminal or civil system (so the Sixth Amendment doesn’t necessarily apply) and because juries are not necessary for fact-finding. For about thirty years there were few Supreme Court cases in the world of juvenile justice, but then Roper v. Simmons (2005) was decided. This decision banned juveniles from receiving the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment, by stating that it is cruel and unusual as it is disproportionate punishment to a crime committed by a juvenile. [17] Five years later, Graham v. Florida (2010) was decided, adding more protections to the outcomes of juvenile cases. This case asked if the outcome of a life sentence without the possibility of parole was cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment for juveniles who committed non-homicidal offenses. To which it was decided that it did violate the Eighth Amendment. Only two years later, Miller v. Alabama (2012) and Jackson v. Hobbs (2012) decided that life sentences without the possibility of parole for juveniles violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter what crime was committed. [18] It was also ruled that courts must take into account the offender’s age and characteristics before sentencing. Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016) determined that the Miller decision applied retroactively, as a substantive constitutional rule was established. [19] In the decision for this case the Court also clarified that as per Miller, juvenile life sentences without the possibility of parole are unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment, except for juveniles “whose crimes reflect permanent incorrigibility.” This, however, was counteracted by Jones v. Mississippi (2021) where it was decided that a juvenile doesn’t need to be found “permanently incorrigible” to be given a life sentence without parole. As of 2024, individuals who committed a crime as a juvenile cannot be given the death penalty, but may be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.
IV. How and Why are Minors Tried as Adults?
Juveniles can be moved from the juvenile justice system to the criminal justice system through a waiver: when a judge waives the juvenile's rights to juvenile court. This may happen when the juvenile has committed an extremely heinous crime, the juvenile has an extensive record, or when they are relatively older at the time of committing their offense. In some states, juveniles as young as thirteen years old can be tried as adults. The Supreme Court case Kent v. United States (1966) set up requirements for juvenile courts to waive their jurisdiction. In this case a sixteen-year-old boy, Morris A. Kent Jr., admitted involvement in a rape and robbery case, leading the juvenile court to waive their jurisdiction and Kent to be indicted as an adult. [20] He argued that the juvenile court didn’t provide any reason for their waiver, and thus that the indictment should be removed. The Court found that there was not sufficient evidence for the juvenile court to waive their jurisdiction, and established that juvenile courts must consider eight factors when waiving jurisdiction, such as the seriousness of the alleged offense, the status of the offense (e.g., if it was premeditated), the sophistication and maturity of the juvenile, and if the juvenile has a previous record. [21]
There are three main waiver categories of waivers: discretionary, presumptive, and mandatory. [22] Discretionary waivers are when juvenile court judges are given the discretion to waive jurisdiction and refer cases to the criminal court. Presumptive waivers presume that a waiver to criminal court is appropriate, and waive jurisdiction unless the juvenile can demonstrate that their case should not be moved to a criminal court. Mandatory waivers, or automatic waivers, are initiated when a case or juvenile meets certain criteria, such as the offense committed having a high level of severity or the juvenile having a prior record. Juvenile courts must confirm that the case meets the requirements of the mandatory waiver and then, if it does, will send the case to criminal court. [23]
Juveniles are tried as adults in order to facilitate more severe punishments. Juvenile detention centers function differently from adult prisons, as detention centers are much more focused on rehabilitation and reentry. Detention centers utilize many tactics such as multiple forms of therapy and distinct and individualized models to best fit the needs of their populations, and to achieve their goals of rehabilitation. [24] This differs from adult correctional facilities; rehabilitation is a goal, but so are retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation. [25] In adult correctional facilities there are rehabilitative processes available such as educational and vocational training, but there is a very large retributive aspect present. In cases where it is felt by the juvenile court judge that retribution is required, namely in extremely violent crimes, they may choose to waive their jurisdiction so that this retributive aspect is fulfilled. Additionally, some juveniles may choose to waive their rights to a juvenile court (and go through the adult criminal system instead), to gain access to a jury trial, which is not required to be provided in juvenile court as per the McKeiver decision.
V. Concerns Regarding Juveniles Tried as Adults
The existence of these waivers has prompted the question, should minors be able to be tried as adults? While an inconclusive number of juveniles are charged as adults per year, it has been estimated that about 200,000 youth interact with the adult criminal justice system per year. [26] While the number of juveniles charged as adults has been steadily decreasing, which can be seen through the numbers of incarcerated juveniles, it is still an extremely large number. [27]
The juvenile justice system exists separately from the adult system for a reason, and thus juveniles should not be able to be tried as adults or transferred to the adult system. The waiver process can lead to particularly harmful outcomes for many juveniles, as they are regularly placed in adult correctional facilities, as opposed to juvenile facilities, which may put them at a significant risk of violence. Additionally, juveniles may not have access to the same rehabilitative processes they would have access to in a detention center. Both of these factors are associated with higher rates of recidivism (i.e. the rate of reoffending), which has been recorded among juveniles. [28]
The juvenile justice system was created with the understanding that mitigating circumstances and underdeveloped decision-making skills may have led these “delinquents” to committing an offense, but also with the understanding that they have the capacity to change and be rehabilitated. Due to these mitigating circumstances and potential poor decision-making, multiple Supreme Court cases (Roper v. Simmons, Graham v. Florida), have recognized juveniles to not have the same level of culpability in crimes, or be subject to the same levels of punishment as adults due to their diminished mental capabilities. Waivers to the adult system are reserved for juveniles who commit particularly heinous crimes, however these minors' brains and decision making skills are just as undeveloped as their counterparts who remain in the juvenile system. Furthermore, as a majority of juveniles convicted as adults receive long sentences, their brains will, presumably, be fully developed by the time they complete their sentence. [29] Considering that crime, specifically violent crime, is something that is largely aged out of, sentencing juveniles to long or life sentences is not necessarily preventing crime from happening in the future. [30] It has been recognized by the Supreme Court that juveniles have different levels of culpability than adults, so to make the line where individuals can receive harsher punishments even more arbitrary by allowing transfers of juveniles to the adult system, is problematic and counteracts the purpose of the juvenile justice system
Beyond these issues, another problem with allowing juveniles to be tried as adults is that certain populations of juveniles are disproportionately impacted. It has been observed that more Black and Hispanic juveniles are transferred to the criminal system and tried as adults compared to White juveniles, and that they generally receive more jail and prison sentences, as well as longer sentences. [31,32] In one study, published in the Criminal Justice Policy Review, out of a pool of almost 4,000 juveniles tried as adults, 56% of juveniles were Black, 25% were Hispanic, and 19% were White, and it was demonstrated that Black youth out of these groups received the harshest punishments. [33] Additionally, it was found that juveniles who had been transferred to the jurisdiction of criminal courts were treated more harshly than young adults in the court, illustrating an already present bias in judges towards this group. [34] While the number of Black and Hispanic youths transferred to the criminal system is likely driven by preexisting biases in the criminal justice system, these biases are further exacerbated by harsher sentences being given to these populations. [35] Because of the racial disparities involved in the transfer of juveniles to the criminal system, the question can be raised of whether or not juvenile courts should be allowed to waive their jurisdiction. However this is not an original question; due to the disproportionate effects of the criminal justice system on people of color, similar questions have been raised about other criminal justice processes. The death penalty is one of such processes where this question has been raised, and used to successfully justify its abolishment. Many of the states in the U.S. that have abolished the death penalty have done so because they determined that it was not racially equitable. Therefore, if not able to be outlawed based on the other social implications, juvenile waivers could possibly be outlawed in states based on the reasoning it is not racially equitable.
Endnotes
[1] Illinois Juvenile Court Act of 1899. Ill. Laws 131–137 (1899).
[2] “Legislation,” Legislation | Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2021, https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/about/legislation.
[3] “Mission, Values, and Organization,” Department of Justice | Mission, Values, and Organization | United States Department of Justice, December 13, 2022, https://www.justice.gov/doj/doj-strategic-plan/mission-values-and-organization#:~:text=The%20mission%20of%20the%20Department,and%20to%20protect%20civil%20rights.
[4] “Federal Bureau of Prisons,” DOJ: JMD: Organization, Mission and Functions Manual: Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2012, https://www.justice.gov/archive/jmd/mps/2012/manual/bop.htm#:~:text=The%20mission%20of%20the%20BOP,offenders%20in%20becoming%20law%2Dabiding.
[5] “Organization, Mission and Functions Manual,” Department of Justice | Organization, Mission and Functions Manual | United States Department of Justice, January 19, 2024, https://www.justice.gov/doj/organization-mission-and-functions-manual#:~:text=The%20mission%20of%20the%20Department,and%20to%20protect%20civil%20rights.
[6] “Federal Bureau of Prisons,” DOJ: JMD: Organization, Mission and Functions Manual: Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2012, https://www.justice.gov/archive/jmd/mps/2012/manual/bop.htm#:~:text=The%20mission%20of%20the%20BOP,offenders%20in%20becoming%20law%2Dabiding.
[7] John Scalia, “Juvenile Delinquents in the Federal Criminal Justice System,” Juvenile Delinquents in Federal Criminal Justice System, 1997, https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/Jdfcjs.pdf.
[8] “Juvenile Justice,” Juvenile Justice | Youth.gov, 2024, https://youth.gov/youth-topics/juvenile-justice
[9] “What Is the JJDPA?,” What is the JJDPA? | ACT4JJ, 2018, https://www.act4jj.org/what-jjdpa.
[10] U.S. Const. amend. VI
[11] McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 (1971)
[12] “What Is the Sequence of Events in the Criminal Justice System?,” bjs.ojp.gov, 2021, https://bjs.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh236/files/images/2021-06/flowchart.jpg.
[13] “What Is the Sequence of Events in the Criminal Justice System?,” bjs.ojp.gov, 2021, https://bjs.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh236/files/images/2021-06/flowchart.jpg.
[14] In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967).
[15] McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 (1971)
[16] U.S. Const. amend. VI
[17] Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005)
[18] Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012)
[19] Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (2016)
[20] Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966)
[21] Ibid.
[22] “Delinquency Cases Waived to Criminal Court, 2020,” Delinquency Cases Waived to Criminal Court, 2020 , 2023, https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/delinquency-cases-waived-criminal-court-2020.pdf.
[23] “Judicially Waived Cases,” Judicially Waived Cases | Youth.gov, 2022, https://youth.gov/youth-topics/juvenile-justice/judicially-waived-cases.
[24] “Youth Facilities Are Better Than Adult Facilities,” campaignforyouthjustice.org, 2023, http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/images/factsheets/WhyYouth%20Facilities%20Are%20Better%20Than%20Adult%20Facilities.pdf.
[25] Doris Layton Mackenzie, “Sentencing and Corrections in the 21st Century: Setting the Stage for the Future,” Archived | Sentencing and Corrections in the 21st Century: Setting the Stage for the Future, July 2001, https://www.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh241/files/archives/ncjrs/189106-2.pdf.
[26] “Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report,” 2022 National Report, Chapter 6, 2022, https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/2022-national-report-ch6.pdf.
[27] “Just the Stats; Juveniles Incarcerated in U.S. Adult Jails and Prisons, 2002–2021,” Juveniles Incarcerated in U.S. Adult Jails and Prisons, 2002–2021 | Bureau of Justice Statistics, June 2023, https://bjs.ojp.gov/juveniles-incarcerated-us-adult-jails-and-prisons-2002-2021.
[28] Richard E Redding, Juvenile Transfer Laws: An Effective Deterrent to Delinquency, June 2010, https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/220595.pdf.
[29] Edward P Mulvey and Carol A Schubert, Transfer of Juveniles to Adult Court: Effects of a Broad Policy in One Court, December 2012, https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh176/files/pubs/232932.pdf.
[30] Joseph Margulies and Lucy Lang, “Prosecutors and Responses to Violence,” Community_Trust_9, 2019, https://vrnclearinghousefiles.blob.core.windows.net/documents/JJC_Prosecutors_Violence.pdf.
[31] Jeree Michele Thomas et al., “The Color of Juvenile Transfer: Policy & Practice Recommendations,” The Color of Juvenile Transfer - Social Justice Brief, 2023, https://www.socialworkers.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=30n7g-nwam8%3D&portalid=0.
[32] Peter S. Lehmann, Ted Chiricos, and William D. Bales, “Sentencing Transferred Juveniles in the Adult Criminal Court: The Direct and Interactive Effects of Race and Ethnicity,” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 15, no. 2 (November 11, 2016): 172–90, https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204016678048.
[33] 3 Kareem L. Jordan and Tina L. Freiburger, “Examining the Impact of Race and Ethnicity on the Sentencing of Juveniles in the Adult Court,” Criminal Justice Policy Review 21, no. 2 (December 16, 2009): 185–201, https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403409354738.
[34] Megan C. Kurlychek and Brian D. Johnson, “The Juvenile Penalty: A Comparison of Juvenile and Young Adult Sentencing Outcomes in Criminal Court,” Criminology 42, no. 2 (May 2004): 485–515, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2004.tb00527.x.
[35] Peter S. Lehmann, Ted Chiricos, and William D. Bales, “Sentencing Transferred Juveniles in the Adult Criminal Court: The Direct and Interactive Effects of Race and Ethnicity,” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 15, no. 2 (November 11, 2016): 172–90, https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204016678048.