Should children who commit violent crimes be tried as adults?

One of the most polemic issues in todays world is whether children who commit violent crimes should be tried as adults or not. There has been a lot of debate over the issue, but a consensus has not been reached. Are children who commit violent crimes aware of their actions? Are they capable of committing a premeditated crime? What will happen to the child if convicted? Those are the main questions concerning the matter, and have been answered differently each time society faces a juvenile justice case. Both sides, those who believe that children should be tried as adults, and those who believe they shouldnt, have valid arguments, and because of that, neglecting each others points of view is a mistake and will not reach the best solution. Someones future and education are at risk, and even though the offender must be punished, extra care and attention are needed when dealing with a juvenile justice case. When a minor commits a crime there is a lot of debate as to whether he or she should be put in jail, and if not, what is an acceptable punishment. The impossibility to be tried as an adult and face the consequences is usually a trigger factor to the minor committing a crime. In the United States, 19% of non-fatal violent crimes are committed by minors, while in the United Kingdom, 12% of general violent crimes had its assaulters registered as school age or under. Since 1992, 45 U.S states have passed amendments making the prosecution of minors easier. In South Carolina, and 22

other states, there is no minimum age for a child to be tried as an adult in a murder case. Twenty-two states set a minimum age of 13 or older for a juvenile to be tried for murder as an adult; six other states do not allow it. But the issue still causes great discussion among people whenever a child offender is being prosecuted, and puts every decision ever taken on the subject in doubt. The main argument in the debate is the mental development of the child, which is what separates an adult from a child before the law. One argument is that a juvenile does not have the capacity to plan a crime and execute it. Basically, children cannot tell the morally correct from the morally incorrect, for they are not yet fully developed. Well, that argument can take someone to a certain point, but when the offender reaches a certain age, it becomes difficult to believe that they didnt know what they were doing. If an eighteen-year-old has the capacity to plan a crime, and knows the gravity of his actions, so does a seventeen, or even sixteen-year-old. And the knowledge of their exemption from more serious punishment only makes minors commit more crimes. It is the same with adults: many are only stopped from committing a crime because of the consequences, but the lack of punishment would make many adults commit various crimes. The exemption from punishment for children has the exact same effect: they know they wont be punished, so they dont mind committing crimes. Many cases prove that children do have the capacity to plan and execute horrifying crimes, such as the Willie Bosket case. On

March 19, 1978, 15-year-old Willie Bosket killed Noel Perez, in an attempt of stealing his watch and some money. Eight days later, he killed Moises Perez (who had no relation with the first victim but the surname) under similar circumstances. His case caused a change in the New York State Legislation, the Juvenile Offender Act of 1978, which allows a child as young as thirteen to be tried as an adult for murder cases, making it the first state to have an amendment allowing a minor to be tried as an adult. Cases such as Willie Boskets prove that many times children do have the capacity to plan and execute crimes, and they are aware of the gravity and consequences of their actions. If a child acts like an adult, it is only fair to give him or her an adult treatment, and exemption from punishment must not be a trigger to children to commit violent crimes, as it sadly is many times. But just because some minors have the conscience of their actions, it doesnt mean all minors do. Children develop at different paces: a fourteen-year-old who is charged with physical abuse might not have the conscience of his actions, while a twelve-year-old who murders someone might know exactly what he was doing. Children are human beings in development, and setting a minimum age to declare that a human is now fully developed is a mistake. This is why generalizations are not, by any means, acceptable in juvenile justice cases. Each case must be studied as unique, and a profile of the offender must be made. A group of specialists is necessary to evaluate the mental development of that particular child, and to determine whether that child had the conscience of what he or she

was doing, and if they acted under that conscience. Counselors, psychiatrists, and/or other professionals must work with the child to make a profile, and ultimately reach a consensus to that childs mental state. If it is decided that the minor was fully aware of his actions and its consequences, the offender should definitely be tried as an adult. If a crime is committed with adult comprehension, the consequences should reflect that state of mind, and the child must pay for his or her actions just as an adult would. There is yet another factor that must be considered when dealing with a juvenile justice case: what will happen to that childs life after the verdict. Taking into account the very definition of a child under the law, as someone who is not yet a fully developed human being, when executing the sentence, a few facts must be observed. Imprisonment can be seen in two different ways: someone is either imprisoned to pay for their actions (or learn not to commit a crime again) or to prevent any other members of society from being harmed by that criminal again. Idealistically, prisons should help in the reintegration of the criminals to society. The reality, however, is that most modern-day prison systems do not make people learn from their actions, and who goes to jail does not become a better person on the way out. Moreover, in prison, many inmates make contact with other criminals who, when out, form alliances, or partnerships, and go back to life as criminals. And yet another problem is that of people who might not have been so bad on the way in, but come out worse, from the various experiences and exposure

to people in prison that most of us free people cannot even imagine. (Generalization of any form is bad, however, and we must give credit to the few people who are capable of going through prison and recovering.) But for a young mind, still in formation, as is the matter being discussed, the horrifying prison world is far more impressive, and likely to leave a permanent mark on a childs brains, so that sentencing a minor to such a place is almost a synonym of creating another criminal society will have to deal with in the future. If most prison systems do not allow recovering for an adult, let alone a child, whose needs are greater than an adults, for not having reached a full development yet. They need education, role models, and an environment that guarantees the conclusion of their development, and when released, they should be able to be reintegrated to society in a manner as normal as possible. Children must also not be deprived from contact with their parents and families, and must be in contact with them regularly. So even though children should be tried as adults, if they acted with the mental maturity of one, the knowledge that their characters are not yet fully formed must be taken into account when executing the verdict. Prisons should provide the child with all the means necessary to complete his or her formation, including schools, recreational times and spaces, counselors, and any other resource that supports their development. In conclusion, the two main aspects that surround the polemic of a juvenile justice case are the mental development of the child, and what is to be done with the offender if convicted. The most sensible solution for

the first is that every case must be treated as unique; therefore each child must be examined by a group of specialists who will determine the offenders mental state. If the minor is determined to have the conscience of his or her actions, an adult trial must be held, and the penalty executed. That bring us to the second aspect: the sentence. The execution of the verdict should be applied within the definition of a child, as a not fully developed human being, and should include all the means necessary for education, development, and reintegration to society after the minor offender is released. Juvenile justice is not an easy topic, and requires from society an objective and impartial approach, which does not occur in reality, however, due to its polemic nature. Therefore, the judge, jury, and any other parties involved are expected to have the maturity to deal with these cases as impartially as possible, to reach the best decision for the victim (or the victims family), society, and the minor offender.

Online sources: http://listverse.com/2007/11/23/top-10-evil-children/ http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/02/juve-f19.html http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,110232,00.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2009823/British-CrimeSurvey-finds-12-per-cent-of-violent-crime-is-committed-by-children.html