A Double Standard for Juvenile Delinquents

All 50 states allow minors to be tried as adults. Countless minors are currently serving life sentences and 22 have been executed since 1976. The Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that it was unconstitutional to sentence juveniles to death, no matter how heinous their crime. Four years later, the Supreme Court is once again debating the issue of the degree to which juveniles should be held responsible as it hears a case which will determine whether minors may be sentenced to life in prison without parole. Both cases focus on the scope of the 8th Amendment (the ambiguous ban on cruel and unusual punishment). Lawyers for the two Florida teens whose fates are being argued in front of the Supreme Court claim that because that because teenagers are less culpable than adults and better able to reform, it would be in violation of the 8th Amendment to send them to prison for life. Their attorneys say that because their clients did not commit homicides, the sentences were excessively cruel. Whether this logic will prevail again is really beside the point. This trial attempts to focus on a small facet of the broader issue: the legal responsibility of minors.

The real issues surrounding juvenile sentencing cannot be answered by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s duty is not to determine what is right, but to interpret the Constitution as it relates to legal issues. It is the responsibility of Congress, and ultimately the people, to institute policies. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court cases can provide some insight into how backwards our justice system has become when it comes to prosecuting minors.

It is generally understood (a “national consensus” as the Supreme Court described it in 2005) that minors are less liable for their actions than adults. Legally, a general understanding seems to be all we have when it comes to juvenile punishment; no two laws say the same thing. The term minor is almost meaningless, since the legal definition of someone who is a non-adult ranges from the ages of 14 to 21. If you’re under 18, you cannot be held legally responsible via a contract in most states. Yet in several states, you can be tried as an adult for crimes committed as early as 14. The guiding principle behind each of these age cut-offs is that prior to a certain age, a person cannot be held accountable for his actions in the same way that an adult would be. The lack of responsibility remains constant, yet the age when one becomes responsible is inconsistent.

As a general rule, most juveniles get attorneys who are probably some of the least qualified that you could possibly get.The juvenile is going to suffer and potentially be given a much harsher sentence…As much as they tend to question authority, [minors] tend to be very much influenced by authority figures. Often juveniles will confess to crimes when they don’t need to make a confession. A juvenile is likely to respond and incriminate themselves.

-Suzanne Vine, Former Staff Attorney representing juveniles at the Legal Aid Society in New York

The issue of responsibility extends beyond the offense itself. The jury system used in the U.S. creates a unique set of challenges for the juvenile tried as an adult. Juries are frequently swayed by emotion, and as much as the judge may remind them to decide exclusively based on the facts, it is naïve to think that that is actually what occurs. A 17 year old who society has determined to be irresponsible, may make mistakes during trial which could cost him years of imprisonment. A trial presided over by a judge rather than a jury is often more appropriate for a juvenile, but juveniles tried as adults will often appear in front of a jury. “Judges who deal with juveniles understand what is normal behavior in a courtroom for a juvenile who is accused of a crime, whereas a jury doesn’t have that same experience,” said Vine. “They may hold their inappropriate behavior in court against the defendant. If a juvenile were tried as an adult and were to behave inappropriately in a court room, that jury might find that behavior as evidence of guilt.” A good lawyer can be the key to an acquittal, but most juvenile delinquents, without much support from home, will be saddled with whichever attorney is provided to them by the state. These juveniles, despite society’s agreement that they are not yet mature, are given the opportunity to permanently doom themselves in courtroom.

A juvenile delinquent has his mugshot taken in Baltimore

Proponents of stricter punishments for juvenile offenders argue that these assigned ages are arbitrary. A 17 year old, they will argue, is hardly less mature than an 18 year old, and therefore could easily be tried as one. First, that would have to mean a 17 year old could sign a contract. If we become mature enough to be responsible for a murder at a certain age, surely we can be responsible enough to open a checking account. The strongest advocates are not advocates of juvenile rights; uniformity is not their aim. But second, defined age standards, while seemingly arbitrary, have to be upheld. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently noted, we cannot review underage drinkers on a case by case basis to determine whether they met a standard of maturity. Yet our justice system has decided that we can determine whether a felon under 18 is an adult or not. A 20 year old cannot legally drink alcohol a day before his 21st birthday, and nor should a criminal be tried as an adult before his 18th.

Since a system based on a confusing mess of conflicting legal definitions is not working, the U.S. should be looking elsewhere for solutions to juvenile punishment. Far-reaching solutions to such legal problems tend to be ineffective, bogged down by bureaucracy. The ideal solution would be a system which could determine the level of responsibility of each young person to determine the point at which he or she would reach a defined point of maturity. But since time, money, and government resources are scarce, a simpler fix is appropriate and easy to implement: don’t treat anyone under 18 as an adult. There’s never room for ambiguity when the government takes a hard-line approach. Government’s tend to overcomplicate problems, attempting to patch each individual issue as it arises rather than attacking the heart of the matter. When the Supreme Court decides whether life in prison for crimes committed before 18 is constitutional, it will take a tiny step towards establishing a concrete legal definition of an adult. But no Supreme Court ruling can eliminate the complexity that is the double standard applied to minors. Until we are prepared to invest our resources to create something better, one definition of an adult would make things a lot simpler.

Photo by Colette Saint Yves – http://flic.kr/p/72R9tG

No related posts.