Dec 15, 2010

differences in the treatment of adults and juveniles in the criminal justice system

The January / February 2011 resolution asks us to consider the merits of treating juveniles as adults in the U.S. criminal justice system. What are some of the salient differences in the way they're treated?

Procedural Differences
These are the inherent features of the system, and thus, potentially, the strongest ground on which to argue the resolution.
1. Detention in juvenile facilities while awaiting trial.
2. Media blackout. (Juvenile defendants' names are not generally made public.)
3. No jury trial.
4. Separated from adults when incarcerated.
5. Possibility of having criminal record expunged upon reaching the age of majority.
6. At present, defendants charged as juveniles cannot receive life without parole or the death penalty.

It is important to note that the Negative does not have to uphold the status quo. There may be other potential differences, from a Negative perspective, that are not currently features of the U.S. juvenile justice system, but should be. For instance, the Neg could argue that juveniles should not receive any due process rights, or that juveniles should be punished more harshly than adults, and still negate the resolution. (Such a "turn case" could be risky, but might catch some Affs napping.)


Empirical Differences
These are research-dependent, and thus contestable differences.

1. In interrogation, juveniles may be more likely to waive due process rights due to their relative ignorance of the proceedings, perhaps combined with manipulation or coercion by adult authorities (administrators, police, prosecutors).
2. In the current system, juveniles may have a greater likelihood of informal, ad hoc solutions. According to the Oxford Companion to American Law,
Following the arrest of a juvenile, law enforcement officers may either send the case to juvenile court or divert the case out of the system. Although most cases are routed into the courts, substantial numbers of youths are released following their arrest. For cases directed to the juvenile courts, an initial decision is made about whether to proceed to a formal hearing, dismiss the case, or handle the matter informally, perhaps through referral to a social service agency. A large number of cases are dealt with informally, often ending in dismissal or an agreement between the juvenile and the court. A formal procedure involves either a waiver hearing to determine whether the juvenile should be ordered to stand trial in adult criminal court or an adjudicatory hearing before the juvenile court judge.
3. Juvenile punishments are considered by many to be more lenient--or even too lenient.
4. Juveniles might not be able to handle incarceration with adults, for psychological or developmental reasons, perhaps making it a form of cruel and unusual punishment.
5. If incarcerated with adults, juveniles would likely face the prospect of abuse by other prisoners or guards.
6. If incarcerated with adults, juveniles might be more likely to be granted parole.
7. Perhaps most important from a utilitarian perspective, juveniles incarcerated with adults may have higher recidivism rates.

Regarding the empirical differences, I haven't found all the research out there to warrant these intuitions (although #7, I believe, is pretty easy to warrant). If you find any, feel free to post it. Of course, I'll have more specific, detailed information in the coming days and weeks.

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hello
Is it possible for you to post v/vc pairs before this Friday?

Jim Anderson said...

I'll post an initial list tonight, and later keep adding to it. I'm guessing your next January tournament uses the January topic.

C said...

On empirical differences point 1, would that be an aff or neg argument? I would guess aff since coerced confessions would give the juve a higher sentence, but do coercions happen frequently in juve too?

Jim Anderson said...

Juveniles are probably equally likely to misunderstand their rights in any system. In the adult system, the juvenile may be more likely to be represented by an attorney, but then the consequences of misunderstanding are much more severe--perhaps making the argument a wash.

Anonymous said...

This topic seems hard for the Aff...

Jim Anderson said...

Well... I agree, somewhat. You have to remember that the violent felonies in question may require a sort of maturity and foresight that makes their perpetrators mentally and morally equivalent to adults; also, as I've argued elsewhere, because of the political and strategic nature of prosecution, DAs have to be careful about charging juveniles as adults (it can be a risky move, for many reasons). It's also possible for juveniles to request being charged as an adult, because they'll receive a jury trial and full due process rights, rather than the paternalistic machinations of the juvenile justice system.

Anonymous said...

For the negative can we advocate the existing system of adult/juvenile, which gives options and allows certain juveniles (like 17 year old murderers)adult treatment? Do we have to argue for just juvenile justice?

Jim Anderson said...

You have to argue that the resolution is false as a general principle; I think that comports with the idea that in rare especially heinous cases, the State could treat a juvenile defendant as an adult, as long as this wasn't the route taken in the vast majority of violent felony cases.

I don't know that I'd be too keen on defending the status quo, but bit at least offers a model for how to have two separate systems. The thing is, the boundaries have blurred somewhat over time.

Anonymous said...

Hey, first off your blog is amazing and has helped me and the debater's in training at my school.

Secondly, considering things like Jury rights, Miranda rights and the interrogation rights and the differences between them in the juvenile and adult justice systems, What do you think about a case making the point that it would be MORE morally right to treat these offenders as adults (between charging and conviction) because they gain more rights and judicial protection?

Jim Anderson said...

If I were debating, Anonymous, that's probably what I'd run on Aff. It puts the Neg on the defensive.

Anonymous said...

I have been doing some research and I have found that most states don't let juveniles convicted of violent crimes expunge their records. Just wanted to let you know and see if anyone had found different information.

Jim Anderson said...

That squares with what I've found, Anonymous.

Anonymous said...

Hi Jim, just wanted to say that I love your blog.
Through my research I've found evidence to back up #3 on the list, the url is http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/juvenile/stats/juvvsadult.html.
PBS says:
"The underlying rationales of the juvenile court system are that youth are developmentally different from adults and that their behavior is malleable. Rehabilitation and treatment, in addition to community protection, are considered to be primary and viable goals."

Jim Anderson said...

Thanks for sharing, anonymous.

Anonymous said...

1)earlier in this post, someone talked about an AFF case about how juvies gain more rights under adult CJ system..I was wondering what criterion would support that point with a value of Justice

2)also what does "treat" as adults really mean? is it punishment? or deterrence cap punishment?

3) can you explain to me the Fed K that could be potentially ran?

Jim Anderson said...

1. That'd probably work best with "Equal protection of the law" or "Due process" as a criterion.

2. To "treat as adults." What does it really mean? That's one of the toughest questions to answer definitively. To minimize the differences listed above, functionally speaking. To have the same rights as. To go through the same processes as. To be punished as. Any or all of those things.

3. Federalism could turn up in at least two ways, in this resolution: first, states have different rules regarding juveniles, which muddies the waters of the debate. As a result, either side might find it useful to define juveniles / other terms using federal definitions. But then this risks undermining the whole point of having different states in the first place: the "laboratories of democracy" approach (a la Brandeis), which protects us from an ever-more-powerful central State.

Anonymous said...

I was wondering what sort of criterion I might use with the value of justice to argue that juveniles should be punished more harshly. I don't just want to argue util or just deontology, so a suggestion would be appreciated.
Thanks!

Jim Anderson said...

Anonymous, ultimately, almost any criterion can probably be reduced to utilitarian (or at least consequentialist) or deontological justification. Societal impacts? Consequentialist. Rights-based? Deontological. It's more a matter of which specific consequentialist or deontological approach you advocate. (Virtue ethics offers a potential "third way"--but is it virtuous to punish juveniles more harshly?)

I'd be curious to see what kinds of arguments you'd advance in favor of punishing juveniles more harshly; that'd help me narrow your focus onto a more specific criterion.

And, lastly, good luck with that! You have some strong cultural presumptions to overcome, but you also could have an approach that might throw your competitors off-guard.

Anonymous said...

To justify separation, I plan to use the "separation of juveniles from adults reduces recidivism rates" and to justify harsher punishment I want to discuss deterring criminality, teaching moral standards and retribution. The idea is basically that these juveniles must learn what is morally right, while adults merely are ignoring it; thus to teach moral lessons, it must be more harsh, but also separate.

Anonymous said...

How would I make an argument against some one that compares an undeveloped juvenile to a mentally handicapped individual? I find it hard to try to counter that, with all of the research out there about the pre-frontal cortex and what not.