sr"{o{.J[_n JUVffi Nf tffi (]FFINmERSHfl, fryrHD As ADurrsr

tilffir I

r I. recent years, though, there has been a dramatic shift in the way juvcrrirecrir,c is vicwed by policymakers and the generar public, one that has red to wide-spread chalnges irr policies and practices concerning the treahxent of juvenile offend-ers. Rather than cho.sing to define offenses committed by youth ars delinquent,stlcicty increasingly is opting to redcfine them ars adults and-transfer tl.rem to theadr-rlt court and crimintrl justice system.r Most reas.nable people agree that a small number of young offenders shouldbe transferrcd to the adult systemtecause they por" o g"r.,ri,e iirre.rt to the safctyof other juveniles, the sc'erity of their offense merits a ielativcly more severe pun-ishment, or thcir history of repeated offending bocles poorly fo, ihei. ultimate reha-bilitatior-r. However, this does not describe tl.r" t"r-,, oj tlolr^.,,ls of young peoplewho currently are being prosecuted i, the aduit system, a large p.,,porti,rr-, of whomhave been charged with nonviolent crimes. When the *notcsate transfer to criminalcrrurt of various categories of juvenile offenders starts to become the rule ratherthar-r the cxception, this represents a funclamental challenge to the very premisc thatthe juvenile court was foundcd o^--that adolesce.ts and adults are clifferent.r There are many lenses through which one can view dcbates abont transferpolicies. As a dcvclopmental psychologist, I ask whether the distinctions wc cirawbetween people of diffr're.t ages untler the law are sensible in light of what nreknow about age differences in various aspects of intellectual, emoional, or socialfunctioning. More specifically, on the basis of what we know about development,should a bor-rndary be drawrr between juveniles and aclults in criminal matters and,if so, at what age shoulcl we draw it?'- Developmental psychology, broadry crefined, concerns trre scientific study ofchanges in physical, intellectual, emotional, ancl social clevelopment over the liferycle. Devekrpmental psychologists are mainry interestccl in the study .f ,,n.rma-tive" developme,t. My concern is wl-rether tire stutly of normative de'eropmentindicatcs that there arc scientific reasons to warrant the differential treatment ofyoung pe,ple and adults with_in the legal system, especially with regarcl to the ageperiod most urrder current politicar scrutiny-the y"o* b"t-"" n ri and 17.r. First, this age ro"q:

:_ an inherentry tra.sitionar time. Therc are rapid and

dramatic changes in individua-ls'physicar, intellectuar, emotional, ,rnd social c,rpa-bilities. If there is a period in the iife span during which onc might choose to drawa line between incompctent and competcnt individuats, this is iI."' second, adolescence is a periocl of potential maileability. Experiences in thefamily, peer group, school, and other setiings still have- a chance to influence thecoursL. of dcvelopment. To the cxtent that malleability islikely, transferring juveniles into a criminal justice sys_ ,,rtq,.1,.,jq,,,i-.,11;/,:

rl,r i,rtcrn tlrat prccludt's .r rchabilitativc rcsponse m,ry rrot hcrcrl scnsihlt.public policy. H()wcvcr, [o tlte extent thatamen;rbility is limited, their transfer to the acjult svstem rr'rlrlrirr,t ,irriir,r."is less worrisomc.

Finally, adolescencc is a formative period during which a numbcr of develepnrcr.r_tal trajectories become firmly established ancl increaiingly clifficr-rlt to altor. Maly .rl.-lcscent expericnces have a tremendous cumulative impact. BacJ ct'cisions or ptxrlly

r&{tEtr r ,. *,#.-

#*

L l I ,irI#

y,11,fl.1;,, Latrre'rrce steinbers is the Dis,nsuisrrcd U.iversiry proressor or psycrr,rB;;,;,.; N;;*;ilH l.tJl3,5l;'.i}:;;,;:;,,:l; H*,:.:[li::t;yril:ljll :il'il]ilpsvchologicat deveropmenr or aaotescLnrsi orirril ir]o rerationships, high sJoor relorm, arrri

::r.".i?ffi; iil#J:T:;in*t,[l]il**, I:.i,,;;i"'p;;;i # iie Hear n rmp,policv. The author of ,nor. rr,rn iso';;;;lli::i:l'encres on child labor ara juvrnitr lrrrl,,,,oor,, n.Lj,g'"i,",, :;;,?;::);:f,::::i"xrr:,;;1irrr{;/# ,y;i,ii;r,:n;;*l;Adotescent psvchotosv

r2004t, The r;;-;;;r' ;;;';jot::!!ood iarentingtzoo+i, uro rhe besr;:'xxl,;'#??l^:;1,;i:!';;;x;,n;,i;il::,;i::,:"),",,w",:x:x,,::,:1,;ders Be Tricr,

s0M8r{urD p'qrr5T.rys ArilCI 1 $rErft _pu$trF0sIs: rn,,shourd Juvenirrr

0ftenders Be Tried as Adrrts?- Laur.r..trr,.'Jrir';11*r.on. severar panerns of deveropme.r,

*11#l['ifl',',f1,:,iii',1'i;l',,,# i:;r,xiliii,n#:, t.inro,, ,,uiui, ,o*,,r,. na,ure ,oI a certain ,gu rlrorr,l-;oi be tried as adurrs ,r,..r rl1l]'^tlstem

He also argues thar chirdrerrciently competenl to enter the adult,vrr.r.'" -"'"" Lrte! are assessed and judged ro be srrlli

*Y t&*&frruf;il sYf,$ru$l[nG

to be crirrri.ars noi expect . ;, il;"..fi#;ffifii"Til:.lli:H:Asvoaread seen intersectiu,t t.,"t*'"",-,'Jlarr*ra ""J.,;;,,.'.uii,i/.i'"",", a dilemr,,rPay arenrion that most of us fincl airi*ri t.,1"r"1"". Th" ;;.;lri; of rtris ditemnr,r:,'.iliH ;:::$lJ: l*ni; :n':l'l:""""i""'i ;J"::i#l rhan u cri,r,,,,

c,unrersan :, For the past 100 years, ;:l:J,:J_not reany a ch,d.

XliSill,i;i,:i,i, ;JL::'.::'i;rt",.n,,',".ti"ri,topp.ou.r,. ''ii;;11111 ;,1q,1.,

ne does so at . . t,tlt,fincd juverrilc oflelrses by trcat_thatpoint. tlrH most oI them .rs clt,linqucn, ..i'. i,, n..rd jud ica ted. with in a st,pa r.li,: 1, u",.r i l" lrr_

::: : l r, : ", n l' l o J.lll,-, [ii,,'.,: l; " ;.;*;: 1.: ": Hi. ]you,lg peoplc' ancl em.Rlasrze rehabiliiaiil.;;;Jl ; j, r ,,1 ;, iii.r,., ,11ii.rri.lr{ rr

;ll I; il. l;:i i ti,:l',,t, [i ;:];:l:: r**,",,,,. r. ".cies th.rn,rdtrIr. (arr.l ihert,ft,rc,r;J ;;; ;'. ::;ili..jlJjn a tlifferent type of ,

,r r*,;;i ilJ,lJ';,".n;;iljffiI;: [il,[J,l#amerit a sec.nd chancu,ancl'a" "rr._fi'ni."nubrrrrur,orr).

ri r,r;, i r r : :

Shrtcs har e recogrrized ,tlr.rt

co,r.luctr,r,,,,,t._,n,,t, ,r, ,fr"alleged criminal act_i-,,"i .rir.'" "a;;:;;*, ,'i;;:i|l,iff'detern.rine

whether to invokc tr,t' ht,,^,1,

lTin.?*tT#::i"::lJi,il,",n'$,n jTJ'.n"naturesorhumandeveroprn,,r,,to be crirrri.als nor pvno.+ -_i*^.. a

cause peoplc. neither expect cirilclrtrr

Irl!t'

I

tCHAPTEB t3 The Law antl Society: A Casebook lor Arqunrenlation-pcrsrrasiorr

Ittttr(:rtr:r: Str:irrht:rr;/Shotrlrl .ltrvr:rrrlr: [)llclrrlpr; llr. lrrr.rl .r.. Arlrrlt.:?

ffiflml q:4,fr#--1t

1gE SJpmW muRTAL\p\Ats duvENlLE

EXECUIIONS,..

//Ukk"Pnebe^NePFwt oz-t

Copyright O 2002 by lVlike Keefe. The Denver PosL 0ctober 25, 2002. Reprinted with permission.

formulated policies pertaining to juvenile offenders m.ay have unforeseen atrtl ltitnttlttlconscquences tl-rat are very hard to undo.;rr It is only fair to ask whether or why a clevelopmental perspectivc is t'r,r'tr tr'l

evant to contempolary discussions of trying juvenile offenders in the aclult t litnttt,tlsystem. After all, current discussions about trying juveniles in adult c()tn'I iul l\'11

cally not about the characteristics of the offender, but about the scriotrsrru;:;,ttrlharmfulness of the offense-factors independent of the offender's agc ol ttt,rlttttll"Adult time for adult crime"-the mantra of the get-tough-or-r-itrvcrtilt'r tttttr'lobby sarys nothing about the age of the offender, except for tl.re frct tlrirl il orrlllrl

to be considered irrelevant.li, I believe that it is logically impossible to make the age of tlrc offcrrtlt'r it tllr'r',tttlir-r discussions of criminarl iustice policy. A fair punishment to an ittlttll i: ttttlrtlt

when applied to a child who did not understand the consc(llrenc('s ol lri:' ot lrr'tactions. The ways we interpret and apply laws should rightfully virry wltt'tt llrl r,trrt'

at hand involves a defendant whose understanding of thc lirw is lirnilt'tl lry rrrlr'llectual immaturity or whose judgrnent is impaired by erlotionirl itnttt,tlttt il\: l\lltr'over, the implications and consequences of aclrniniste t'irtg :t Ionli ,ttt,l lr,tt,,ltpunishment are very different when thc offender is young llrirn wltr'tt ltr'rrt ',ltl l,'

an adult.Transfcrring ilrvcniles to crinrinal cottr[ h.rs [hrt't' st'ts ol irrrPlit,rliorr, llr,rl lllrl

[o ht.t'oltsir]t'rt'tl in tlisr'ussiorrs llrorrI wltt.tlrt'r'tht'y shotrltl lrt'lrit'tl ,r;,t,lttll', Ilt,,lllirrrslr,r'lo,rrlrrll torrll irllr'r's llrt.lt'r1,rl l)r'()('('ss lry w,ltitlr lt tttinrtl i:, lltlrl ( rrtrtltr,tlroull i:, I,,r:rt'rl,rrr,rn,r,lvll;,rli,rl rtorlcl, r,r'lrrlt'jrrvt'rrilt'rotrtl is Ir,tr;t'rl,,rl lr,'r',1 ltr

lltr.orl, rrl ,r nr(rl rrrrl,r'r,rlrrl rrro,lr'l llrt',,ltllr'rr'tt,r'rrr lltl r littt,tlr':; ttl ;ttr', tttll t,,

IW';'irn*;F=- iro* I

adult courts is significant because it is unclear at what ,ll, ir.ri., .1.) ,.r,rr{.rll-

age individuais have sufficient understanding of therrimifications of the adversarial process and theiifferent r'-i 1r : -:i 'rl rr I :, I l ir l,:i1l',il

vested interests of prosecutors, defense attorneys, trnd , .,ir.r,,f , i,",, ,,,,i. ,,.1: :

juclges. Young defendants rray simply not have. what ittakes-by the stanclards established i",n" i"".rirr- Irlrl rr"'.i'i'ii '

tion-to be able to defend themselves in criminal court.Second, the legal standards applied in ardult ancl juvenile courts are differcnt. For

t'xalmple, competence to stand trial is presumed among ardult defendants unless theysuffer from a serious mental illness or substantial merrtal retardation. We do not knowil the presumption of competence holds for juveniles, who, even in the absence ofrlental retardation or mental illness, may lt'rck sufficier-rt competence to participtrte inihc adjudicative process. standards for judging culpability may be different in juve-rrile and adult courts as wel1. In the absence of mentai illness or substantial deficiency,irtlults are presumed to be responsible for their orvn behavior. We do not know thei'rtcnt to which this presumption applies to jurzeniles, or whether the validity of thisl,rcsumption differs as a function of the- juverrile's age.

Finally, the choice of trying a younEi offender in trdult vs. jr-rvenile court deter-rrrines the possibie outcomes of the adjudication. In adr,rlt court, the outcome ofi't'ir-rg found guilty of a serious crime is nearly always some sort of punishment. InlLrvcnile court, the outcome of being found delinquent may be sorne sort of punish-rrtt'trt, but juvenile courts typically retain thc option of a letrabilitative disposition,rr and of itself or in combination with some sort of punishment. This has two sig-rrilicant ramifications: the stakes of the acljudication are substanti:rlly greater and,rrr iuvenile court, offendels generally are presumed amenable unless the prosecutor,lt'rnonstrates otherwise. In adult coLrrt, amenability is not presumed, arrd mustrnsteacl be shown by the defendant's counsel.

ln other words, decisionmakers within t1-re jr-rvenile and criminal justice systemsl,r'ing differcnt presumptions to the table. The juvenile court operates under thel,n'sr-rrnption that offenders arre immature, in three different senses of the.worcl:llreil development is incomplete; their judgment is less than mature; and their:,lr,rracter is still developing. The adult court, in contrast, presumes that defendantsrrr" nrtrturc, competent, responsible, ancl unlikely to chtrnp;e.

Which of these presumptions best characterizes indivicluals between the ages,,1 l2 ancl 17? Is there an approximate age where the presumptions of the criminal,ortr[ [g6s11g more applicab]e to an offender than the presumptions of the juvenile,,rrrrt? Although developmental psychology does not point to any one age that politi-r r,trrs ilrLl practitioners should use jn formulating transfer policies or practices, it doesl,oirrt to a-rgc-related trends ir-r certain legally relevarrt ;rtki-l,rrlt's, such as the intellectrral or emotional capabilities o , ,,,; ,.j..iir:r, .t( 1" i,.i , r l

llr,rl al:fbct decisionmaking in court and on the street. : i.rii , .. ,,,, ,.;,i t,i I l.,ii_|tisappropriate,basedondeve1oprncntalresearchIo r',riso sc.rious concerns about the transfer of individu- ,i.l ,r , lr r ,t i, , l-i l il rl,rl:; l2.tnrl under to aclult court, because of thr.ir lirnited,r,l;rrrlic;rtive competence as well as the very re.rl possi- I rl I I

l,rlrly tlrlt n'rost cl-rildren this young will r-rot Provt' lu lrr.

ffiflml W,4*aA*n1-

sufficicntlv Lrlameworthy to warrant exposure to the harsh consequences of a crim-inal court adjudication. F'or this reason, individuals 12 and under should continuekr [rt' rrielr.ecl as juveniles, regardless of the nature of their offense. This does notrrrctrn that we sl-rould let thern off the hook or fail to punish them. lt merely meansthat they should be punished and held responsible within a system designed totrcat children, not fully mature adults., At the other end of the contimrum, it appears appropriate to conclude that the

vast majority of individuals older than 16 are not appreciably different from adults inways that would prohibit their fair adjudication within the criminal justice system. Myview is that variability among individuals olcler than 12, bttt younger than 16, requiresthat some sort of individualized assessment of an offender's competence to stand trial,blameworthiness, and likely amenal-rility to treatment be made before reaching a trans-fer decision. The relevant decisionmakers (e.g., judges, prosecutors, and defense attor-neys) should be permitted to exercise judgment about individual offenders' maturity

ti

\

1.

2.

3.

1.

2.

3.

and eligibility for transfer.11). It is true that a bullet wound hurts just as rnuchwhen the weapon is fired by a child as r,r,hen it is firedby an adult, but this argument is a red herring, since we'

comfortably acknowledge that there are numerous situ-ations where mitigating factors should be taken irrtoaccLlunt when trying a defendant, such as insanitv emo-tion;rl duress, or self-defense. Immaturity is anothelmitigating factor. People may differ in their opinionsabout the extent to which, the ways in which, and theage at which an offender's maturity should be consid-ered in court decisions. One person might believe that a boundary should be drawnat 18, another at 15, and yet another at 13. Nevertheless, ignoring tl.re offender's age

entirely is like trying to ignore an elephant that hars wandered into the collrtroom.You can do it, but most people will notice that something smells foul.

3

4

What is Steinberg arguing? What are the issues and his assertion?

Steinberg says that we have two ways to deal with children who commit crimes.

What are they? Which option has American society chosen most often over the past

1 00 yea rs?

l low is llrc American juvenile justice system designed to treat the youthful offender?

litr:rnlrr:rt; nolcs a rccent change in the nation's handling of juvenile crime. What isllrr, r;lrirnr;c'/ llow uxlcrrsive is it?

\A/lry rlrrr,', litrrnlrrrrrl r:rrrrsirlrrr ll)o aqe span 12-17 so significant? Why is it importanttrr lr,rrrrllr' lrrrr1rr,r ly llrr, ;rrvr:rrtlr: ollutttlrtrs in this group?

',,nrr! lrrrrlrlr, l;r,111,y1, 1111, ,rrp,nl llrl nllcrtrlct is irrclevant. lnstead, the nature ofther ritrrr, ltrrllil rltlrtrrrlrr,llrr, lrrrrrt'.lrrrrlrrl llor,', lilltrtlrlttl lrrqrr:e? Explain.

" llir t n,r'i I t,1 l"i l,r'r

r.; ii fl t l r.ll ,l- l'''lri r,t,tr,r)

1111',1fl| r';,,'ilrr ll, i I l.lill [:t'r,'if lffi

;, , ",.fr|

i t !r1

liriilill il:ii'i illr',;I lltl

'1"\ ii : rL{il1"r.r1:i il'rt.1,, i,l l#

i. fl i..tr l'"111I rl l1lfu'l.''

1.

2.

l

I

I

I

]

)

|fffif;rc Imrrr-rf,j'

@IF#-

ln paragraph 5, the author identifies himself as a developmental psychologist. ln

what way is that information a form of ethos? How does it help the author achievehis persuasive purpose?

How does the author develop his ethos in paragraphs 10 and 11?

ln paragraph 19, what objection does Steinberg raise? How does he counter thatobjection? Why does he raise and counter the objection at the end of the essay?

Paragraph 6 includes definition. How does that definition help Steinberg achieve hispersuasive purpose?

What is contrasted in paragraphs 12-14? Where does cause-and-effect analysisappear in the essay?

How do the contrast and cause-and-effect analysis help Steinberg achieve hispersuasive purpose?

1. ln paragraph 19, Steinberg refers to an argument as a "red herring." What doeshe mean?

2. Paragraph 4 opens with the words, "Most reasonable people agree." What is theeffect of that clause?

3. Consult a dictionary if you are unsure of these words: adjudicate (paragraph 2),

venue lparagraph 2l1, malleabrlrty (paragraph 8l1, amenability (paragraph 81, trajectories(paragraph 9l1, mantra (paragraph 10lt, culpability (paragraph 13).

For discussion and writing assignments based on this essay, see page 620.