Brief of the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner
Steve Hanlon
Corrine A. Irish
SimpleOriginal

Summary

Removing young offenders from the juvenile system disrupts effective correctional management because adolescents differ from adults, need distinct treatment, and fare better with rehabilitation in the juvenile system.

2008 | Federal Juristiction

Brief of the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner

Keywords transfers; young offenders; negative outcomes; recidivism; juvenile courts; adult courts; capacity for rehabilitation; cognitive ability; developmental limitations; immaturity; decision-making; adolescent delinquency; developmental deficiencies
Screenshot 2024-05-28 at 2.43.33 PM

Summary of Argument

This case presents an extreme and unusual case - a twelve-year old boy who killed his grandparents - who was waived up to adult court, and given a thirty-year sentence with no possibility of parole. It appears that this was an uninformed and unfortunate decision. It was uninformed because of the absence of sufficient guidance as to the appropriateness of keeping young offenders such as Petitioner Pittman within the juvenile system. It was unfortunate because had this decision been fully informed, it is highly unlikely the juvenile system would have expelled this young child to be tried as an adult, thereby resulting in a sentence that would allow no opportunity for parole for thirty years.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Argument

This case involves an unusual situation: a twelve-year-old boy who killed his grandparents. The boy, referred to as Petitioner Pittman, was transferred to adult court and sentenced to thirty years in prison without the possibility of parole. This decision appears to have been made without sufficient consideration and guidance regarding the suitability of keeping young offenders within the juvenile justice system. Had the decision been fully informed, it is highly improbable that the juvenile system would have transferred this young child to adult court. This transfer resulted in a sentence that offers no possibility of parole for thirty years.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Argument

This case presents an extraordinary and atypical situation involving a twelve-year-old boy who killed his grandparents. The boy was transferred to adult court and sentenced to thirty years in prison without the possibility of parole. This decision appears to be both uninformed and unfortunate. It was uninformed because there was a lack of adequate guidance regarding the suitability of keeping young offenders like Petitioner Pittman within the juvenile justice system. It was unfortunate because, if the decision had been made with complete knowledge, it is highly unlikely that the juvenile system would have rejected this young child and sent him to be tried as an adult, ultimately resulting in a sentence that denies any possibility of parole for thirty years.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Argument

This case involves a 12-year-old boy who killed his grandparents. He was transferred to adult court and sentenced to 30 years in prison without the possibility of parole. This seems like a harsh and poorly thought-out decision. It was poorly informed because there wasn't enough clear guidance on whether young offenders like Pittman should be tried as adults. It was unfortunate because if everyone had all the information, the juvenile system probably wouldn't have sent this young child to adult court. This resulted in a sentence that would keep him in prison for 30 years without the chance of getting out.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Argument

This is a story about a boy who was 12 years old when he killed his grandparents. He was sent to adult court, which means he was treated like an adult. The judge said he had to stay in prison for 30 years. It seems like this was not a good decision. People didn't have enough information about how to deal with kids like this. It would have been much better to keep him in the system for kids. Then, he might not have been sent to prison for so long.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Footnotes and Citation

Cite

Brief of the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner, Pittman v. South Carolina, No. 07-8436 (U.S. Oct. 3, 2007).

    Highlights