Summary of Argument

There is a common assumption that juveniles tried as adults are substantially different from those juveniles who are retained in the juvenile justice system and given determinate sentences with placement in the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) (this agency was previously known as the Texas Youth Commission (TYC)). 1 The data shows, however, that there is virtually no distinction between these two groups of juvenile offenders. On all critical measures, with the notable exception of the county of conviction, these two groups of juveniles are remarkably similar.

On the two key factors that most would assume distinguish the two populations- criminal offense and criminal history- the juveniles present similar levels of criminality. Both populations are comprised primarily of juveniles who have committed instant offenses that are violent in nature, with the crimes of aggravated robbery and sexual assault being the most prevalent offense for each group. Their criminal backgrounds are also similar, with the majority of both certified juveniles and determinate sentenced juveniles having either one or no prior referrals to juvenile court. Even in cases where there were three or four prior referrals, very few of those prior referrals were for violent offenses.

The one significant distinction between certified juveniles and determinate sentence juveniles is their county of conviction. Texas counties vary widely in terms of the extent to which they certify juveniles, and during the period in which Cameron Moon was certified, Harris County stood out demonstrably in this regard. Of course, Harris County has the largest number of juvenile offenders in the state, so it can be expected to have the largest certified population as well. But the enormous discrepancy in the size of the certified population between Harris County and all other counties is disproportionate to the difference in county size. The data suggests that the decision to certify a juvenile as an adult turns far more heavily on the county involved than on the youth's offense or background. Indeed, there are other large Texas counties, such as Travis County and El Paso County, that rarely if ever certify a youth to stand trial as an adult.

The fact that the two populations of certified juveniles and determinate sentence juveniles are so similar leads to the conclusion that they need similar treatment and responses to their criminal behavior. Both groups would benefit from the rehabilitative services provided to youth in the juvenile justice system.

Another prevailing assumption among practitioners and policy-makers is that those juveniles who are certified to stand trial as adults represent the "worst of the worst" among juvenile offenders. The data show that this assumption is false. This group is neither more violent nor more persistent in their criminal behavior than the determinate sentence juveniles committed to TYC. The vast majority of certified juveniles do not have a prior violent criminal history, and many do not have any prior referrals to juvenile court at all. Thus, it is a fallacy to assume that certified youth are repeat, chronic offenders.

Another indicator that certified cases are not limited to the worst situations is that there are so many more certified juveniles than determinate sentence youth with placements in TYC. Despite the opportunity that the determinate sentencing statute presents to offer serious juvenile offenders an appropriate blend of accountability, toughness, and rehabilitation, that statute is under-utilized in certain counties when compared to the law permitting transfer of juveniles to adult court.

Also worth noting is that by the terms of the law, the certification option is not limited to "worst-case scenarios." Any felony offense in the Penal Code, including a state jail offense, renders a juvenile eligible to be tried as an adult. There are many non-violent offenses that are considered felonies. In contrast, only about 30 felonies qualify a juvenile for determinate sentencing, and these include only the most serious and violent felonies. Thus, the determinate sentencing option- not the certification option-has come to look like it is designed for the most serious juvenile offenders.

Juveniles who are certified to be tried as adults are often considered unredeemable and as beyond the help of the juvenile justice system. But that assumption is belied by the fact that 9 out of 10 certified youth have had no prior commitments to TYC. The vast majority of certified juveniles have never had the opportunity to benefit from the rehabilitative programs that the juvenile system has to offer before entering the adult system. The justice system prematurely concluded that "nothing works" with these juveniles, when the reality in many cases is that "nothing has been tried." Certified youth miss out on the specialized programmatic opportunities in TYC, especially the highly successful Capital and Serious Violent Offenders Program (which has a 95% success rate when it comes to re-arrests for violent offenses within three years of release).

In addition to offering specialized rehabilitative programming, TYC offers all youth educational opportunities, including special education programs for youth with demonstrated needs. Beyond the education, rehabilitative programming, and therapeutic interventions it provides, TYC is obviously designed to meet other unique needs of juveniles, including adolescent dietary needs, recreational programming to ensure appropriate muscle development, programming to promote social development, and family visitation. Moreover, the staffing ratios at TYC and the specialized training received by staff are age-appropriate for this population and contribute to youth safety.

The majority of certified juveniles are serving sentences of 10 years or less, meaning that most of them will be back in our communities while they are still young, but they will not have received the services they need to be successful and productive citizens. This lack of rehabilitative programming thus has a significant public safety risk.

The poor conditions in which certified youth are confined in county jails while awaiting trial--typically involving 23-hour a day lock up in isolation settings with little access to programs or services, to protect them from adult offendersalso can have devastating consequences for the youth. Such conditions can lead to the development or exacerbation of mental health problems and puts these youth at highly increased rates of suicide. The jails' lack of programs and educational classes also have a significant impact on the youths' risk of recidivism. Research shows a 34% greater risk of violent recidivism for youth who have spent time in the adult criminal justice system.

The fact that there is such arbitrary and inconsistent use of the certification statute across the state, with little to distinguish those youth who are certified from those who remain in the juvenile system, shows the need for careful appellate review of certification decisions. Certification is intended to be reserved for the most extreme cases, but research shows it is not being used in this manner. Moreover, the decision to certify has grave consequences for the youth, not only because of the lengthy sentences available in adult court but also because of the vast differences in access to rehabilitative programming, which impacts public safety and recidivism rates. These consequences mean that juvenile judges must be especially thoughtful and well-informed when deciding which cases deserve to result in a certification decision.

Summary of Argument

A common assumption exists that juveniles tried as adults are inherently different from juveniles within the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD). Data reveals this assumption is inaccurate; both groups share remarkable similarities in critical aspects.

Both groups are comprised largely of juveniles who have committed violent offenses, with aggravated robbery and sexual assault being prevalent. They also share similar criminal backgrounds, with the majority having one or no prior juvenile court referrals. Even with multiple referrals, few involved violent offenses.

The only significant difference lies in the county of conviction. Texas counties vary widely in certification rates, with Harris County demonstrating a disproportionate number of certified juveniles. The data suggests certification decisions are more influenced by the county involved than the youth's offense or background.

The perception that certified juveniles represent the "worst of the worst" is contradicted by data. This group is neither more violent nor more persistent in criminal behavior compared to determinate sentence juveniles. The vast majority lack a prior violent criminal history, and many have no prior referrals.

Despite the opportunity for accountability, toughness, and rehabilitation provided by determinate sentencing, this option is underutilized in some counties compared to certification. The certification option is available for any felony offense, including non-violent ones, while determinate sentencing is reserved for serious, violent felonies.

The belief that certified youth are unredeemable is undermined by the fact that most have no prior commitments to the TJJD. They lack the opportunity to benefit from rehabilitative programs before entering the adult system. They miss out on specialized programs within the TJJD, particularly the successful Capital and Serious Violent Offenders Program, which has a 95% success rate in preventing re-arrests for violent offenses.

Certified juveniles often face harsh conditions in county jails while awaiting trial, including extended isolation and limited access to programs. These conditions can contribute to mental health issues and increase suicide risk. The absence of educational programs also increases recidivism rates.

The inconsistent use of certification across the state highlights the need for thorough appellate review of certification decisions. The grave consequences of certification, including lengthy sentences and limited access to rehabilitative programs, necessitate careful and informed decisions by juvenile judges. The lack of rehabilitative programming for certified youth poses a significant public safety risk.

Summary of Argument

A common assumption exists that juveniles tried as adults are significantly different from those who remain in the juvenile justice system and receive determinate sentences with placement in the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD). However, data reveals that there is little distinction between these two groups of juvenile offenders.

On crucial factors, such as criminal offense and criminal history, the juveniles exhibit comparable levels of criminality. Both groups primarily comprise individuals who have committed violent offenses, with aggravated robbery and sexual assault being the most common. Furthermore, their criminal backgrounds are similar, with a majority having either one or no prior referrals to juvenile court.

One notable difference between certified juveniles and determinate sentence juveniles is the county of conviction. Texas counties vary significantly in their certification practices, with Harris County standing out in this regard. While Harris County has the largest number of juvenile offenders in the state, the disparity in its certified population compared to other counties is disproportionate to its size. This suggests that the decision to certify a juvenile as an adult is heavily influenced by the county involved, more so than by the offense or background of the youth.

There is a prevailing belief among practitioners and policymakers that juveniles certified for adult trial represent the "worst of the worst" offenders. However, data contradicts this assumption. This group is neither more violent nor more persistent in their criminal behavior than those sentenced to TJJD. The majority of certified juveniles lack a prior violent criminal history, and many have no prior referrals to juvenile court at all. It is a fallacy to assume that certified youth are repeat, chronic offenders.

Another indicator that certification isn't reserved for the worst cases is the significantly higher number of certified juveniles compared to determinate sentence youth placed in TJJD. Despite the determinate sentencing statute offering a balance of accountability, toughness, and rehabilitation for serious offenders, it is underutilized in some counties compared to certification.

Furthermore, the law governing certification is not limited to "worst-case scenarios." Any felony offense, including state jail offenses, makes a juvenile eligible for adult trial. In contrast, determinate sentencing only applies to a limited number of the most serious and violent felonies. This makes it appear that the determinate sentencing option, rather than certification, is actually designed for the most serious offenders.

Juveniles certified for adult trial are often perceived as unredeemable and beyond the reach of the juvenile justice system. However, this assumption is contradicted by the fact that 9 out of 10 certified youth have no prior commitments to TJJD. The majority of these juveniles have never had the chance to benefit from the rehabilitative programs offered by the juvenile system before entering the adult system. The justice system prematurely concludes that "nothing works" for these juveniles when, in many cases, "nothing has been tried." Certified youth miss out on specialized programming at TJJD, including the highly successful Capital and Serious Violent Offenders Program, which has a 95% success rate in preventing re-arrests for violent offenses within three years of release.

In addition to specialized programming, TJJD offers all youth educational opportunities, including special education for those with needs. It also provides therapeutic interventions, caters to juvenile dietary and recreational needs, promotes social development, and facilitates family visitation. The staffing ratios and staff training are age-appropriate, contributing to youth safety.

However, the majority of certified juveniles serve sentences of 10 years or less, meaning most will return to communities while still young without receiving the necessary services to become successful and productive citizens. This lack of rehabilitative programming poses a significant public safety risk.

The poor conditions in county jails where certified youth are held awaiting trial can have devastating consequences. Typically involving 23-hour isolation with limited access to programs or services, these conditions can exacerbate mental health issues and significantly increase the risk of suicide. The lack of programs and educational classes also impacts recidivism rates. Research indicates a 34% higher risk of violent recidivism for youth who have spent time in the adult criminal justice system.

The inconsistent and arbitrary application of the certification statute across the state, with little to distinguish certified youth from those who remain in the juvenile system, highlights the need for thorough appellate review of certification decisions. Certification is intended for the most extreme cases, but research indicates this is not the current practice. The decision to certify has serious consequences for the youth, not only in terms of lengthy sentences but also in the significant differences in access to rehabilitative programming, which affects public safety and recidivism rates. Juvenile judges must carefully consider and be well-informed when deciding on certification.

Summary of Argument

There's a common belief that juveniles tried as adults are vastly different from those who stay in the juvenile justice system. However, data suggests this isn't true. Both groups are remarkably similar in most aspects.

The two groups share a similar level of criminality. Both groups are primarily made up of juveniles who have committed violent offenses, with aggravated robbery and sexual assault being the most common. They also have similar criminal backgrounds, with most having either one or no prior referrals to juvenile court.

The most significant difference between the two groups is the county of conviction. Some counties, like Harris County, have a much higher rate of certifying juveniles as adults than others. This difference seems to be more about the county's practices than the youth's offense or background.

It's often assumed that certified juveniles represent the "worst of the worst." However, the data shows that this isn't accurate. This group isn't more violent or more persistent in their criminal behavior than those sentenced in the juvenile system.

The juvenile justice system provides youth with rehabilitative services, including educational opportunities, therapeutic interventions, and specialized programs for those with unique needs. These programs are especially crucial for certified youth, who often have no prior experience with the juvenile system and miss out on these opportunities.

By certifying juveniles as adults, they miss out on the resources and programs that could help them become productive citizens. This lack of rehabilitation can lead to higher recidivism rates and poses a risk to public safety.

Certified youth often face poor conditions in county jails while awaiting trial, which can have detrimental effects on their mental health and increase their risk of suicide. The lack of programs and services also contributes to higher recidivism rates.

The inconsistent use of certification across the state highlights the need for careful appellate review. This decision has significant consequences for youth, affecting their sentences, access to resources, and ultimately, their future. Juvenile judges need to be well-informed and deliberate when deciding whether to certify a case.

Summary of Argument

A lot of people think that young people who are tried as adults are different from those who stay in the juvenile justice system. But the truth is, they are pretty much the same.

Most young people in both groups have committed violent crimes like robbery or sexual assault. They also have similar pasts, with most having only one or no previous trouble with the law. The biggest difference is where they got in trouble.

In some counties, like Harris County, a lot of young people are tried as adults. But in other big counties, like Travis County, it's rare for kids to be tried in adult court. This means that the decision to try a young person as an adult depends more on where they live than on what they did.

Since these young people are so similar, they should get the same kind of help. They would both benefit from programs that help kids in the juvenile justice system.

A lot of people also think that young people who are tried as adults are the worst offenders. But this isn't true either. These young people aren't more violent or more likely to commit crimes again than those who stay in the juvenile justice system.

There are a lot of kids who are tried as adults, but only a few of them are sent to the TYC (Texas Youth Commission), which is like a special school for kids who have committed serious crimes. This means that there are a lot of kids who are tried as adults who don't need to be.

It's also important to remember that a lot of non-violent crimes can be tried in adult court, even though only the most serious violent crimes are tried in the juvenile justice system.

Kids who are tried as adults are often seen as hopeless, but most of them have never been to TYC. This means that they've never had a chance to get the help they need before going to adult prison.

TYC offers lots of great programs to help kids learn, get better, and stay out of trouble. They even have special programs for kids who have committed serious violent crimes. TYC also has special programs to help kids with their physical and social needs.

A lot of young people who are tried as adults get sentences of less than 10 years, which means that they will be back in our communities while they are still young. But they won't have gotten the help they need to be good citizens. This means that they are more likely to get into trouble again, which puts everyone at risk.

Young people who are waiting for their trial in adult jail are often locked up in their cells for almost 24 hours a day. They don't have access to programs or help, and they are at risk of getting hurt or even committing suicide. Adult jail also makes it more likely that they will get into trouble again.

It's clear that the law about trying young people as adults is not used fairly. Kids who are tried as adults get much longer sentences and don't get the same kind of help as those who stay in the juvenile justice system. This makes it harder for them to change their lives and puts everyone at risk. Judges need to be very careful when deciding whether to try a young person as an adult, because it can have serious consequences.