Juveniles Tried as Adults: Controversy and Consequences

For decades, the contentious issue on whether or not juveniles should be tried as adults for heinous crimes has stirred up a gargantuan amount of disputation. However, juveniles are taken into account as “children” only under certain circumstances. When the situation comes to smoking, drinking, voting and watching rated-R movies, juveniles are merely children. However, when the circumstances are absolute, juries are so compelled to have children be tried as adults when juveniles commit severe crimes that courts go to the extent of sentencing juveniles to long-term punishments. Nonetheless, juveniles who are tried as adults arise significantly more problems than they had before, thus, juveniles should not be tried as adults in spite of that it causes so much controversy and is

unfair that only in these cases they can be seen as adults.
To begin with, in Adam Liptak’s and Ethan Bronner’s New York Times article, “Justices Bar Mandatory Life Terms for Juveniles,” Liptak and Bronner mention how Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan depicts the idea that there are other aspects, besides the juvenile’s age, that cause juveniles to perpetrate repulsive crimes.

For instance, Kagan states, “It prevents taking into account the family and home environment that surrounds him- and from which he cannot usually extricate himself- no matter how brutal or dysfunctional” . In other words, Kagan argues that the courts do not acknowledge the juveniles age, mindset, family, or home environment. Such aspects shape the juveniles into the individual they are today. Kagan identifies that the origin of the predicament is the type of home the adolescent comes from. Kagan’s idea comes into play in Scott Anderson’s New York Times’ article, “Greg Ousley Is Sorry for Killing His Parents. Is That enough?” where fourteen year old Greg Ousley inhumanely murders his own parents. For example, Anderson states, “Greg says Jobie [Greg’s father] could go says without uttering a single word and can recall only one occasion when he told Greg that he loved him – and this, Greg says, occurred when Jobie was drunk… Sometimes the

arguments were between Greg’s parents – usually centered on Jobie’s drinking” (Anderson). Here, Anderson provides an example of a juvenile who comes from an abusive and damaging home environment. Ousley’s father’s lack of attention toward him and drinking problem led to qthat the erratic home and family behavior a juvenile experiences will negatively impact his or her actions. In contrast, whereas a loving family and home environment a teenager experiences will generally positively impact his or her actions. All in all, the juvenile’s parents are fractionally guilty for their child’s vile actions because of the effect the household ambience holds over the juvenile. It is also unfair that the child themselves cannot do something about their horrible environment like move out because they are not 18 which again shows they should not be charged as adults.
Next, minors who are tried as adults are put into prisons with pure adults, with no consideration for the juvenile’s age. For example, in Equal Justice Initiative’s article, Children in Prison, EJI states, “Many states have ignored the crisis and dysfunction that creates child delinquency and instead have subjected kids to further victimization and abuse in the adult criminal justice system” < http://www.eji.org/childrenprison>. Here, EJI clarifies the idea that states do not realize what children have gone through; states do not take the time to reflect the reasons as to why juveniles are the way they are. Instead, states choose to disregard that whole concept and throw juveniles into adult prisons without realizing the extent of the damage that will cause towards the juvenile. Instead of helping them get better they are actually making them get worse because they are not getting the help needed. Another example is when EJI states, “Some 10,000 children are housed in adult jails and prisons on any given day in America. Children are five times more likely to be sexually assaulted in adult prisons than in juvenile facilities and face increased risk of suicide. EJI believes confinement of children with adults in jails and prisons is indefensible, cruel, and unusual, and it should be banned” < http://www.eji.org/childrenprison>. Minors are more prone to be assaulted, sexually and/or physically abused, and mistreated in adult prisons because the minors are seen as “children” or easy targets by the imprisoned adults. Many of the imprisoned adults may have been locked up for rape, murder, drugs, and robbery. It is safe to think that such adults have been imprisoned for a long time; therefore, they may search for any type of affection. Due to the fact that children are vulnerable and more susceptible to be victims of sexual and/or violent abuse, imprisoned adults will take advantage of that. Children are vulnerable in such circumstances due to the fact that adults see themselves as superior towards children. The actual punishment for such juveniles is the sexual/physical abuse and suicidal tendencies they encounter rather than being in prison altogether, such circumstances go against the Eighth Amendment in the United States Constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment and will actually make their mental state much worse and affect them from getting better. Therefore, adolescents should not be tried as adults for heinous crimes.
Not to mention, more vices than virtues come to adolescents when they are tried as adults in a court of law for committing repulsive crimes. For example, the Equal Justice Initiative states, “Sadly, many states have ignored the crisis and dysfunction that creates child delinquency and instead have subjected kids to further victimization and abuse in the adult criminal justice system” . In particular, EJI’s quote reflects Kagan’s idea about the juvenile’s past affecting their future behavior. Nonetheless, EJI exposes the fact that juvenile’s experience far worse abuse in adult prisons than they ever will at juvenile prisons or centers. EJI additionally restates the idea that the reason as to why juveniles experience additional harassment in adult penitentiaries is because of their vulnerability towards adults. EJI also states, "For children with parole-eligible sentences, unique release and re-entry challenges too often create insurmountable obstacles to parole and successful re-entry. Young people who have been in prison since they were adolescents need help learning basic life skills" . To put in other words, EJI clarifies the fact that juveniles with parole eligible sentences often come back to prison when being on parole because of the insufficient rudimentary skills those juveniles possess. EJI develops the idea that because some people have been in prison since they were adolescents, they do not acquire the fundamental abilities one needs to survive. They don’t get the help needed in order to get them on the right path. An example would be something as simple as using a microwave or even as elementary as genuinely communicating well with others. All in all, sentencing juveniles to adult prisons for committing heinous crimes merely causes more harm than good.
Additionally, studies have shown that the brain of an adolescent is not fully developed into his or her adult years. Prior to a minor’s brain not being fully developed, minors are unable to control his or her impulses, make clear decisions, or think clearly/rationally. In particular, in an American radio talk show broadcast on National Public Radio, Fresh Air, talk show host, Terry Gross interviews neurologist Dr. Frances Jensen concerning the teenage brain. Jenson states, “It takes, often, into your early 20s and possibly late-20s and maybe even beyond for the brain to fully mature to adult levels… Your prefrontal cortex and your frontal cortex [are the last part of your brain to develop]. These are areas where we have insight, empathy. These executive functions, such as impulse control, risk-taking behavior, are suppressed by activity in your frontal lobes” . It is ethical to trust what Jenson says about the teenage brain because of the fact that she has been named Chair of the Department of Neurology in the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. Jenson’s statement says the fact that the brain of an adolescent is invalidated until it is fully developed into an adult brain in their 20’s. All in all, it is not right for a juvenile to be tried as an adult for heinous crimes because of the fact that such impairment in a teenage brain clouds a minor’s judgment and decision-making, which often leads to defective and flawed choices.
In like manner to Gross’ interview with Jenson, Paul Thompson’s article, “Startling Finds on Teenage Brain,” in the Sacramento Bee, reiterates the idea that a teenage brain is still in the process of evolving into a mature adult brain. For example, Thompson states, “Stranger still, brain cells and connections are only being lost in the areas controlling impulses, risk-taking, and self-control. These frontal lobes, which inhibit our violent passions, rash actions, and regulate our emotions, are vastly immature throughout teenage years” (Thompson). In other words, Thompson clarifies the concept that due to the lack of brain tissue in the teenage brain, juveniles do not have the same mental or rational capabilities as adults. As a result, adolescents have difficulty managing their conduct; this may lead to severe and merciless decisions and actions, such as sexual assault or murder. In addition, Thompson also states, “While research on brain-tissue loss can help us to understand teens better, it cannot be used to excuse their violent or homicidal behavior. But it can be used as evidence that teenagers are not yet adults, and the legal system shouldn’t treat them as such” (Thompson). To clarify, Thompson defines that even though this is no reason to justify juveniles from their punishment for the crime they committed,