Science Offers Rational for Difference in Adult and Juvenile Sanctioning

The separation of adult and juveniles in the justice system was caused by a change in ideologies regarding juvenile offenders.  Through increased research spanning multidisciplinary scientific fields, it has become recognized that juveniles vary greatly in comparison to adults.  These variations demand and justify sentencing and correction treatment that is different for adult and juvenile offenders.  Juveniles differ mentally, psychological, and socially in comparison to adults.  Further examination of these aspects outlines the significant differences between juvenile and adult offenders, and the necessity to sentence each group accordingly. 

Significant neurological differences have been found between juvenile and adult offenders.  During adolescence the brain has yet to fully develop, unlike an adult’s.  More specifically the frontal lobe of the brain in adolescents remains underdeveloped; the frontal lobe of the brain is responsible for regulating decision making, problem solving, control of behavior, and emotions. (National Institute of Health) An underdeveloped frontal lobe prohibits juveniles from comprehending the gravity of their behavior, the consequences of risk, and disables them from establishing long term goals.  As a result of an underdeveloped frontal lobe:

… adolescents tend to use a part of the brain called the amygdala during their decision-making.  The amygdala is a locus for impulsive and aggressive behavior, and its dominance over the undeveloped frontal lobe makes adolescents ‘more prone to react with gut instincts.’ In adult brains, the frontal lobe offers a check on the emotions and impulses originating from the amygdala. (Parker 49)

The Amnesty International report provides a clear and obvious difference between the mental development of juveniles in contrast to adults.  In addition, research has recognized that juveniles undergo rapid neurological change and development during adolescents and these changes often times occur before competent decision making is developed. (Rigby 1-8)  Coinciding, according to an Amnesty International report on juvenile offender’s mental development, “Neurological studies show that children have physiologically less-developed means of controlling themselves.” (Parker 47) It becomes apparent through research that the juvenile cognition and neurological development is not fully complete during adolescents; therefore, it is unethical to hold juveniles to the same standards as adults when it has been proven that juveniles do not have the same mental competency as adults.

In addition to neurological differences, science has proven great psychological differences between juveniles and adults.  The most noticeable psychological difference is juveniles’ inability to reason with logic.  Instead, juveniles’ emotions are the main influence in decision making.  Especially in stressful situations juveniles are more likely to reasons with emotions, such as fear, then with a logical though process. (Parker 47)  Another psychological difference is juveniles’ inability to form and appreciate long term goals.  Instead, juveniles focus on more short term goals, which greatly influences their decision making process. (Parker 45)  Psychological differences are extremely similar to neurological difference because the brain is not fully developed (neurological), therefore it is not capable of using logical reasoning to make a decision (psychological).  However, these are not the only significant difference found between juveniles and adults.

Another significant area of difference between juveniles and adults is the social development and environment.  The lack of mental development results in a lessened ability to logically reason, leads juveniles to be high influenced by peer groups and peer pressure.  Juveniles are more likely to engage in criminal activity in a group than by themselves. (Rigby 5)  While engaging in criminal activity in groups, the level of criminality is easily escalated due to the lack of understanding and inability to stop the situation with reason.  According to the Prison Journal:

Juveniles are thus more likely than adults to react with unplanned violence under the extreme duress of a crime that goes awry—to fight rather than flee.  For juveniles, it would be more accurate to see the majority of these crimes as situations that have gotten beyond their control and even full comprehension.” (Johnson and Sonia 198-206)

Tied into the underdeveloped neurological and psychological aspects of juveniles is the inability for juveniles to control and comprehend social situations when facing pressure from peers.  In such cases, rational adults are less likely to be influences by peer pressure, and more likely to be able to stop and correct inappropriate behavior caused by peer groups.

          Neurological, psychological, and social research combined proves the vast differences between juvenile and adult development.  These differences ethically demand that juveniles be treated differently with the justice system, especially considering that juveniles have been proven to respond well and benefit from therapeutic treatment avenues over harsh sentencing.   However, research also has acknowledged a core group of juvenile offenders that are disproportionately responsible for the majority of juvenile crime.  This core group, upon repeat offending, loses the defense of competence and underdevelopment.  After juveniles offenders within this core group continue offending, they are usually charged with harsher sentences resembling those of adults.  At this point, once all other therapeutic avenues have been exhausted and no sign of reform is apparent within the juvenile, should juveniles be subject to adult sanctioning.  In all other cases, the obvious differences between juveniles and adults portray the need to sanction and treat juveniles differently within the justice system.

References:

Grisso, Thomas. "Juveniles' Competence to Stand Trial: A Comparison of Adolescents' and Adults' Capacities as Trial Defendants." Law and human behavior 27.4 (2003): 333-63. ABI/INFORM Complete; ProQuest Criminal Justice. Web. 18 Oct. 2012.

Johnson, Robert, and Tabriz Sonia. "Sentencing Children to Death by Incarceration: A deadly Denial of Social Responsibility." Prison Journal. 91.2 (2011): 198-206. Print.

National Institute of Health, . "The Brain- Lesson 1- What goes on in there?." The Brain: Understanding Neurobiology. BSCS and Videodiscovery, Inc., n.d. Web. 19 Oct 2012. <http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih2/addiction/activities/lesson1_brainparts.htm

Rigby, K. What makes juvenile offender different from adult offenders?. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2011. 1-8. Web.

Parker. Alison,. The Rest Of Their Lives, Life Without Parole For Child Offenders In The United States. New York: Human Rights Watch/Amnesty International., 2005. eBook.

TheTreatment of Juvenile Delinquents from a Historical Perspective

        The lives of children in early American history vary greatly in comparison to the lives of children today.  The idea of a childhood filled with leisure and fun was an unobtainable dream to children raised in early America.  Instead, an historical account of the lives and treatment of children is more accurately depicted as resembling the lives of mature adults.  Furthermore, because children were viewed as adults, children were criminally sanctioned and subject to severe physical punishment like adults.  By today’s standards such treatment would be considered abusive and unethical.  Although it would seem like a dramatic transformation in ideology surrounding the treatment of children, the process was actually very slow and gradual.  Understanding the historical perspective of how juvenile delinquents were treated upon the founding of the United States and the numerous judicial and social advancements that aided in the change of ideology allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the current treatment of juvenile delinquents.

Early American history is marked by a very different ideology of treatment towards children.  This difference stems from the family dynamics that existed.  Early American families were forced to perform extreme physical labor in order to maintain a household and survive; therefore, children were birthed and raised with the sole purpose of being helpful and contributing family members.  Due to the lack of medical advancements infant mortality rates were extremely high.  This resulted in parents, especially mothers, avoiding attachment and emotional bondage to children.  With the lack of attachment between parents and children and the high expectations to preform physical labor, children were viewed more as indentured slaves and property then family.  Because of this, children were punished severely for disobedience, unproductivity, and ill-temperament. (Siegel and Welsh 11)  Examples of such punishment included whipping, beating, flogging, disownment, and even death.  In addition to being viewed as property, children were also viewed as adults as soon as capable of physical labor.  Therefore, no distinction was made between adults and children when it came to severity of punishment and criminal sanctioning.  Early judicial practices reflect this ideology. For example, Massachusetts enacted the Stubborn Child Law in 1646 which provided:

‘If any man have a stubborn and rebellious sonne of sufficient years and understanding, which will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and that when they have chastened him will not hark unto them’ they could bring him before the court and testify that he would not obey.  If the magistrate then found the child to be unrepentant and incapable of control, such a child could be put to death. (Siegel and Welsh 23)

Although some laws were in place to protect the wellbeing of the child, rarely were there any cases of abuse brought to court and successfully argued.  The practice of severe punishment and treatment of juveniles lasted well into the late 1800’s.

Towards the late 1800’s ideology surrounding the treatment of juveniles began to change due to the changing family dynamics.  Children were no longer necessary for labor purposes because of technological advancements.  Therefore, families began to have fewer children and for a new purpose of enjoyment.  In addition, medical advancements significantly decreased infant mortality rates; therefore, children became more closely connected with parents.  As a result, parents became increasingly concerned about the wellbeing of their children. (Siegel and Welsh 16)  Society began to rethink the severe treatment of juveniles and pushed for a more understanding and compassionate approach.  During this time a group known as the Child Savers became revolutionaries for the development of children’s rights.  This very influential group lobbied for children’s rights and the separation of adult and juvenile justice systems.  Eventually the Child Savers were successful in their endeavors and a formal juvenile justice system was created. (Siegel and Welsh 19)  The first juvenile court was established in Cook County, Illinois, in 1899. (Frontline)  The establishment of the court was centered on the idea of parens patriae.  According to a Frontline documentary parens patriae means, “the State as parent-- which was interpreted to mean that it was the state's duty not only to protect the public interest in juvenile offender cases, but also to intervene and serve as the guardian of the interests of the children involved.” (Frontline)  This change in ideology set a strong foundation for the continued development for a more structured juvenile justice system.

As time progressed, further Judicial advancements were made that aided in the development of a juvenile justice system based on concern for the wellbeing and development of juveniles.  Several land mark cases regarding juveniles trace this transition.  In 1966 in the case of Kent v. United States, “The Supreme Court determined that a juvenile is entitled to certain minimal rights and procedures before waiver to a criminal court may be granted.” (NCJRS)  In 1967 the Supreme Court decided, “timely notice of specific issues, notification of right to counsel and appointment of counsel if the family cannot afford an attorney, protection against self-incrimination, and sworn testimony subject to cross-examination" were mandatory requirements afforded to juveniles In re Gault. (NCJRS)  Shortly after, in 1969, the Bill of Rights was considered to apply to juveniles, which afforded the same constitutional right to juveniles as adults.  (NCJRS)  Most importantly in 1974, Congress enacted the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, which required the juvenile offenders be separated from adult offenders. (NCJRS)  These land mark cases helped to further create a juvenile justice system that was conscious of the fundamental rights and needs of juveniles.

Although the treatment of juveniles has become significantly more focused on compassion and understanding, the juvenile justice system is still in limbo between early American ideology and modern ideology.  For example, in the 1980’s and 1990’s violent juvenile crime began to rise. In response, the nation developed a concern for public safety and began to implement harsher sanctioning on juvenile offenders. (Livers)  The ideology of the justice system and the public began to revert back to the one in place in early American history.  Harsher sanctioning and less tolerance has been the Juvenile Justice System platform since the 1980’s.  However in more recent years, the idea of a more comprehensive and merciful treatment of juveniles is again becoming a frontrunner in public ideology.  For example, in June of 2012 the United State Supreme Court banned the use of life without the possibility of parole as a sentence for juvenile offenders. (Livers)  Public ideology has and will continue to fluctuate in response to current events and crime trends, as does, the fluctuating limbo between severe sanctioning and more empathetic treatment.

The historical perspective of the treatment of juveniles allows for a comprehensive analysis of how juveniles were treated and why the treatment of juveniles has changed over time.  In addition, understanding the historical perspective of the treatment of juveniles allows for changes to be made to better the juvenile justice system and the treatment of juveniles in the future.  Understanding the historical perspective is key to implementing and maintaining a juvenile justice system that has adequately balanced the punishment and treatment of offenders.

References:

Frontline. "Child or Adult: A Century Long View." PBS. WGBH educational foundation, 2012. Web. 2 Oct 2012. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/juvenile/stats/childadult.html>.

Livers, Dr. Mary. State of Louisiana. Youth Services Office of Juvenile Justice. U.S. History. Office of Juvenile Justice, Print. <http://ojj.la.gov/index.php?page=sub&id=230>.

NCJRS. U.S. Department of Justice. National Crime Justice Reference Service. Jurisdictional Technical Assistance Package for Juvenile Corrections. Office of Justice Programs, 2000. Print. <https://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/juris_tap_report/ch2_01.html>.

Siegel, Larry J, and Brandon C Welsh. Juvenile Delinquency, Theory, Practice, And Law. 11. Belmont: Wadsworth Pub Co, 2012. 1-31. Print.