Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I think "tried as an adult" goes to sentencing more than location. They can be put in a juvenile facility until 18.
The decision of when to try as an adult, I think, is based upon how close to 18 the kid is, and how likely they are to become better people with a few years maturity. Like a 17 year who murders probably should be treated as an adult.
I don't think 13 year old kids are ever tried as an adult. There was a kid that shot another kid in very ugly circumstances. There was background noise about treating him as an adult, but that didn't happen.
|
http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/facts_laws.html
"National Statistics
In 13 states, youth are automatically tried and sentenced as adults no matter how minor their offense; this kind of policy sends thousands of youth to adult court for non-violent offenses.
23 states have no minimum age for transferring a youth to adult court; in all other states, the minimum age is 10 to 15.
Children of any age can be tried and sentenced as adults in almost two dozen states.
Youth tried in adult criminal court are at greater risk of assault and death in adult jails and prisons with adult inmates, will receive an adult record, may never have access to student financial aid, and will lose their voting rights in many states.
Every year, as many as 200,000 youth under 18 are prosecuted in adult criminal courts across the United States, despite overwhelming research demonstrating that these policies have failed.
Justice Department research shows that youth incarcerated with adults are eight times more likely to commit suicide than in juvenile facilities.
Youth do not receive rehabilitation or treatment in the adult criminal justice system.
The practice of trying youth as adults does not promote public safety or reduce crime. Youth are more likely to re-offend when they are tried and incarcerated in the adult justice system.
National studies show that youth of color are treated more harshly than are white youth even when charged with similar offenses.
New research on brain development shows that youth do not have all the same capacities as adults and should be treated differently.
Human Rights Watch reported in 2005 that an estimated 2,225 youth under 18 were serving life without parole.
Despite the fact that juvenile crime is at a 30-year low and that youth crime constitutes only a small portion of a community’s public safety challenge, much of the public believes that young people are driving violent crime.
The overwhelming majority of children who enter the adult court are not there for serious, violent crimes.
In Connecticut, 96% of the 16- and 17-year-olds arrested are arrested for non-violent offenses, but Connecticut law makes trying them as adults mandatory.
On any given day, more than 7,000 children are in adult jails.
The number of youth placed in adult jails has increased by 208% since 1990.
The decision to send children to adult court is most likely not made by a juvenile court judge, who would be a neutral player in the best position to determine the merits of the child’s case.
Youth often are not provided with adequate counsel, which denies them a constitutional right that otherwise could help them stay out of the adult system."
I guess the fundamental question is, why are there separate laws at all? If we have two sets of laws, one for children and one for adults, shouldn't we apply the laws we have for children to children? Why would we change the definition of who is or isn't to be considered a child based on their crime? It makes no sense to me.
Here's an Associated Press piece on the issue:
http://www.vachss.com/help_text/arch...e_raising.html
TM
Linear Mode
