Image Credits: @5tep5 on Unsplash (Unsplash License)

---

Juvenile Justice System of Today

In March of 2022, Georgia’s House of Representatives passed HB 272, which raises the adult criminal age from seventeen years old to eighteen years old. Under current legislation, adolescents who are seventeen years old and commit crimes are subjected to the adult criminal legal system. The bill amends Chapter 11 to Title 15, the Juvenile Code section of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, which will produce changes in proceedings for criminal procedures, social services, courts, and more. While this law would not impact the treatment of adolescents that commit violent crimes such as murder, rape, aggravated sexual battery, or armed robbery, it extends the juvenile justice system and its programs to seventeen-year-olds with misdemeanors. Georgia’s introduction of this bill is overdue; Georgia is one of three states where the adult criminal system begins below the age of eighteen. Because juvenile and adult proceedings within the legal system vary, the shift in the age of the adult criminal legal system greatly impacts the future and treatment of these adolescents.

Beyond the switch in the age of the adult criminal legal system, the age of criminal responsibility has come into question among the states. In Maryland’s current legislation, children under the age of 13 cannot be prosecuted for nonviolent offenses. However, recent policymakers are looking at shifting criminal responsibility to include children 10 and older. Criminal responsibility arises when an individual commits a crime with “intention, recklessness, or negligence.” The term implies that the individual has the capability of having mens rea (a guilty mind). The age of criminal responsibility refers to the age below which a child is presumed to be incapable of committing a criminal act with proper mens rea.

Alterations in the juvenile justice system’s cutoff age (like Georgia’s HB 272) and the age of criminal responsibility in state laws have been common in previous years. These adjustments are largely due to the differing treatment in the adult and juvenile systems as well as scientific understandings of the differences between an adolescent and a fully developed brain. If heightened crime rates continue to raise public concern, American citizens can expect more shifts in these regulations. 

State-by-State Decisions Concerning Age in the Juvenile Justice System

Georgia, Texas, and Wisconsin are the only states to have their adult criminal justice system begin at age seventeen. Each of these states is currently working on adjusting these laws to better suit the research surrounding adolescents and decision making. In Texas, State Representative Harold Dutton proposed the Texas House Bill 967 in which the objective is to raise the age cutoff of the juvenile justice court. Unlike Georgia, this bill has not moved through the state’s legislation as Senator John Whitmire blocked the bills due to their costly nature and safety issues. Governor Tony Evers of Wisconsin is working to back a similar policy. Other policymakers in the region argue that the change would reconstruct the state’s budget and rejected the budget alteration. While Wisconsin and Texas grapple with raising the age of the juvenile justice system and its costs, Vermont is aiming to raise the age to 20 by 2024. The current age cap of the juvenile justice system in Vermont is 19. Governor Bill Scott of Vermont is proposing to delay this change because the public is becoming more concerned about the rising crime rate. 

When looking at criminal responsibility at large, twenty four states currently have no minimum age for prosecuting children. There is debate around whether children between the ages of seven and fourteen have the capacity to have mens rea and therefore should be held criminally responsible for their actions. The debate revolves around the time frame of brain development. Adolescents lack prefrontal cortex development which is involved in reflecting and decision making. Because of their lack of development in the prefrontal cortex, juveniles largely rely on their amygdala which is associated with impulses, emotions, and instinctive behavior. Juveniles do not have the proper brain formation to make decisions in the same manners as their adult counterparts. Policymakers struggle to determine at which age the brain is developed enough for the juvenile to understand their actions and have the capability to plan out criminal behavior, but many lawmakers agree that children below 7 lack a significant amount of the prefrontal cortex and logical decision making that would lead them to be criminally responsible. 

Most legal systems consider fourteen to be the minimum age of criminal responsibility. In 2022, Maryland lowered its minimum age of criminal responsibility to age thirteen; the change permitted the juvenile legal system to criminally charge children under the age of thirteen. However, due to the perceived spike of juvenile delinquency, policymakers in Maryland are considering reforming this bill to lower the minimum age. 

Difference in Adult Treatment and Juvenile Treatment

When analyzing the humaneness of the prison system and the consequences of committing a crime, such as sentencing and trials, the age of criminal responsibility and the age cutoff of the juvenile justice system should be considered. The minimum age of criminal responsibility implies that no child below that age is detained or faces legal consequences for their behavior. The idea that a child may not be legally responsible is essential as rates of recidivism after prison are high, and the suicide risk of previously incarcerated individuals is 62 percent higher than their non-incarcerated counterparts. 

The age cutoff of the juvenile justice system is of importance because of the differences between the adult and juvenile justice systems. The procedural terminology of the juvenile system is geared towards rehabilitation and de-criminalizing juveniles. Instead of being convicted of a crime, juveniles are adjudicated. Sentencing is referred to as disposition in juvenile cases. These terms denote the rehabilitation aspect of the juvenile justice system that the adult system lacks. 

Beyond wording, the criminal proceedings differ. Juveniles are not afforded a jury trial like their adult counterparts. Furthermore, the hearings of juvenile cases are closed to the public whereas adult cases are open. Criminal proceedings in juvenile court heavily rely on familial support for court appearances and orders such as drug tests. 

Punishments for crime in the juvenile system are less severe than in the adult criminal legal system. The First Step Act of 2018 established Title 18 U.S. Code 5043, which restricts the use of solitary confinement in the juvenile justice system. Solitary confinement may only be inflicted as a temporary response to a “behavior that poses a serious and immediate risk of physical harm to any individual.” Moreover, the code states that prison officers must employ the least restrictive techniques such as de-escalation. The juvenile, if placed in solitary confinement, must be released once the threat has ended or the maximum time period of three hours has elapsed. In addition to solitary confinement, juveniles serving life without parole are allotted a Miller hearing. In this hearing, judges must consider the juvenile’s characteristics and circumstances. The Court claimed that children are more vulnerable to environmental influences; circumstances such as the stability of a household should be looked at when sentencing a juvenile delinquent. Many juveniles are unable to remove themselves from “crime-producing settings” and therefore should have diminished culpability. Roper v. Simmons concluded that the death penalty is unconstitutional for minors. Because of these key differences in treatment, the age at which an individual is processed in the adult system versus the juvenile system is imperative to their treatment. 

Reasoning for Differing Treatments

The 8th Amendment applies to this difference in brain formation within these two populations. The 8th Amendment states that no cruel or unusual punishment should be inflicted by the government. Cases such as Miller v Alabama and Roper v. Simmons have used the 8th Amendment to argue that juvenile treatment is inherently different from adult treatment. Severely punishing a juvenile (such as placing them in solitary confinement or sentencing them with the death penalty) is cruel punishment given their deficits in decision making due to incomplete brain formation. 

Expectations for the Future 

While Georgia and policymakers in Wisconsin and Texas are moving toward increasing the age of the juvenile justice system, it is unlikely that laws that lean towards rehabilitation in the juvenile justice system will pass. The changes in Maryland’s age of criminal responsibility exemplify how the public’s concern over the perceived rise in crime is translating into adjustment in policies. The majority of the American public believes that crime rates are increasing. While the judgment is factually incorrect (as only auto theft has increased), policymakers are taking into account the public’s view. DC’s new legislation announced by Mayor Bowser, the Addressing Crime Trends Now Act (ACT Now), is one of many examples in the US where new legislation regarding harsher criminal penalties is being considered. In the future, the American public can expect the juvenile justice system and legislation to lean towards accountability rather than rehabilitation.