Offender Juveniles in Criminal Court and Incarcerate with Adults

Khaled Elsharkawy

Incarcerating Juveniles in Adult Prisons

            According to Jordan and Myers (2011), in the late 1980s to mid-1990s increased rates of American juvenile’s violence this led to raised public concern, legislative bodies, juvenile courts, and policymakers to find out how to reduce the high rate of juveniles’ violence. From 1988-1994 the juveniles have been arrested increased to 60%. Increasing juvenile’s violence makes all of the states to find out that it much better and easier for public safety to transfer juvenile when committing certain crime to adult criminal court (Ashkar & Kenny, 2008). In recent years, an increasing number of juveniles are being tried in adult courts despite the presence of the juvenile courts. Most researchers found that the reason for increasing the number of juveniles who were tried in adult criminal court was to increase public anger against juveniles for violent crimes. The juveniles transfer to adult criminal court is an unequivocal statement that the juvenile court system is no longer the only shelter for juveniles. The juveniles’ trial in adult court became the alternative system for the application of harsher punishments when they commit certain crimes. In 2003, many states enacted legislation that allowed a juvenile trial in adult courts. Most states have a provision that allows the prosecutor to try youth who not more than fourteen years of age in adult courts under specific circumstances (Griffin et al., 2011). In 2005, all fifty States and the District of Columbia have adopted the transfer statute to transfer juveniles to adult court when they committed certain crimes. Every state has its own transfer model; there are three transfer models (1) transfer by the discretion of the judge. Juvenile court judges decide the offender should be transferred to adult criminal court, according to the characteristics of the individual, the maturity of the juvenile, the personal circumstances, and previous criminal record. In some states the judge decision to transfer is presumptive based on certain assumptions such as the age of the juvenile and type of crime. In some others states judge's decision is mandatory.

 (2) The Prosecutor discretion: In this case the prosecutor has the decision (whether or not) that the juvenile transfer to adult criminal court, taking into account the juvenile age and type of crime. (3) Transfer by legislator, in 22 states, there is a law to the exclude the youth from juvenile court when committing murder and in some other states applying the exclusion law if juveniles meet certain age or certain crime. In 14 of these states, adult prisons are used instead of juvenile detention facilities before the trial, at least in certain circumstances (Griffin, et al., 2011). The policy-makers seek to impose greater penalty for juveniles who commit serious crimes and who are not worthy of protection provided by the juveniles court. Transfer juveniles to the criminal court in the belief that the behavior of children chronically violent offenders should be punished in proportion to the severity of their crimes (Steinberg & Piquero, 2010). Juvenile transfer is the legal mechanism which transfers the mandate of the juvenile court jurisdiction over the juvenile and gives the mandate to the adult criminal court. The juvenile transfer decision requires the discretion of the judge. The judge must weigh several factors in the decision which include the seriousness of the offense, previous convictions, public safety, and the level of the offense (Samuelson, 2010).

            According to Ghatt  and Turner (2008), there are five categories of legal procedures used by States for  trial and imprisonment of juveniles in the adults criminal system (1) the age of juveniles, each state determines the age of juveniles for the purposes of criminal justice that eliminates the effectiveness of certain age groups from the control of the juvenile courts, (2) the committing of certain crimes, transfer and waiver provisions allow young people to be tried in adult courts if they are accused of certain crimes, and (3) the laws of  legal exclusion, by issuing specific legislation to situations arise in criminal court rather than juvenile court, (4) “once an adult,” this means that juveniles who were tried in adult courts are automatically tried in adult courts for any subsequent offense , and (5) Blended Sentencing laws, which contain penalties for reform that allows youths to remain in the juvenile court as long as they 're well behaved .

Deterrence theory

            Deterrence theory is a sub-theory of rational choice theory. Deterrence is a means of combatting crime on the basis that the threats of harsh penalties are there to deter or discourage crime. There are two types of deterrence: general and specific. According to this model the youth will weigh the risks and potential benefits of the decision-making process. This model also assumes that the perceptions of young people when it comes to understanding punishment should be comprehensive enough (Durlauf & Nagin, 2011; Matthews & Agnew, 2008). General deterrence function is to prevent crime throughout the population. General deterrence is supposed to make the general population aware of the severity of the punishments in order to urge them to prevent the committing of the crime. Special deterrence function is to prevent the individual offender from committing such a crime in the future (Ashkar & Kenny, 2008). “There is no room in deterrence theory for variation in the rewards for crime, the social consequence of action, individual or group propensities toward crime, and the whole range of other variables” (Akers & Sellers, 2009, p.25).

            Many researchers have applied deterrence theory on the issue of transfer juvenile to adult criminal court. The researchers have focused on the impact of juveniles’ transfer of general and specific deterrence. The consistency should be evaluated (for transfer juveniles to adult criminal court) by the three elements of deterrence (punishment certainty, severity, and duration of punishment) (Jordan & Myers, 2011). The first element is punishment certainty.  A certain penalty must be in line with the deterrence associated with the transfer of juvenile.  The greater certainty should provide the likelihood of conviction in the crime that led to the transfer juvenile to adult court (Jordan & Myers, 2011). The second element is the severity of the punishment. In order to achieve deterrence the punishment must be severe. The punishment severity must be disproportionate to the crime and does not violate the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. The punishment severity can be evaluated in the field of juvenile transfer through the possibility of prison and the length of the term of imprisonment (Jordan & Myers, 2011). The third and final element is the speed of punishment.  The punishment swiftness leads to an increase of deterrence.  The U.S. Constitution and state constitutions guarantee defendants the right to speedy trials in criminal court. Also punishment swiftness requires juveniles be tried before the criminal adult court (Jordan & Myers, 2011).

            According to the recommendations of the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) that the problem can be addressed through the provision of technical assistance programs targeting officials and staff who run juveniles in adult correctional facilities. These recommendations can be summarized as follows (1) they should be classified as juveniles population within the correctional adult to ensure that no sexually assaulted, physically or psychologically, (2) assessment strategies and levels of separation from adult offenders, (3) enhance the expertise of security personnel in the management of juveniles by increasing their awareness of the treatment of juveniles within the adult facilities, and (4) the development of specialized programs to respond to the needs of juvenile offenders. These programs should include vocational education and skills development, sexual offenders’ treatment, and narcotic substances treatment programs (Griffin et al., 2011). Therefore, in order to preserve public safety the juveniles can incarcerate in adult facilities.  The adult prisons should be developed and improved to receive the dangerous juveniles’ offenders with the provision of trained staff to manage the violence juveniles’ offender (Griffin et al., 2011; Murrie, et al., 2009).

The Outcome of Housing Juveniles with Adults

            Most studies have focused on comparing the outcomes of prosecuting juveniles in the two types of courts (juvenile court or criminal court) rather than focusing on recidivism rates among juveniles prosecuted in each type of court (Pyne, 2010). Many searches have demonstrated that the high proportion of juveniles imprisoned in adult prison due to the social disintegration that made juveniles commit violent crime. Large numbers of juveniles incarcerated in adult prison are from minority, poverty, and disadvantaged communities (Hannon & Defina, 2012). There is a direct relationship between the juveniles who commit crimes that lead them to prison with adults and their communities. Most of youth in adult prison have been affected by several factors such as negative relationships in their family, low informal social control, poverty and lack of education (Hannon & Defina, 2012).

            There are many risks juveniles can face behind adult prison bars. Most of the reports, official and non-official, show that juveniles housing with adults are more likely to commit suicide, more vulnerable to rape, and sexual assault than their adult counterparts (Murrie et al. 2009). Studies by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention have found the rate of youth suicide incarcerated in adult facilities is 7.7 times higher than those in juvenile institutions, five times more rapes and sexual assault and 50%  weapons attacked (Cohn, 2012; Murrie et al., 2009). According to Murrie et al. (2009), studies conducted recently revealed that more than 60% of the juveniles incarcerated with adults suffering from mental health problems. The ratio of the number of juveniles incarcerated in adult facilities who suffer from mental illness far exceeds those in the juvenile system. Most juveniles incarcerated in adult prisons needing treatment of mental illnesses (Murrie, et al., 2009).

Supporters of housing juveniles with adults

            Supporters who back researchers in favor of transferring juvenile offenders to adult criminal courts have found that transfer impacts crime levels: first, incarcerated juveniles with adults helps reduce crime because it will reduce the number of offender juveniles in the streets, second, severe punishment in adult courts can deter juveniles from committing crimes in the future, third, severe punishment for offending youth will be the cause of a deterrent to other juveniles (Rainville, 2008). Furthermore, the supporters’ believe that we must get rid of juvenile courts on the grounds that it failed to impact rehabilitation and that juveniles commit more violent crimes after being released. Increasing youth crime and violence led a lot of researchers to look at the effectiveness of the juvenile court system. Juvenile delinquency led the researchers to view the problem as a criminal problem rather than a behavior problem, which led to a shift in response to all of the states to enact laws to transfer juvenile delinquents to adult criminal court (Rainville, 2008).

            Supporters of trial juveniles in adult courts believe that public opinion has a clear impact on the decision-makers. Public opinion creates fears among the public of the violence juveniles crime epidemic. These concerns gave the policy makers the necessity justification for enacting legislation to increase punitive juvenile offenders by trying them as adults (Steinberg & Piquero, 2010). Increases in juvenile violent crimes led to a rejection of the liberal ideal of rehabilitation and encouraging to trial juveniles in adult courts (Ashkar & Kenny, 2008).

            Juveniles incarcerated in adult facilities have the right to prisoner human rights, humane treatment, medical care, education, mental health, due process and access to the court and their families. These rights arise from the U.S. Constitution, federal laws, and the States constitutions and laws. The protection measures arising from due process clause under the U.S. Constitution are granted to children in pre-trial detention. In Gary v. Hegstrom the district court ruled that the isolation of children in the school of McLaren, as well as inadequate ventilation and heat, and unsanitary conditions are violations of the U.S. Constitution. In 1987 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this provision. Many courts found the availability of reformist juveniles in adult facilities. In Alexander S v. Boyd the court found a constitutional right of special educational programs to correct the juveniles’ behavior (Ashkar & Kenny, 2008; Steinberg & Piquero, 2010).

            Researchers supporters for juveniles transfer to adults criminal courts contend that the best for juveniles deterrence and reducing the recidivism beside some others reasons, such as (1) there is a jury trial in  adults criminal court (in most states there are no jury trials in juveniles’ court), (2) the jury often seek some excuses and sympathizes with the juveniles, and (3) the adults criminal courts are always congested with many adult offenders cases making the judge  accelerates in juveniles cases with  lighter punishment (Rainville, 2008; Steinberg & Piquero, 2010).

Against the housing juveniles with adults

            In contrast, there are researchers that have argued that the juvenile court system has succeeded in rehabilitating a lot of juvenile delinquents and reduce recidivism (Goldson, 2008). Most researchers have found that youth tried in adult court and imprisoned in adult prison leads to higher recidivism.  Youth transfer provisions to adult court, general deterrence, and confinement for long periods of time does not provide public safety nor lead to lower recidivism (Goldson, 2008).

            The harsh punishment for Juveniles by imprisonment with adults can have a counter deterrence effect, increase recidivism, and reduce public safety (Wood, 2012).Youthful prisoners have the right to be free from unreasonable threats to their physical safety (Goldson, 2008). In juvenile corrections there is an institution rating that determines the levels of separation of the most aggressive children. This classification does not exist with juveniles incarcerated in adult prison (Goldson, 2008). Most studies suggest that youth incarcerated in adult facilities are more likely to commit suicide and they are at risk of sexual abuse. Transfer juveniles to adult courts does not protect the society, increases the likelihood of recidivism (Cohn, 2013). Studies show that bullying; violence, loneliness, and psychological distress are the features in the experiences of imprisonment for violators. Moreover, negative feelings and emotions reflect deterrent impacts of the rehabilitation (Ashkar & Kenny, 2008). One of the cons of depositing the juveniles in adult prisons is that it may lead them to depression, which leads in many cases to suicide. Existing research has provided evidence that there is a relationship between the degree of depression and harsher punishment or increase sensory deprivation (Ng et al., 2011).

            There are five states that apply life sentences for juveniles in adult facilities, without the possibility of parole: Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and California. The juveniles that have been sentenced to life in any of those five States are likely to die in prison (Cohn, 2013). The transfer statute in the state of Ohio allows the judge to transfer juveniles over the age of sixteen to adult court if charged with a felony. Rhodes v. Chapman (1981) was a class action lawsuit by Ohio Correctional Facility’s prisoners claimed that double celling is unconstitutional. The district court found that there is a violation of the Eighth Amendment for five reasons (1) the length of the term of imprisonment, (2) overcrowding, (3) the small size of shared cells (4) the amount of time spent by a prisoner inside the cell, (5) and the practice of prison officials.

            According to Butler (2011) more recently there seems to be some softening in juvenile issues. In Roper v. Christopher Simmons, (2005) the Supreme Court held that the death penalty is unconstitutional for crimes committed under the age of 18. In two cases Graham v. Florida, (2008) and Sullivan v. Florida (2008) the Supreme Court held that the sentencing of juveniles to life without the possibility of parole violates the Eighth Amendment in the Constitution ban on cruel and unusual punishments (Butler, 2011). According to (NJJN) reports documented on the progress of juvenile justice reforms  across the country in 2009-2011 in 24 areas of public policy including the closure, downsizing of facilities, and  reducing the rate of recidivism (Cohn, 2013). After extensive study for a year, the Attorney General Task Force issued a recommendation to abandon policies that prosecute, incarcerate, or sentence juveniles under 18 years old in adult court (Cohn, 2013).

            There are some others disadvantages in regards to the transfer juveniles to adult criminal court (1) severe punishment—sometimes up to life imprisonment, (2) the judge in adult criminal court does not have many options in determining the penalty, (3) conviction in the adult criminal court carry social stigma, (4) Juveniles housing with adults have highest rates of sexual assault and suicide, (5) Juveniles housing with adult have highest rates of being beaten by staff, (6) criminal records may terminate the juvenile future employment, making them return back to crime and increase the recidivism, and (7) The released juveniles from adult prison may lose their political rights such as voting (in most states for life) (Butler 2011; Cohn, 2013). Most researchers believe that the focus should be on juvenile reform programs and equipping these juvenile offenders to be productive, self-sufficient, and law-abiding citizens. Thus they should provide them with the opportunities for effective treatment, educational programs, and vocational training (Goldson, 2008).