Juveniles Tried As Adults:
Disparities and Harshness of Youth Sentencing
Stella Steele
5/6/2011
Abstract: In the early nineties America experienced a rising epidemic of teenagers committing violent crimes; as a result political decisions were made to increase harshness in sentencing. Legislation was enacted across most states to transfer juveniles to adult courts at younger ages based on crime severity. This review examines the circumstances for case transfers, ramifications of placing minors in adult prisons, sentencing disparities between juveniles and young adults. A content analysis was conducted and derived from internet media coverage of 30 Colorado teen cases involving murder or accidental deaths. Results indicate age as the primary factor for case transfer and severity of sentencing correlates with year of crime. Disparities in sentencing exist at multiple levels.
Introduction of Literature Review
The general belief in every society has been children do not possess equivalent emotional and mental abilities as adults; therefore any crimes committed should be handled with greater leniency. Over the past few decades our country has had a trend of treating juveniles as young adults and sentencing harsher punishment due to the severity of crimes conducted. The purpose of this literature review is to 1.) Compare sentencing between minors tried in juvenile court and those tried in adult court for same crimes 2.) Compare sentences issued to juveniles tried as adults versus young adults for equivalent crimes 3.) Discover the effects of placing juveniles in the same facilities as adult criminals.
History
The Hammurabi Code was the first to establish a written law enforcing children to be dealt with less harshly over 4,000 years ago. In the United States our first juvenile court was established in 1899 to provide the role of rehabilitation for children committing crime (Kurlychek & Johnson, 2004). During the 1980’s and 1990’s American’s started to see a rapid increase in juveniles committing violent crimes while crime rates for other groups were dropping (Kurleychek & Johnson, 2010). This gained much media and political attention; the publicized slogan became “If you’re old enough to do the crime, you’re old enough to do the time” and our nation embraced the concept. During the 1990’s 49 states and the District of Columbia changed legislation to increase the number of circumstances in which a juvenile could be tried as an adult. The decisions to transfer cases are based upon seriousness of the current offense along with any prior criminal history. Little regard is shown towards the defendant’s individual character or possible mitigating circumstances (Urbina & White, 2009; Kurlycheck & Johnson, 2004). As a result juveniles transferred to adult courts increased by 400 percent in the 80’s, state imprisonment of minors more than doubled between 1985 and 1997, and over 200,000 were tried as adults between 1996 and 1999 (Kurlychek & Johnson, 2004). Survey research has been conducted over the past ten years to gain public opinion regarding trying juveniles as adults. The conclusion shows 75% of respondents support juveniles being treated as adults for violent offenses (Myers, 2003).
The question being addressed in light of this information is: Are they receiving equivalent sentences as young adults are being given? Additionally, what are the ramifications behind incarcerating juveniles with adult hardened criminals? The primary purpose for transferring youth committing serious and violent crimes is to assure harsher punishments which will hopefully provide deterrence and reduce recidivism rates (Urbina & White, 2009) (Myers, 2003). The following information examines sentences distributed to juveniles, juveniles as adults, and young adults.
Juvenile in Adult Court vs. Juvenile Court
Researchers originally argued harsher punishments were being distributed in juvenile courts than adult courts defeating intended purposes. Further studies however revealed that the severity of sentencing correlates with the type of offense. Offenders committing property crimes are treated more leniently receiving parole instead of incarceration; however violent crimes are given harsher jail or prison sentences (Myers, 2003). A study conducted by David Myers compared Pennsylvania juveniles waived to adult court with those remaining in the juvenile justice system for violent offenses in 1994. The results concluded: transferred juveniles had higher conviction rates; those convicted were likely incarcerated; once incarcerated longer periods of time were spent in confinement (Myers, 2003). The harsher sentencing does not appear to provide the desired results regarding deterrence. Florida and Pennsylvania studies show juveniles that were transferred to adult courts had higher recidivism rates with more serious crimes being committed than those tried in juvenile courts that went to reform school (Urbina & White, 2009). In Wisconsin 123 court officials participated in a study regarding juveniles processed in adult court rooms and only 40 viewed waivers as an effective tool for reducing recidivism (Urbina & White, 2009).
Juvenile Adult Sentencing vs. Young Adult Sentencing
Adult court judges view incapacitation of juveniles as being a necessary public safety measure because offending behavior peaks during late adolescence and begins declining in young adults. This rationalization leads to harsher sentencing for teens than offenders in their early 20’s (Kurleychek & Johnson, 2010). A criminal justice research study using data provided by the Maryland State Commission on Criminal Sentencing Policy found juveniles convicted of drug charges receive sentences six times harsher than adults. Overall sentencing is between 62% and 75% harsher for having a juvenile status in a Maryland adult court (Kurleychek & Johnson, 2010). A different study was conducted regarding juvenile felony defendants in 19 states showed of those convicted, 60% were confined to state prisons while only 43% of adults received equal punishment. In the 2004 study by Kurleychek and Johnson, the average offender in the Pennsylvania sample shows juveniles have a 10% greater likelihood of incarceration, a 29% increase in sentence length.
Conclusion of Literature Review
The data presented indicates a disparity in sentencing between juveniles, juveniles tried as adults, and young adults. Juveniles receive harsher punishments in adult courts for violent crimes; however sentencing is lighter for property crimes than those tried in juvenile courts. When comparing sentences given to juveniles versus young adults for similar crimes, juveniles receive longer and harsher sentencing. Society had hoped harsher sentencing would provide reduced recidivism but studies show opposite results. Additional consideration should be taken when confining youth and adult offenders in the same facilities. Juveniles in adult prisons experience higher rates of victimization by staff and inmates, higher suicide rates, and inferior treatment services than adult offenders. Juveniles also have greater psychological needs that cannot be dealt with adequately in adult incarceration facilities (Myers, 2003).
Hypothesis
Based on the literature review above and thinking about the disparities in courtroom process and sentencing between states, this research project will look closer at Colorado juvenile murder cases. In 1987 prosecutors in Colorado were given the power to direct-file anyone aged 14 and older to adult court if the crime was violent in nature. In the early 1990’s Colorado experienced a rise in murders and crimes resulting in death committed by juveniles which led to expanded direct file authority. By 1996 legislation passed which allowed parents to waive their right to be present while police interrogated their children. With the prosecution side of the criminal justice system, including police officers and district attorneys, having vast power at the forefront of juvenile violence cases, this research addresses the following hypotheses:
1) Nature of crime determines the majority of transfers to adult court and age is not a factor.
2) The timeline during which the crime was committed, and the county conducting the trial, affects years of punishment (severity).
3) Mitigating circumstances or lack thereof are not a factor in sentencing.
4) Disparities exist amongst the variables in aforementioned hypotheses.
Methods
Case Studies
Cases included in this study are teenagers in Colorado that have been tried in adult court (23 cases) for committing crimes which have led to the death of another person. There are seven cases included of which the child was retained in juvenile court for basis of comparison in sentencing. Public records are sealed for those in juvenile court therefor only seven cases were found available in the media creating comparison limitations. The list of cases was compiled by Pendulum Foundation of teens who kill a parent or grandparent. Cases that included teens that were no longer minors have been excluded. If the juvenile had an accomplice, I included the additional case into the study if they were also a minor. The remaining cases were found by internet search engines using “juveniles tried as adults in Colorado” or similar phrases. I would gather any pertinent data from the numerous sites I located and input the data into an excel spread sheet. If the media provided sufficient information for this study it has been included. Once 30 cases were discovered, the minimum criteria for reaching statistical significance, I discontinued the search due to time constraints. Note: Due to the significant quantity of websites I gathered data from they have not been included in the appendix. (See Appendix B for additional demographic bars, charts, graphs relevant to case study analysis).
Materials
I used the list from Pendulum (appendix A), the website www.pendulumfoundation.org, and any online newspaper articles I could locate to obtain information including who committed the crime, the county with jurisdiction over the case, the age at the time of crime, the year of sentencing, circumstances behind the crime, and sentencing detail. If photos of the prosecuted were available then a visual observation was made to determine ethnicity of white or other, a process which provided further limitations.
Procedures
The information obtained above was utilized to determine any disparities in sentencing by comparing which county the trial was held, the quantity and severity of the crime/s committed, the year of sentencing in correlation with changes in public policy due to heightened crime, and any potential mitigating circumstances which may sway the judge’s discretion.
The data compiled was coded (A) year of trial, (B) age when crime was committed, (C) Gender 1) male and 2) female, (D) county where the trial occurred, (E) tried as 1)juvenile or 2)adult, (F) primary charge by class of felony: Class 1 or 2, (G) secondary charge class 1-5, (H) quantity of crimes, and (I) sentence length in years. Variables utilized for qualitative analysis included (J) why the crime was committed, (K) who it was committed against, (L) severity of sentencing.
Data was input into SPSS with multiple variables dichotomized, collapsed, or input by assigning numeric categories or scales to test for Measures of Central Tendency, Variability, and Association. The year of trial was collapsed to reflect crimes prior to 93’, between 93’ and 2000, and 2001- present. County was dichotomized with El Paso=0, other=1; and collapsed El Paso=1, Boulder=2, other=3. Sentence years was dichotomized to 0=40 years or less and 1=40+years. Crime detail was categorized by 1=killed parents, 2=killed sibling, 3=killed non-family member, 4=Injured/affected non-family. This later dichotomized to 0=killed/hurt family, 1=killed hurt non-family. Labeling why the crime was committed is as follows: 1) mentally ill, 2) sexually abused, 3)abused generally, 4)personal gain, 5)was an accomplice, 6)other/unknown. This category was further dichotomized to reflect 0=abused, 1 not abused.
Results
A Chi Square test ran for how a juvenile is tried (juvenile or adult) being dependent upon age with age 0-14 and 15-17 resulted in a 4.751 value, and Lambda at .273 value however 2 cells have less than an expected level of five (see appendix C ). No confirmation can be made regarding hypothesis 1.
Sentence years is dependent upon age with χ2 (1)=5.792, p<.01. The statistical significance at .006 level indicates a 99% confidence level that we can apply the sample to the general population (appendix D).
Knowledge of timeline when the trial occurred improves prediction of whether or not the juvenile was sentenced to < or > 40 years in prison and can be generalized to the population with significance at .019 level and a 99% confidence level and Correlation/Regression level of .396 (appendix E).
Every county appears to have similar results in sentencing except for Boulder. Of the six cases that have been tried their only one individual was sentenced to a sentence of greater than 40 years.
Sentenceyrs3 * County3 Crosstabulation // County3 / Total /
El paso / Boulder / other /
Sentenceyrs3 / 40 years or less / Count / 6 / 5 / 6 / 17 /
% within County3 / 50.0% / 83.3% / 50.0% / 56.7% /
over 40 years / Count / 6 / 1 / 6 / 13 /
% within County3 / 50.0% / 16.7% / 50.0% / 43.3% /
Total / Count / 12 / 6 / 12 / 30 /
% within County3 / 100.0% / 100.0% / 100.0% / 100.0%
Timeline and living in Boulder affect the sentencing outcome in years therefore accepting hypothesis number 2.
Discussion
Limitations
This study was performed on juveniles responsible for the death of another with only thirty cases included. Locating media regarding this topic which covers a thirty year span was more difficult than I anticipated. Many newspaper articles I attempted to locate are on micro-film and others have been archived. Time constraints did not allow for the period of time it would take to locate and receive copies. Lack of microfilm and archived copies made it difficult to locate information regarding race. Difficulty in finding media in general led it to be too time consuming to discover more than thirty cases. Further research would include a greater number of cases with female convictions, a more efficient process in discovering ethnic origin, and an addition of more cases from Boulder to compare to El Paso County. Lastly due to juveniles tried in juvenile court is held confidential therefor locating public media is nearly impossible.
Qualitative Results
Disparities
One case included a juvenile (16 yrs. old) female who shot a man she accused of sexually assaulting her; she received two years’ probation in juvenile court. This is the only case of a person murdering another and receiving probation only. Two other juveniles were sexually and physically abused by their parents and killed them; both of them with accomplices, all parties have received life without parole. Although each scenario involved a person being abused and fighting back the outcomes are drastically different.