Introduction

In Oregon, a trial court concluded that Francis Watchman, when he was seventeen years old, provided drugs to another within the state¹. Although he was a juvenile at the time of the offense, the prosecution did not proceed against him in juvenile court; instead, Francis was prosecuted in adult criminal court because he had turned eighteen—Oregon’s age of majority—prior to his indictment on the drug charge.² In other words, Francis was treated like an adult. He lost all of the benefits of the juvenile court system—rehabilitation,3 confidentiality,⁴ and adjudication as a “delinquent” rather than as a criminal5—and instead was tried and sentenced in adult criminal court.⁶ Francis was denied access to the juvenile court because Oregon, like many states, determines the jurisdiction of the juvenile court based on the juvenile offender’s age at the time of the legal proceedings, not the time of the alleged offense.⁷ If the jurisdictional question had hinged on Francis’s age at the time of offense, he would have been subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. This is just one example of a case in which an offender, despite being a juvenile at the time of offense, was treated like an adult and proceeded against in adult criminal court merely because they had reached the age of majority by the time of legal proceedings, but there are others.⁸

This Article argues that all states should determine the jurisdiction of juvenile courts based upon the juvenile offender’s age at the time of offense. Such an approach ensures that all juvenile offenders receive the benefits and protections available in juvenile court. Part I provides an overview of the creation and evolution of the juvenile court system. Part II discusses the method by which juvenile court jurisdiction is determined and further illustrates the jurisdictional issue that arises when a juvenile offender commits an offense prior to reaching the age of majority but is not proceeded against until they reach the age of majority. Part III sets out the policy-based reasons why states should determine the jurisdiction of juvenile courts based upon a juvenile offender’s age at the time of offense, and not the time of proceedings. Part IV addresses the anticipated argument against using the age at the time of offense to determine the jurisdiction of juvenile courts. The Article concludes by urging states to amend their statutes granting jurisdiction to juvenile courts to confer jurisdiction based upon the offender’s age at the time of offense.

I. The Creation and Evolution of the Juvenile Court System

There are five distinct eras of the American juvenile court system: the common law era (pre-1899), the progressive era (1899–1965), the constitutional era (1966–1979), the punitive era (1980–1999), and the rehabilitation era (2000–present). Each era features its own unique approach to addressing juvenile offenders within the juvenile court system, with the focus shifting from rehabilitation—the juvenile court system’s original purpose—to retribution, and then back again.

A. The Common Law Era (Pre-1899)

At common law, with limited exceptions, the United States made no distinction between child offenders and adult criminals, treating them the same for purposes of the criminal justice system.⁹ Like adults, children were arrested, indicted by a grand jury, tried by a petit jury, and, if found guilty, sentenced like adults.¹⁰ Prior to the turn of the twentieth century, courts had the discretion to impose severe forms of punishment, which meant that it was not uncommon for child offenders to receive sentences involving lengthy terms of imprisonment or even death.¹¹

B. The Progressive Era (1899–1965)

By the end of the nineteenth century, concerned with the harsh treatment of children within the criminal court system, juvenile justice reformers began to advocate for a distinction between child offenders and adult criminals.¹² Reformers believed that children, because of their youth, were fundamentally different from adults.¹³ They argued that children, unlike adults, were “vulnerable, malleable, and in need of . . . guidance.”¹⁴ Reformers believed these differences made child offenders less culpable than adult criminals and more deserving of rehabilitation than punishment.¹⁵ Recognizing the unique characteristics of child offenders, Illinois in 1899 created the first juvenile court in the United States.¹⁶ Other states looked to Illinois as a model: “[s]upport for juvenile courts spread rapidly, and by 1945, all states had a juvenile court.”¹⁷ These newly created juvenile courts had jurisdiction over cases of dependency, neglect, and delinquency.¹⁸ In matters of delinquency, the goal of the juvenile court was to rehabilitate juvenile offenders and make them law-abiding citizens.¹⁹

With rehabilitation as a goal, juvenile courts differed from adult criminal courts in many ways. Juvenile courts often functioned as civil, not criminal, tribunals;²⁰ their proceedings were informal and non-adversarial;²¹ their proceedings were closed to the public;²² their records were sealed and kept confidential;23 and juvenile offenders, if determined to have committed the offense, were adjudicated “delinquent” rather than found “guilty.”²⁴ In addition, juvenile courts functioned under a parens patriae model of justice,²⁵ pursuant to which the judge, most often a male, served as a kind of father-figure, guiding the juvenile offender away from crime and toward a life of lawful conduct.²⁶

Because of its informal nature, many of the procedural safeguards and constitutional rights traditionally afforded to adult criminal defendants were unavailable to juvenile offenders in the juvenile court system.²⁷ For example, at delinquency hearings, juvenile offenders were not entitled to juries, witnesses were not required to testify, and the burden of proof to find a juvenile “delinquent” was a mere preponderance of the evidence.²⁸ Juvenile offenders also had no right to counsel, no right against self-incrimination, and no right of confrontation in juvenile court.²⁹ If a judge found a juvenile offender delinquent, they could impose a wide range of sanctions at their complete discretion with no regard for the severity of the underlying crime.³⁰

Over time, it became apparent that the lack of procedural and constitutional protections in the juvenile court system often had significant, negative consequences for juvenile offenders.³¹ In some instances, under the unfettered discretion of juvenile court judges, juvenile offenders received significantly harsher sentences than they could have received in adult criminal court.³² These consequences led juvenile justice advocates to seek more constitutional protections within the juvenile court system.

C. The Constitutional Era (1966–1979)

The United States Supreme Court decided several cases in the 1960s and 1970s that changed the constitutional landscape of the juvenile court system. The first was in 1966. In Kent v. United States, 33 the Court held that a hearing is required before a juvenile court can waive its otherwise exclusive jurisdiction and transfer a juvenile offender to adult criminal court.³⁴ The Court reasoned that the waiver of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction is a “‘critically important’ question” and thus demands procedural safeguards that “satisfy the basic requirements of due process and fairness.”³⁵ Despite the narrow issue addressed in Kent—whether a juvenile is entitled to a hearing prior to the transfer to adult criminal court—the decision introduced procedural and constitutional protections into the juvenile court system and laid the foundation for more expansive constitutional guarantees.

One year later in In re Gault,³⁶ the Supreme Court extended four constitutional protections to juvenile offenders in the juvenile court system. Authorities arrested Gerald Gault and his friend for making lewd and indecent phone calls to their female neighbor.³⁷ Upon arrest, Gerald was immediately taken to a detention home without notice to his parents.³⁸ The delinquency petition filed against Gerald did not state the charges or any basis for charges against Gerald, nor was the petition provided to Gerald or his parents.³⁹ During two delinquency hearings, the complaining neighbor was not present, there was no sworn testimony, and Gerald was questioned without counsel.⁴⁰ Ultimately, the judge adjudicated fifteen-year-old Gerald a “delinquent” and committed him to a detention center until the age of twenty-one.⁴¹

Upon review, the Supreme Court held that “neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor the Bill of Rights is for adults alone.”⁴² Rather, they are intended to apply equally to adults and juveniles. As a result, the Supreme Court granted juvenile offenders four constitutional rights afforded to adult defendants in the adult criminal court system: adequate written notice of the specific charge or factual allegations,⁴³ the right to counsel,⁴⁴ the right against self-incrimination,⁴⁵ and the right of confrontation.⁴⁶ The Court’s recognition of these constitutional protections had a profound impact on the juvenile court system. The once “unstructured nature of juvenile proceedings gave way to process and formality.”⁴⁷ In re Gault further established that constitutional guarantees could co-exist with the rehabilitative model of the juvenile court system.⁴⁸

Three years later in In re Winship,⁴⁹ the Court held that juvenile offenders in juvenile court, like defendants in adult criminal court, are constitutionally entitled to proof beyond a reasonable doubt when charged with a criminal offense.⁵⁰ The Court reasoned that the “civil labels and good intentions” of juvenile courts “do not themselves obviate the need for criminal due process safeguards.”⁵¹ As in In re Gault, the Court concluded that the application of the heightened burden of proof would not disrupt the rehabilitative benefits of juvenile courts.⁵²

The Kent, In re Gault, and In re Winship trilogy provided juvenile offenders with important constitutional protections previously unavailable to them in the juvenile court system. These protections would become particularly important in the coming decades when the juvenile courts would shift away from a rehabilitative approach toward a more punitive orientation.

D. The Punitive Era (1980 - 1999)

Toward the end of the twentieth century, the commitment of juvenile courts systems to rehabilitation waned, giving way to a more punitive approach. Rising juvenile crime rates and frequent news reports about juveniles committing violent crimes “fueled the public perception that juveniles were not being punished enough and that the system was in fact coddling them.”⁵³ Professor John DiIulio, Jr.’s “superpredator” theory supported this societal belief.⁵⁴ Under his “superpredator” theory, Professor DiIulio cast juvenile offenders as brutal, remorseless youth who committed heinous crimes without fear of reprisal or the pang of guilt.⁵⁵

In response, states enacted legislation that limited the jurisdictional reach of juvenile courts.⁵⁶ These laws often allowed the transfer of juvenile offenders to adult criminal court at younger ages and for less severe offenses than had previously been permitted.⁵⁷ “By 1999, all but one state had enacted laws allowing or making it easier for juvenile offenders to be transferred to criminal courts.”⁵⁸ These new laws sent thousands of juvenile offenders to adult criminal court.⁵⁹

Juvenile offenders who remained within the juvenile court system did not escape the shift to a more punitive approach to juvenile crime. Instead of viewing juvenile offenders as individuals in need of rehabilitation, the juvenile court system became “increasingly concerned with the punishment of juveniles.”⁶⁰ As a result, juvenile offenders still under the jurisdiction of the juvenile courts received increasingly punitive sentences.61 Although Professor DiIulio’s child “superpredator” never materialized,⁶² a more punitive juvenile court system certainly did.⁶³ With the increased threat of transfer to adult criminal court and the increased use of punitive sanctions within the juvenile court system, by the end of the twentieth century, juvenile offenders were experiencing a punitive regime traditionally reserved for adult criminals.

E. The Rehabilitation Era (2000 - Present)

The beginning of the twenty-first century has seen a return to the juvenile court system’s founding principle of rehabilitation.⁶⁴ This is largely due to recent developments in neuroscience.⁶⁵ These developments confirm what the original juvenile justice reformers instinctively suspected: children are different from adults and therefore less culpable and more deserving of rehabilitation.⁶⁶

Over the last two decades, many state legislatures have taken steps to reverse the harsh laws enacted during the preceding punitive era.⁶⁷ Legislatures have passed laws that limit the transfer of juvenile offenders to adult criminal court.⁶⁸ Additionally, several states have raised their age of majority, increasing the jurisdictional reach of the juvenile court system to include older teens and young adults.⁶⁹ States have also increased funding for community-based treatment and decreased the incarceration of juvenile offenders.⁷⁰ Some states have even created robust diversion programs, which allow prosecutors to divert rather than prosecute juvenile offenders.⁷¹ “If the diversion is completed successfully, the juvenile [offender] never sees the inside of a courtroom.”⁷²

The juvenile court system today, with its formalities and constitutional protections, more closely resembles the adult criminal court system than it did at its inception. However, recent legislative efforts to increase the jurisdictional reach of juvenile courts leave little doubt that the juvenile justice system has returned to its rehabilitative roots.

II. The Jurisdiction of Juvenile Courts

Statutes generally establish the jurisdiction of juvenile courts.⁷³ Typically, juvenile courts have jurisdiction over offenders who commit certain criminal offenses prior to a certain age known as the “age of majority.”⁷⁴ Individual states set their own age of majority, with most states starting majority at or around the age of eighteen.⁷⁵ Where an offender’s age equals or exceeds the age of majority, the juvenile court lacks jurisdiction, and the offender is proceeded against in adult criminal court.⁷⁶

The point at which the offender’s age matters for jurisdictional purposes is significant and of particular importance in situations where an offender commits an offense while under the age of majority but is not proceeded against until after reaching the age of majority. Some states determine jurisdiction based upon the age of the juvenile offender at the time of the alleged criminal offense.⁷⁷ In these states, even if the juvenile offender has reached the age of majority at the time of proceedings, they still fall within the jurisdictional reach of the juvenile court because they committed the offense when under the age of majority.78 However, other states determine jurisdiction based upon the age of the juvenile offender at the time proceedings are instituted against the juvenile offender.⁷⁹ In these states, the prosecution will proceed against a juvenile offender who has reached the age of majority by the time proceedings are initiated in adult criminal court, despite the fact that the offender was a juvenile at the time of the alleged offense.⁸⁰ In these states, juvenile offenders lose all the protections and benefits of the juvenile court system, despite having been a juvenile and therefore less culpable and more deserving of rehabilitation at the time of the alleged offense.

When deciding whether the juvenile offender’s age at the time of offense or proceedings determines the jurisdiction of juvenile courts, courts most heavily rely upon the language of the statute that confers jurisdiction to the juvenile court.⁸¹ For example, in J.O.N. v. Juvenile Officer,⁸² the Missouri Court of Appeals explained:

[The statute granting jurisdiction] provides that the juvenile court shall have “exclusive original jurisdiction in proceedings . . . (3) [i]nvolving any child who is alleged to have violated a state law or municipal ordinance, or any person who is alleged to have violated a state law or municipal ordinance prior to attaining the age of seventeen years . . .” (emphasis added). The legislature’s use of the word “person” in the foregoing excerpt is deliberate and significant. The statute intends to make it clear that the juvenile court has jurisdiction in proceedings involving a child (i.e., a person under 17 years of age, section 211.021(2), RSMo 1986), who is alleged to have violated a state law and also of a proceeding involving a person, regardless of age, who is alleged to have violated a state law prior to attaining the age of 17 years. The jurisdiction of the juvenile court depends only upon the occurrence of the law violation before the violator was 17.83

Likewise, in Johnson v. Bishop,⁸⁴ the Court of Appeals of Kentucky stated:

This subsection, as amended, reads as follows: (1) The juvenile session of the district court of each county shall have exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings concerning any child living, or found within the county who has not reached his eighteenth birthday [o]r of any person who at the time of committing a public offense was under the age of eighteen (18) years... (emphasis added)[.] Prior to its amendment, this statute vested exclusive jurisdiction in the juvenile court only as to proceedings against an offender which were instituted before his eighteenth birthday. The amendment was obviously intended to, and plainly does, go a step farther and vests jurisdiction in the juvenile court over proceedings against an offender of any age who at the time of committing the offense charged was under the age of eighteen.85

By contrast, in State v. Pauly,⁸⁶ the Supreme Court of Nebraska held that the age of the offender at the time of proceedings determined whether the juvenile court had jurisdiction. The court stated:

Subsection (2) of § 43-247 grants jurisdiction to the juvenile court over any juvenile who committed a felonious act and who was 11 years of age or older at the time the act was committed. . . . For purposes of the Nebraska Juvenile Code, . . . “[j]uvenile means any person under the age of eighteen.” . . . Put differently, whether the juvenile court has jurisdiction over a person is determined not by the person’s age at the time of the offense, but, rather, by the person’s age at the time he or she is charged for the offense.87

These cases illustrate how important the statutory language that confers jurisdiction to juvenile courts is to the determination of whether it is the juvenile offender’s age at the time of offense or at the time of proceedings that will control the jurisdictional question.

III. States Should Determine Jurisdiction of Juvenile Courts Based Upon Age at Time of Offense

Juvenile offenders in states that determine the jurisdiction of juvenile courts based upon a juvenile offender’s age at the time of proceedings are at a significant disadvantage. Despite having been juveniles at the time of the offense, they lose all the benefits and protections of the juvenile court system if they reach the age of majority prior to the initiation of proceedings. They will be proceeded against in the retribution-oriented adult criminal court system where they are more likely to be incarcerated;⁸⁸ have no protection of confidentiality;⁸⁹ have limited or no access to rehabilitative programming and treatment;⁹⁰ and, if determined to have committed the offense, will be found “guilty” of a crime rather than merely “delinquent.”⁹¹ This Part explores the numerous policy-based reasons why the better approach to the determination of the jurisdiction of juvenile courts is to use the offender’s age at the time of offense.

A. Juvenile Offenders are Less Culpable than Adult Criminals

The notion that juvenile offenders are less culpable for their actions than adult criminals is not a new concept. Early juvenile justice reformers relied upon this lessened culpability to advocate for a distinction between juvenile offenders and adult criminals within the criminal justice system.⁹² These early reformers understood that youth is not merely a chronological number,⁹³ but rather is a period of time when individuals are “less mature, more impulsive, more susceptible to negative familial and peer pressure, and more amenable to rehabilitation.”⁹⁴ Indeed, it was society’s acceptance that youth and its attendant circumstances make juvenile offenders less culpable and more deserving of rehabilitation that served as the impetus for the creation of juvenile court systems.⁹⁵

Today, scientific studies confirm what early juvenile justice reformers believed: from a developmental perspective, juveniles are different from adults.⁹⁶ There are at least four developmental differences between an adolescent and adult brain significant to culpability.⁹⁷ First, during adolescence there is an increase in dopamine, a neurotransmitter associated with sensation-seeking and risk-taking.⁹⁸ The increased levels of dopamine often make risky behavior more appealing than safer choices.⁹⁹ Second, the prefrontal cortex is not fully developed during adolescence.¹⁰⁰ “The prefrontal cortex . . . is responsible for cognitive analysis, abstract thought, and the moderation of correct behavior in social situations.”¹⁰¹ It provides an individual with “the capacity to exercise good judgment.”¹⁰² Because the prefrontal cortex is not fully developed until adulthood, “adolescents have less control over the urge to seek a reward that may have negative effects,” which explains “why adolescents are prone to seek novelty and take risks.”¹⁰³ Third, “the brain goes through extensive myelination” during adolescence.¹⁰⁴ Myelination is the “process by which the myelin forms a casing around a nerve to allow speedier and more consistent neural transmissions.”¹⁰⁵ Until the myelinations process is complete, adolescents are unable to fully plan, weigh costs and benefits, and appropriately respond to inhibitions.¹⁰⁶ Finally, “neural connections between cortical and subcortical regions continue to grow into late adolescence.”107 Without these fully formed connections, adolescents are unable to effectively regulate emotions and control emotional impulses.¹⁰⁸

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court has extended several constitutional protections to juvenile offenders because of these developmental deficiencies. In 2005, in Roper v. Simmons,¹⁰⁹ the Court held that imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were under the age of eighteen when their crimes were committed was unconstitutional.¹¹⁰ Five years later, in 2010, in Graham v. Florida,¹¹¹ the Supreme Court held that “[t]he Constitution prohibits the imposition of a life without parole sentence on a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide.”¹¹² In both cases, the Court relied upon science to reach its decision. In Roper, the Court “cited studies showing that ‘[o]nly a relatively small proportion of adolescents’ who engage in illegal activity ‘develop entrenched patterns of problem behavior.’”¹¹³ Likewise, in Graham, the Court “noted that ‘developments in psychology and brain science continue to show fundamental differences between juvenile and adult minds’” and “reasoned that those findings—of transient rashness, proclivity for risk, and inability to assess consequences—both lessened a child’s ‘moral culpability’ and enhanced the prospect that, as the years go by and neurological development occurs, his ‘deficiencies will be reformed.’”¹¹⁴ Together, Roper and Graham establish that juveniles’ developmental deficiencies diminish their culpability and increase their prospect for reform, making them deserving of special treatment under the criminal justice system.

More recently, in 2012, in Miller v. Alabama,¹¹⁵ the Court held that mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles violate the Eighth Amendment of the Federal Constitution.¹¹⁶ Again, relying upon the developmental deficiencies of adolescence, the Court concluded that when imposing the harshest penalty against juvenile offenders—life without the possibility of parole—mandatory sentencing schemes ignore the unique circumstances of adolescence.¹¹⁷ Specifically,

Mandatory life without parole for a juvenile precludes consideration of his chronological age and its hallmark features—among them, immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences. It prevents taking into account the family and home environment that surrounds him—and from which he cannot usually extricate himself—no matter how brutal or dysfunctional. It neglects the circumstances of the homicide offense, including the extent of his participation in the conduct and the way familial and peer pressures may have affected him. Indeed, it ignores that he might have been charged and convicted of a lesser offense if not for incompetencies associated with youth—for example, his inability to deal with police officers or prosecutors (including on a plea agreement) or his incapacity to assist his own attorneys. And finally, this mandatory punish- ment disregards the possibility of rehabilitation even when the circumstances most suggest it.¹¹⁸

The developmental differences relied upon in Roper and its progeny to expand constitutional protections to juvenile offenders in the context of sentencing are equally applicable in the context of the jurisdictional reach of juvenile courts. An offender’s level of culpability is generally determined by the facts and circumstances that exist at the time of the offense.¹¹⁹ Thus, when a juvenile commits an offense, he or she does so with the developmental deficiencies recognized by early juvenile justice reformers, scientific researchers, and now the U.S. Supreme Court. The mere fact that the prosecution may not have initiated legal proceedings until after the juvenile offender reached the age of majority does not increase the offender’s level of culpability at the time they committed the crime.¹²⁰ Rather, the criminal offense was committed during a period of diminished culpability due to the juvenile’s lack of brain maturity and development.

B. Ensures Fairness in the Criminal Justice System

As the U.S. Supreme Court has noted in multiple contexts, fairness is a hallmark feature of the American criminal justice system.¹²¹ The fundamental right to fair treatment in the criminal justice system has served as an important rationale underlying the elaboration of many constitutional rights, including the right to counsel for indigent defendants,¹²² the prohibition against the imposition of the death penalty on juveniles,¹²³ the prohibition against race-based jury selection,¹²⁴ and the right to a fair and impartial jury.¹²⁵ Fairness also underlies the notion that similarly situated persons should be treated alike under the law.¹²⁶

Fairness within the criminal justice system is also critical to the promotion of society’s confidence in the justice system.¹²⁷ Commentators have noted that:

The public is much more likely to support and participate in the criminal justice process and support those officials who run it when the public believes that the process is run fairly. If the American public does not perceive its criminal justice system to be fair, negative consequences can result. Diminished public support for the criminal justice system, taken to the extreme, can lead to diminished respect for the law and, thereby, less compliance with the law.¹²⁸

States that determine the jurisdiction of juvenile courts based upon a juvenile offender’s age at the time of proceedings run afoul of this basic understanding of fairness. Using a juvenile offender’s age at the time of proceedings to determine jurisdiction allows similarly situated juvenile offenders to be treated differently within the criminal justice system based upon when the prosecution proceeds against them.¹²⁹ Consider, for example, a seventeen-year-old individual who stole a pair of $200 sneakers from a store in a state that set its age of majority at eighteen years old. If the juvenile is arrested and charged on the day of the offense, the juvenile court would have jurisdiction. Now imagine another seventeen-year-old stole a pair of $200 sneakers from the same store, on the same day, but they were not proceeded against until one day after their eighteenth birthday. In the second scenario, the juvenile offender would be charged, tried, and sentenced in adult criminal court. This juvenile offender would lose all the benefits and protections of the juvenile court: confidentiality, rehabilitation, decreased reliance on incarceration, and adjudication as a “delinquent” rather than convicted of a crime. Instead, the prosecution would proceed against this juvenile in the adult criminal court with its punitive-oriented regime. This juvenile would be treated differently and would suffer significant consequences, despite committing the same offense, on the same day, in the same state, and at the same age as the juvenile in the first scenario.

Certainly, there are other instances of disparate treatment within the criminal justice system.¹³⁰ However, the disparate treatment that results when a state determines the jurisdiction of juvenile courts based on the offender’s age at the time of proceedings is particularly unfair because it has no connection to any perceived difference in culpability, severity of offense committed, or criminal history between the juvenile offenders. Rather, it is solely the result of the use of an arbitrary date—the date of legal proceedings—to determine the jurisdictional reach of juvenile courts. This unfair result would not—could not—occur in a state that determines jurisdiction based upon a juvenile offender’s age at the time of offense. Under such a scheme, both juvenile offenders in the above examples would fall within the jurisdictional reach of the juvenile court because they both committed the offenses while under the age of majority.

C. Removes Incentive to Delay Proceedings Against Juvenile Offenders

A prosecutor’s primary obligation is to seek justice.¹³¹ To fulfill this obligation, prosecutors are given broad discretion within the criminal justice system.¹³² Prosecutors regularly exercise their discretion in the context of criminal investigations, charging decisions, plea bargaining, and sentencing recommendations.¹³³

There are many benefits to broad prosecutorial discretion. First, given the abundance of criminal statutes today, discretion allows prosecutors to determine which “criminal law[s] are really worthy of criminal punishment.”¹³⁴ “[P]rosecutors are [likely] more suited than the legislature to adapt the criminal law to new circumstances and to identify when the prosecution of certain statutes would be anachronistic.”¹³⁵ Second, discretion allows prosecutors to focus financial resources and personnel on the criminal offenses most troubling to their community, rather than exhausting often limited resources attempting to punish all criminal conduct.¹³⁶ Finally, broad discretion is often necessary to reach just results.¹³⁷ Strict enforcement of the law is not always in the best interest of victims, society, or defendants.¹³⁸ Discretion allows prosecutors to assess individual cases when determining how to best obtain a fair and just result.

Unfortunately, despite the benefits of broad prosecutorial discretion, wherever discretion exists, so does the potential for abuse. For example, in 2007 then-District Attorney Mike Nifong of Durham, North Carolina, was disbarred for misconduct that occurred during a sex-crime prosecution of Duke University lacrosse players.¹³⁹ He was officially disbarred for “making false statements, withholding exculpatory evidence, and making impermissible statements to the press.”¹⁴⁰ However, the conduct that “most disturbed the public”—and likely the disciplinary agency—was that he abused his discretionary power “by continuing the prosecution after the evidence discredited the complaining witness and strongly suggested that the defendants were innocent.”¹⁴¹

It is well recognized that prosecutors have particularly broad discretion in the context of charging decisions.¹⁴² They “determine whether to bring charges, what charges to bring, when to bring charges, and where to bring charges.”¹⁴³ Aside from the constitutional requirement that probable cause must support criminal charges, discretion in this area has little, if any other, constraints.¹⁴⁴ Therefore, it is not surprising that criminal justice scholars, advocates, and reformers regularly express concern about prosecutors abusing this extraordinary power.¹⁴⁵ While there is no consensus on how to best minimize prosecutorial abuse,¹⁴⁶ ensuring the procedures within the criminal justice system reduce rather than invite potential abuse is a good start.

Courts “have recognized that the jurisdictional limit of the juvenile court is susceptible to prosecutorial abuse.”¹⁴⁷ They have acknowledged that the use of the offender’s age at the time of proceedings raises the potential that prosecutors may delay proceedings until juvenile offenders reach the age of majority as a way to circumvent the juvenile court system.¹⁴⁸ This concern is warranted.¹⁴⁹ In Peterson v. State,¹⁵⁰ despite ample time to proceed against a juvenile offender in juvenile court, the prosecutor waited until after the juvenile offender’s eighteenth birthday to indict her in adult criminal court.¹⁵¹ On appeal, the juvenile argued she should have been tried in juvenile court immediately upon her arrest.¹⁵² The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals disagreed, explaining the prosecutor had the right “to abide his time until [the juvenile] reached the age of eighteen years, when he could prosecute her and try her for her crime as an adult.”¹⁵³

As Peterson illustrates, determining the jurisdiction of juvenile courts based upon an offender’s age at the time of proceedings invites potential prosecutorial abuse in the context of charging decisions. Under such a scheme, prosecutors may merely wait to proceed against a juvenile offender until the juvenile reaches the age of majority. The risk of such abuse is especially high in cases where the juvenile offender is close to the age of majority at the time he or she commits the alleged offense.

Moreover, in certain cases, there is significant incentive for prosecutors to delay proceedings. In cases where the juvenile committed an offense that is not eligible for transfer to adult criminal court, delaying proceedings until the juvenile offender reaches the age of majority allows a prosecutor to proceed against the juvenile offender in adult criminal court when the prosecutor would otherwise be unable to do so. Likewise, in cases where the prosecutor intends to seek a discretionary transfer from juvenile court to adult criminal court, a delay until the offender reaches the age of majority negates the need for an often laborious and time-consuming transfer hearing. Rather, the delay allows the prosecutor to proceed against the juvenile offender in adult criminal court.

Some states attempt to minimize the potential for this type of prosecutorial abuse by allowing a juvenile offender who has reached the age of majority to be charged in adult criminal court only in cases where the prosecutor did not intentionally delay proceedings to avoid the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.¹⁵⁴ However, while well meaning, this supposed “safeguard” falls short for several reasons. First, it often fails to protect juvenile offenders against negligent, rather than intentional, delays.¹⁵⁵ Second, there are an infinite number of investigatory tasks that prosecutors can assert as a means to conceal an intentional delay of prosecution.¹⁵⁶ Finally, juvenile offenders are at a significant disadvantage in confronting a prosecutor’s assertion that a delay in proceedings was unintentional. Such improper conduct is unlikely to be documented. Rather, the ill-motive likely may exist only in the mind of the prosecutor or in verbal conversations between prosecutors and law enforcement.

Determining jurisdiction based upon a juvenile offender’s age at the time of offense removes any incentive to delay proceedings to circumvent the juvenile court system. Whether the offender is proceeded against a day, month, or year after the alleged offense is irrelevant under such a scheme.

D. Reduces Recidivism Rates

There are likely few things that undermine society’s confidence in the criminal justice system more than recidivism. Recidivism exemplifies the criminal justice system’s failure to rehabilitate and deter an offender’s criminal behavior, as well as its inability to prevent crime and keep the public safe. Recidivism rates are so intertwined with the perceived success of the criminal justice system that they are considered the key measure of the system’s performance,157 with high rates of reoffending indicative of a failure in the system.

Studies show that juvenile offenders who are proceeded against in the adult criminal court system have higher rates of reoffending than those who remain in the juvenile court system.¹⁵⁸ While several factors likely final court’s reliance upon incarceration is a significant factor.¹⁵⁹ Incarceration greatly increases the likelihood that juvenile offenders will recidivate upon release. “[O]ne study revealed that the odds of reoffending increased 13.5 times for youth with a prior detention,”¹⁶⁰ while another “found that detaining them increased their likelihood of recidivism after release by 22–26%.”¹⁶¹

The connection between incarceration and recidivism by juvenile offenders should not be surprising. Incarcerated juveniles often experience physical and sexual abuse during detention,¹⁶² they lack access to educational or rehabilitative services,¹⁶³ and they suffer higher rates of posttraumatic stress disorder and depression.¹⁶⁴ The impact of incarceration on juvenile offenders’ physical and mental well-being undermines the potential for any meaningful rehabilitation.¹⁶⁵

The correlation between incarceration and recidivism does not exist only among juveniles. Research shows that periods of incarceration also increase recidivism rates among adults. “[T]he experience of incarceration can be criminogenic, or likely to cause the very behavior it is punishing.”¹⁶⁶ “The longer sentences people serve, the harder it is for them to reenter successfully into society. . . . One study using data from Texas found that each additional year of a prison sentence caused a 4–7% increase in an individual’s recidivism rate once he or she was released.”¹⁶⁷ The justification for incarceration based upon the belief that time in

prison reduces recidivism is not supported by data. Rather, research shows that incarceration actually increases crime. Because juvenile offenders who remain in the juvenile court system are less likely to be incarcerated and therefore less likely to recidivate, states seeking to reduce crime should implement procedures and laws that increase access to juvenile courts, not decrease it. Determining the jurisdiction of juvenile courts based upon a juvenile offender’s age at the time of offense does just that.

E. Respects the National Trend to Expand the Jurisdictional Reach of the Juvenile Court Systems

Studies show that juvenile offenders proceeded through the juvenile court system have more access to rehabilitative programming,¹⁶⁸ are less likely to be incarcerated,¹⁶⁹ and (as noted above) have lower rates of recidivism than those proceeded against in the adult criminal court system.¹⁷⁰ Recognizing the benefits of the juvenile court, many state legislatures have recently enacted laws to increase offenders’ access to the juvenile court system.

For example, many states have passed legislation limiting the ability to transfer juvenile offenders from juvenile court to adult criminal court. In 2020, Utah passed “legislation limiting the transfer of 16 and 17-year-olds to adult court to only the most serious offenses and only under a judge’s discretion.”¹⁷¹ Likewise, Virginia raised the minimum age from fourteen to sixteen years old for juvenile offenders to be tried in adult criminal court for murder.¹⁷² California went ever further, banning “the transfer of juveniles under the age of sixteen to criminal court, regardless of the alleged offense.”¹⁷³ These legislative actions mean more juvenile offenders will remain within the juvenile court system instead of being removed to adult criminal court.

Likely even more meaningful, numerous states have recently raised their age of majority. In 2020, Vermont raised its age of majority to nineteen years old, becoming the first state in the nation to legally classify eighteen-year-olds as juveniles within the criminal justice system.¹⁷⁴ Similarly, New York, Michigan, and Missouri all recently raised their states’ age of majority to eighteen years old.¹⁷⁵ In Missouri, proponents of the bill that raised the age explained:

[I]t makes sense to raise the age in Missouri, as you already have to be 18 to do a lot of things, like join the military or enter into a contract. The only place 17-year-olds are treated like adults is in the justice system. Children’s brains are still developing at age 17, and they should not have opportunities cut off because of stupid decisions they make at that age. Raising the age will lead to a windfall of taxpayer savings. Additionally, those leaving the adult system are significantly more likely to re-offend than those leaving the juvenile system. This will improve the safety of our communities, and it will lead to a stronger workforce and economy. This will also help preserve parental rights. Also, the juvenile system does a better job at holding kids accountable and getting them back on track. They can get proper education and therapy tools better than they can in the adult system. Finally, juveniles housed in adult jails are more likely to commit suicide than those housed in juvenile facilities.¹⁷⁶

Efforts to raise the age of majority are a sign that states want juvenile courts to be inclusive rather than exclusive tribunals.

These recent state actions confirm the current trend to expand rather than limit the jurisdictional reach of juvenile courts. Like laws that limit juvenile transfers to adult criminal court and raise the age of majority, determining the jurisdiction of juvenile courts based upon an offender’s age at the time of offense will increase access to the juvenile court system. It will ensure that all juvenile offenders have access to the protections and benefits of the juvenile court system, not just those proceeded against prior to reaching the age of majority. Under such a scheme, more juvenile offenders will have access to the rehabilitative focus of the juvenile court system that has been proven to lower recidivism rates among offenders.¹⁷⁷

IV. The Argument Against the Use of the Age of the Juvenile Offender at the Time of Offense to Determine Jurisdiction

The most likely argument against determining the jurisdiction of juvenile courts based upon a juvenile offender’s age at the time of offense is that the rehabilitative focus of the juvenile court system is no longer appropriate for individuals who have reached the age of majority.178 Such an argument, however, is flawed for several reasons. First, it is important to understand the age of the individuals most likely to benefit from the use of an offender’s age at the time of offense to determine the jurisdiction of juvenile courts. Almost all criminal offenses must be brought within a statute of limitations period.¹⁷⁹ The limitations period represents the outermost time limit in which the state may bring a criminal charge against a person.180 A charge not brought against an offender within the applicable time period is generally barred from future prosecution.181

Individual states set their own limitations periods.¹⁸² However, most criminal offenses must be brought against an offender at some point within six years of the commission of the crime.¹⁸³ Therefore, if a seventeen-year-old juvenile offender committed an offense, in order to satisfy a six-year statute of limitations period, the proceedings against the juvenile would need to commence sometime before the offender’s twenty-third birthday, or be forever barred. Thus, the application of statute of limitations makes it very unlikely that a person older than his or her early twenties will find themselves in juvenile court, even if the jurisdiction of the juvenile court was based upon the offender’s age at the time of offense.

The contention that the rehabilitative nature of the juvenile court system is inappropriate for these young adults is simply wrong. “[N]eurological studies show that the area of the brain that allows adults to make responsible, rational decisions is not fully developed until early adulthood, usually around the twenty-two to twenty-five-year-old age range.”¹⁸⁴ Likewise, “the area of the brain affecting impulse control, emotion regulation, delayed gratification, and the effect of peer influences continues to develop for several years after the age of eighteen.”¹⁸⁵ Because the brains of young adults are still developing, young adults, like juveniles, are more amenable to treatment and well-suited for the rehabilitative approach of the juvenile court system.¹⁸⁶

While statute of limitations periods will reduce the risk of significantly older adults being proceeded against in juvenile court, not all offenses have proscribed limitation periods. Some of the most severe crimes, such as rape and murder, often have long or no limitation periods.¹⁸⁷ This does not mean, however, that juvenile offenders who commit these crimes will find themselves in juvenile court long after the commission of the offense if jurisdiction is based upon the age of the offender at the time of offense. Almost all states have mechanisms for transferring juvenile offenders who commit serious offenses from juvenile court to adult criminal court.¹⁸⁸ Thus, juvenile offenders who commit the most serious offenses can be, and often are, transferred out of juvenile court and to adult criminal court.

The application of statutes of limitations and transfer mechanisms significantly decreases the chance that a juvenile offender will fall within the jurisdictional reach of the juvenile court after his or her early twenties, even if jurisdiction is based upon the offender’s age at the time of offense. Consequently, the fear by opponents that the use of an offender’s age at the time of offense to determine the jurisdiction of juvenile courts will result in older adults, who are purportedly ill-suited for rehabilitation, being subject to the juvenile court is largely unwarranted.¹⁸⁹ On balance, moreover, the slight risk of those rare cases arising is worth the significant benefits to the juvenile offenders who would otherwise be denied access to juvenile courts as young adults merely because legal proceedings were instituted against them after they reached the age of majority.

Conclusion

Juvenile justice scholars, advocates, and stakeholders can no longer afford to ignore the patently unfair denial of juvenile offenders’ access to the juvenile court system merely because they have reached the age of majority prior to the institution of legal proceedings. Today, it is universally accepted that juvenile offenders, because of their youth and its attendant circumstances, are developmentally different than adult criminals. Over the last two decades, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that these developmental deficiencies make juvenile offenders less culpable and more deserving of special treatment under the law. Determining the jurisdiction of juvenile courts based upon the juvenile offender’s age at the time of proceedings fails to recognize juvenile offenders’ lessened culpability, as well as fails to ensure similarly situated juvenile offenders are treated alike, incentivizes the delay in the prosecution of juvenile offenders, increases recidivism, and fails to honor the national trend to increase offenders’ access to the juvenile court system.

Fortunately, there is a simple solution. Because the jurisdiction of juvenile courts is conferred by statute, state legislatures have the power to change the jurisdictional statutes to address issues and inequities. Legislatures can simply amend the language of their states’ jurisdictional statutes to make it clear that the jurisdiction of the juvenile court must be determined based upon a juvenile offender’s age at the time of the alleged offense, not at the time of proceedings. While there are an infinite number of ways to convey this change, Missouri’s and Kentucky’s jurisdictional statutes serve as good examples.190 Both states’ statutes clearly depict the legislatures’ intent that their juvenile courts have jurisdiction over all individuals alleged to have committed an offense prior to attaining the age of majority, regardless of their age at the time of proceedings.

Admittedly, such amendments to jurisdictional statutes will likely require additional reforms within states’ juvenile justice systems, but that is a small price to pay to ensure that all juvenile offenders receive the protections and benefits of the juvenile court system that they deserve. Our laws, policies, and procedures must strive to protect, benefit, and rehabilitate the most vulnerable population within the criminal justice system—juvenile offenders.

Link to Article

Determining Juvenile Court Jurisdiction: Why Age at Time of Offense Should Be the Decisive Factor

Introduction

Jurisdictional discrepancies within the juvenile justice system present significant challenges, often leading to inconsistent and potentially unjust outcomes for young offenders. This article advocates for a standardized approach to determining juvenile court jurisdiction, arguing that a juvenile's age at the time of the offense should be the sole determining factor. Utilizing age at the time of offense ensures fairness, aligns with the rehabilitative goals of the juvenile justice system, and promotes more equitable outcomes for young people who become involved in the legal system.

This article examines the complexities of this issue, focusing on the need for a unified approach that prioritizes the rehabilitative aims of the juvenile justice system. Part I provides a historical overview of the juvenile court system's evolution, highlighting the shifts in focus and the ongoing debate between rehabilitation and punishment. Part II delves into the intricacies of juvenile court jurisdiction, examining different jurisdictional criteria and their implications. Part III presents a compelling argument for utilizing the age at the time of the offense as the decisive factor in determining jurisdiction, emphasizing its alignment with the core principles of fairness, rehabilitation, and consistency. Part IV addresses potential counterarguments to this approach, highlighting the safeguards and considerations that mitigate concerns. The article concludes by urging for statutory amendments that prioritize age at the time of the offense as the primary jurisdictional determinant in juvenile court cases.

I. The History of the Juvenile Court System: Shifting Between Helping and Punishing

The juvenile justice system in the United States has undergone a series of transformations, reflecting evolving societal perspectives on youth crime and appropriate responses. These periods, from the pre-juvenile court era to the present day, demonstrate a fluctuating emphasis on rehabilitation versus punishment.

A. The Pre-Juvenile Court Era (Pre-1899)

Prior to the establishment of the juvenile court system, children were often subjected to the same harsh legal processes and punishments as adults. This period lacked a nuanced understanding of juvenile delinquency and often failed to consider the unique vulnerabilities and developmental needs of young offenders.

B. The Progressive Era (1899–1965)

The late 19th and early 20th centuries witnessed a growing movement to establish a separate system for addressing juvenile delinquency. This era saw the emergence of the first juvenile court in Illinois, founded on the principle of parens patriae, which emphasized the state's role in protecting and guiding youth. Juvenile courts during this period focused on rehabilitation, employing informal procedures and emphasizing individualized treatment over punishment.

C. The Constitutional Era (1966–1979)

This era marked a turning point in juvenile justice as landmark Supreme Court decisions, including Kent v. United States, In re Gault, and In re Winship, extended fundamental due process rights to juveniles. These rulings recognized the importance of procedural fairness while acknowledging the continued relevance of the juvenile court's rehabilitative goals.

D. The Punitive Era (1980–1999)

Concerns about rising juvenile crime rates in the late 20th century led to a shift towards a more punitive approach. This era saw increased transfers of juveniles to adult courts, harsher sentencing practices, and a diminished emphasis on rehabilitation. The focus shifted to accountability and punishment, often overlooking the developmental differences between youth and adults.

E. The Rehabilitation Era (2000–Present)

The 21st century has witnessed a renewed focus on the rehabilitative ideals of the juvenile justice system. This shift is largely attributed to advancements in neuroscience and a growing understanding of adolescent brain development. These insights underscore the diminished culpability of juveniles and highlight their increased capacity for rehabilitation.

This period is marked by efforts to reduce the use of incarceration, expand diversion programs, and promote community-based interventions. Legislative reforms, including raising the age of majority and limiting transfers to adult court, reflect a growing commitment to providing youth with opportunities for rehabilitation and second chances.

II. Navigating the Complexities of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction

The jurisdictional scope of juvenile courts varies significantly across states, often leading to inconsistent treatment of juvenile offenders. Two primary approaches to determining jurisdiction exist: age at the time of the offense and age at the time of legal proceedings. This section examines the disparities arising from these contrasting approaches and underscores the need for a more uniform system.

States employing age at the time of the offense as the determining factor ensure that all individuals who commit offenses while under the age of majority are subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, regardless of when legal proceedings are initiated. This approach aligns with the principle that culpability is determined at the time of the offense and that developmental factors relevant to juvenile delinquency remain constant regardless of when charges are filed.

Conversely, states that utilize age at the time of legal proceedings as the jurisdictional criterion create a system where similarly situated juveniles can be treated differently. Delays in investigations or prosecutorial decisions can lead to situations where juveniles who commit offenses while under the age of majority are subject to the jurisdiction of the adult criminal justice system simply because they turned eighteen before charges were filed. This approach undermines the principles of fairness and equal treatment, as it introduces an element of arbitrariness into the juvenile justice system.

III. The Case for Age at the Time of Offense as the Decisive Jurisdictional Factor

Determining juvenile court jurisdiction based on the offender's age at the time of the offense offers numerous advantages, aligning with the fundamental principles of fairness, rehabilitation, and public safety. This section delves into the compelling policy reasons for adopting this approach.

A. Diminished Culpability of Juvenile Offenders

Extensive research in neuroscience and developmental psychology confirms that adolescents' brains are still developing, impacting their impulse control, decision-making abilities, and susceptibility to peer pressure. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized these developmental differences, affording juveniles special consideration under the law, including limitations on sentencing.

Given the inherent differences between adolescent and adult brains, it is fundamentally unjust to subject juveniles to the harsher penalties and stigmatization of the adult criminal justice system based solely on their age at the time of legal proceedings. Determining jurisdiction based on the age at the time of the offense acknowledges the diminished culpability of juveniles and ensures they are not unfairly penalized for delays in the legal process.

B. Ensuring Fairness and Equity in the Justice System

A core principle of a just legal system is that individuals who commit similar offenses under similar circumstances should be treated similarly. Utilizing age at the time of legal proceedings as the jurisdictional criterion introduces an element of arbitrariness into the juvenile justice system, potentially leading to disparate treatment of similarly situated offenders.

Consider two scenarios: two seventeen-year-olds commit the same offense. The first juvenile is apprehended and charged immediately, falling under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. The second juvenile, due to delays in the investigative or charging process, turns eighteen before being charged and is therefore tried in adult criminal court. This discrepancy, arising solely from procedural delays rather than differences in offense severity or culpability, underscores the inherent unfairness of using age at the time of legal proceedings to determine jurisdiction.

C. Mitigating Prosecutorial Discretion and Potential Abuse

Granting prosecutors the ability to influence jurisdictional outcomes based on the timing of legal proceedings creates a potential for abuse. Prosecutors, seeking harsher punishments or circumventing the rehabilitative focus of the juvenile court, could potentially delay proceedings to ensure a juvenile is tried as an adult. This manipulation of the system undermines its legitimacy and erodes public trust.

By removing the incentive to delay proceedings for jurisdictional advantage, determining jurisdiction based on age at the time of the offense promotes a more just and equitable system. This approach reduces the potential for prosecutorial misconduct and ensures that charging decisions are driven by the facts of the case rather than strategic considerations.

D. Prioritizing Rehabilitation and Reducing Recidivism

The juvenile justice system, with its emphasis on rehabilitation, has proven more effective than the adult system in reducing recidivism rates among young offenders. Juvenile courts provide access to a wider range of rehabilitative services, including counseling, education, and vocational training, tailored to address the underlying factors contributing to delinquency.

Determining jurisdiction based on age at the time of the offense ensures that juveniles who commit offenses before reaching the age of majority are afforded the opportunity to benefit from the rehabilitative approaches of the juvenile justice system. This approach aligns with the principle that juveniles, due to their developmental stage and greater capacity for change, are more amenable to rehabilitation than adults.

E. Aligning with the National Trend Toward Expanding Juvenile Court Jurisdiction

Recent years have witnessed a growing movement to reform the juvenile justice system by emphasizing rehabilitation, reducing incarceration, and expanding the jurisdictional reach of juvenile courts. Many states have raised the age of majority, limited transfers to adult court, and invested in community-based alternatives to incarceration.

Determining jurisdiction based on age at the time of the offense aligns with this national trend towards a more just and equitable juvenile justice system. By ensuring that all juveniles who commit offenses before reaching the age of majority have access to the rehabilitative focus of the juvenile court, this approach promotes consistency, fairness, and better outcomes for young people.

IV. Addressing Arguments Against Utilizing Age at the Time of Offense

Opponents of utilizing age at the time of the offense to determine jurisdiction often raise concerns about the potential for older individuals, whose offenses occurred during their youth, to be subject to the juvenile justice system. However, these concerns are largely mitigated by existing legal safeguards and the realities of prosecutorial practices.

Firstly, statutes of limitations, which prescribe the time frame within which charges must be filed, effectively limit the applicability of this approach to individuals in their early twenties. Most criminal offenses have statutes of limitations of a few years, meaning that individuals who committed offenses during their youth would age out of juvenile court jurisdiction regardless of when charges are filed.

Secondly, transfer mechanisms, which allow for juveniles accused of serious offenses to be tried in adult court, provide an additional safeguard. This ensures that individuals who pose a significant threat to public safety or whose offenses are deemed inappropriate for juvenile court jurisdiction can be transferred to the adult system.

Finally, prosecutorial discretion, while a potential concern, is tempered by ethical obligations and accountability mechanisms. Prosecutors have a duty to seek justice, not convictions, and are bound by ethical rules that prohibit intentionally delaying charges for strategic advantage. Additionally, courts have the authority to dismiss charges or impose sanctions in cases of prosecutorial misconduct.

Conclusion

The evidence overwhelmingly supports determining juvenile court jurisdiction based on the offender's age at the time of the offense. This approach aligns with the fundamental principles of fairness, rehabilitation, and public safety, ensuring that juveniles are not unfairly penalized for delays in the legal process. By prioritizing age at the time of the offense, we promote a more just and equitable juvenile justice system that recognizes the diminished culpability of juveniles and provides them with greater opportunities for rehabilitation. To achieve this, state legislatures should amend their jurisdictional statutes to clearly establish age at the time of the offense as the decisive factor in determining juvenile court jurisdiction.

Link to Article

I. The History of the Juvenile Court System

The American juvenile court system has evolved through five distinct eras, each with a unique approach to juvenile offenders:

A. Common Law Era (Pre-1899)

Before juvenile courts, kids who broke the law were treated like adults. This meant facing the same courts, punishments, and even the death penalty.

B. Progressive Era (1899-1965)

Concerned about the harsh treatment of children, reformers pushed for a separate system. Illinois led the way in 1899, establishing the first juvenile court focused on rehabilitation and guidance. By 1945, all states had adopted the model. Juvenile courts aimed to help young offenders become law-abiding citizens. They operated less formally than adult courts, with an emphasis on guidance rather than punishment.

C. Constitutional Era (1966-1979)

The Supreme Court stepped in during the 1960s and 1970s to ensure fairness for juveniles. Landmark cases like Kent v. United States and In re Gault established that young people had rights too, including due process, the right to counsel, protection against self-incrimination, and the right to confront witnesses.

D. Punitive Era (1980-1999)

Rising crime rates shifted the focus from rehabilitation to punishment. Laws made it easier to transfer juveniles to adult courts, and even those remaining in the juvenile system faced harsher sentences. The perception was that the system was too lenient.

E. Rehabilitation Era (2000-Present)

The 21st century has seen a renewed emphasis on rehabilitation. This shift is driven by advances in brain science showing that young people are not mini-adults and their brains are still developing. Many states are now rolling back harsh laws and focusing on community-based programs to guide young offenders.

II. Who Gets to be in Juvenile Court?

Each state decides who goes to juvenile court, usually based on age and the offense. This is where things get tricky:

• Age at Offense vs. Age at Trial: Some states use the offender's age when they committed the crime to determine jurisdiction. Others use their age when legal proceedings begin. This difference is crucial because it can mean a young person is treated as an adult simply because their case took a while to get to court.

• Statutory Language Matters: Courts look closely at the specific wording of the law in their state to decide which approach to follow.

III. Why Age at the Time of the Offense Makes Sense

This article argues that using the offender's age at the time of the offense is the fairest approach. Here's why:

A. Young People Are Less Culpable

Science backs up what early reformers believed: young people's brains aren't fully developed, affecting their judgment and impulse control. This makes them less responsible for their actions compared to adults.

B. Fairness in the Justice System

Using the age at the time of proceedings can lead to unequal treatment. Imagine two teens who commit the same crime on the same day. One gets caught and tried immediately in juvenile court. The other has their case delayed and is treated as an adult simply due to timing. That's not fair.

C. No Incentive to Delay Justice

When the age at trial matters, prosecutors might be tempted to delay cases, especially when dealing with offenses that wouldn't qualify for adult court if the young person were tried as a juvenile.

D. Lowering Crime Rates

Studies show that juveniles tried and sentenced in adult court are more likely to re-offend. Juvenile courts focus on rehabilitation and community-based programs, which are proven to be more effective in reducing recidivism.

E. Keeping Up with the Times

Many states are raising the age of juvenile court jurisdiction and making it harder to transfer young people to adult court. This reflects a growing understanding that rehabilitation is more effective. Using the age at offense aligns with this national trend.

IV. What About Older Offenders in Juvenile Court?

Some argue that using the age at offense could lead to older people being tried in juvenile court, where the focus is on rehabilitation. However, this is unlikely for several reasons:

• Statutes of Limitations: Most crimes have a time limit for prosecution, usually within a few years. This means that someone who committed a crime at 17 wouldn't be tried as a juvenile years later.

• Transfer Mechanisms: Serious offenses committed by juveniles can still be transferred to adult court, regardless of how jurisdiction is determined.

In conclusion, using a young person's age at the time of the offense to decide if they should be in juvenile court is the fairest and most effective way to ensure that they have a chance to turn their lives around. This approach aligns with the understanding that young people are different from adults and deserve a justice system that prioritizes their rehabilitation and well-being.

Link to Article

Leveling the Playing Field: Why Juvenile Courts Should Use the Age at the Time of the Offense to Determine Who They Can Help

Introduction

Imagine a 17-year-old named Francis who, unfortunately, gets caught selling drugs in Oregon. Even though he messed up while still a minor, he's treated like an adult in court simply because his 18th birthday passed before the trial. This means Francis loses out on chances to turn his life around, like special programs for young people, keeping his record private, and not being labeled a "criminal." Sadly, Francis's case isn't unique. Many states decide if someone goes to juvenile court based on their age during the trial, not when they did something wrong.

This article argues that focusing on the age at the time of the offense is the fairest way to handle these situations. It's about making sure young people like Francis get the support they need to make better choices. We'll explore how juvenile courts came to be, the challenges of deciding who they should help, and why looking at the age when the offense occurred makes the most sense.

I. A Look Back: How Juvenile Courts Came to Be

Juvenile courts haven't always existed. Let's rewind to understand how things have changed over time:

A. The Old Days: Treating Kids Like Adults (Before 1899)

Before 1899, the law in the United States didn't really differentiate between kids and adults when it came to crime. A young person who broke the law could face the same harsh punishments as an adult, including long prison sentences or even the death penalty.

B. A New Approach: Focusing on Rehabilitation (1899-1965)

Thankfully, people started realizing that treating kids like mini-adults in the justice system wasn't fair or effective. They understood that young people are still developing, more likely to be influenced by others, and have a greater capacity for change. This led to the creation of the first juvenile court in Illinois in 1899, with the main goal of rehabilitating young offenders and guiding them toward becoming responsible citizens.

Unlike adult courts, juvenile courts were designed to be less formal and more focused on finding solutions that addressed the underlying reasons why a young person committed an offense. Privacy was protected, records were kept confidential, and the emphasis was on giving young people a second chance.

C. Fairness Matters: Ensuring Rights for Youth (1966-1979)

As time went on, it became clear that while good intentions were there, juvenile courts needed to be fairer. Several important court cases, like Kent v. United States and In re Gault, helped guarantee basic rights for young people in the juvenile justice system. These included the right to a lawyer, the right to remain silent, and the right to know the charges against them – just like adults.

D. A Shift Toward Punishment (1980-1999)

Unfortunately, during the 1980s and 1990s, public fear about youth crime led to a less understanding approach. Many states made it easier to try young people as adults, even for less serious offenses. Punishments within the juvenile system also became harsher, moving away from the original goal of rehabilitation.

E. Back to the Roots: Rehabilitation Makes a Comeback (2000-Present)

In recent years, we've seen a return to the idea that young people deserve a chance to turn their lives around. Scientific research has confirmed that young brains are still developing, making rehabilitation a more effective and humane response. States are now working to keep more young people in the juvenile justice system, provide better support services, and reduce unnecessary incarceration.

II. Who Should Juvenile Courts Help? The Age Debate?

Juvenile courts were designed to help young people, but how do we decide who qualifies? This is where things get tricky.

Most states have an "age of majority," usually around 18, which is when someone is legally considered an adult. But what happens when someone commits an offense before turning 18, but their case isn't heard in court until after they become an adult?

Some states say it's the age when you committed the offense that matters. Others look at your age when you go to court. This difference has huge consequences, as we saw with Francis in the introduction.

The way a state's law is written usually determines which age matters more. This can create unfair situations where two teenagers who do the exact same thing at the same age can be treated very differently based solely on when their cases are heard in court.

III. Why does the Age at the Time of the Offense Matters Most

Using the age when the offense happened is crucial for several reasons:

A. Young People Are Less Responsible for Their Actions

Science backs up what we've known all along: teenagers don't think like adults. Their brains are still developing, which affects their decision-making, impulse control, and ability to fully understand the consequences of their actions. This doesn't excuse their behavior, but it does mean they are less blameworthy than adults and more likely to benefit from rehabilitation.

B. Fairness Should Be at the Heart of the Justice System

Justice means treating people fairly and consistently. It's not fair to punish someone more harshly simply because their court case happened to be scheduled after their 18th birthday. Everyone deserves to be treated based on who they were and the circumstances surrounding their actions when the offense occurred.

C. Prosecutors Shouldn't Benefit from Delaying Cases

Prosecutors are lawyers who decide whether to charge someone with a crime. If the age at the time of the court case determines if someone goes to juvenile court, some prosecutors might be tempted to delay cases on purpose so they can try someone as an adult, exposing them to harsher punishments. Focusing on the age at the time of the offense eliminates this risk.

D. Rehabilitation Reduces Crime

Juvenile courts are designed to help young people make better choices and break free from the cycle of crime. Studies show that rehabilitation is more effective than harsh punishment, especially for young offenders. When young people get the support they need, they're less likely to commit crimes in the future, making our communities safer for everyone.

E. Most States Are Expanding Opportunities for Youth in the Justice System

Across the country, we're seeing a positive shift toward giving young people more chances within the juvenile justice system. States are realizing the value of rehabilitation and working to keep more youth out of the adult system. Focusing on the age at the time of the offense aligns with this trend of giving young people more opportunities to turn their lives around.

IV. What about Older Offenders?

Some people might argue that if we use the age at the time of the offense, older adults could end up in juvenile court. But this is unlikely for a few reasons:

• Statutes of Limitations: There are time limits for charging someone with a crime. This means most cases involving someone who was a teenager when they committed an offense would need to be resolved before they turn 25.

• Transfer Mechanisms: For serious crimes, there are ways to transfer young offenders to adult court if necessary. This ensures public safety while still recognizing that most young people are best served in the juvenile system.

Conclusion

Every young person deserves a fair chance to learn from their mistakes and build a better future. Focusing on their age at the time of the offense, not their age in court, is crucial to making the juvenile justice system truly just. By supporting rehabilitation and understanding the unique needs of young people, we can create a safer and more just society for everyone.

Link to Article

Introduction

There was a teenager named Francis who lives in Oregon. When he was seventeen, Francis got in trouble for sharing drugs with someone. Even though he was still a kid when he did it, the state decided to treat him like an adult in court. This meant Francis wouldn't get the special help and support that kids usually get in the juvenile court system. He could even go to an adult jail! This happened because in Oregon, like many other states, it doesn't matter how old someone was when they did something wrong. If they're an adult when they go to court, they're treated like an adult, even if they messed up as a kid.

This article says that all states should base their decision on whether to treat someone as a kid or an adult in court on how old they were when they did something wrong. This way, all kids will get the help they need. We'll learn about how the courts for kids have changed over time. Then we'll talk about the different ways states decide who goes to kid court. Finally, we'll see why it's important to look at how old someone was when they did something wrong, and we'll learn about some arguments against this idea.

I. The Changing World of Kid Court

The courts that handle cases for kids haven't always existed. Over the years, there have been big changes in how we treat kids who break the law.

A. A Long Time Ago (Before 1899)

A long time ago, kids who broke the law were treated just like adults. They could be arrested, put in jail with adults, and even given the same punishments. This meant that kids sometimes got very harsh punishments that we don't think are right today.

B. A Time for Change (1899–1965)

Around the beginning of the 1900s, people started to realize that kids are different from adults and that they need special help and guidance, especially when they make mistakes. They created special courts just for kids called "juvenile courts." These courts focused on helping kids learn from their mistakes and become better people.

C. Making it Fair (1966–1979)

Over time, people saw that kids in juvenile courts weren't always treated fairly. They didn't have all the same rights as adults in court. So, the highest court in the US, called the Supreme Court, made some important decisions to make sure kids in juvenile courts were treated fairly and had a chance to defend themselves.

D. Tougher Times (1980–1999)

In the late 1900s, there was a lot of worry about kids committing serious crimes. People wanted to punish kids more harshly and started treating them more like adults again. More kids were sent to adult courts and jails.

E. Focusing on Helping (2000–Present)

Today, we are starting to realize again that it’s important to help kids who make mistakes. We have learned more about how kids' brains work and that they need support and guidance to make good choices. So, many states are trying to send fewer kids to adult court and are focusing more on helping them in juvenile court.

II. Who Goes to Kid Court?

Each state has laws that say who goes to juvenile court. Usually, kids who break the law before they reach a certain age, called the "age of majority," go to juvenile court. The age of majority is different in each state, but it’s usually eighteen. If someone is eighteen or older, they are considered an adult and usually go to adult court.

But here's the tricky part: what if someone does something wrong before they turn eighteen but isn't caught until after their birthday? Some states say it depends on how old they were when they did the bad thing. Other states say it depends on how old they are when they go to court.

This is a big deal! If a state uses the person's age when they go to court, kids who did something wrong when they were younger might miss out on the help they need in juvenile court.

III. Why Age at the Time of the Offense Matters

There are lots of reasons why it’s important to look at how old someone was when they did something wrong.

A. Kids Are Still Learning

Kids and teenagers don’t always think things through like adults do. Their brains are still growing and learning. They might make impulsive decisions or give in to peer pressure more easily than adults. Because of this, we don't think kids are as responsible for their actions as adults are.

B. Everyone Deserves Fairness

Imagine two kids who do the exact same bad thing. One kid goes to court before their eighteenth birthday, and the other goes to court after. It wouldn't be fair if one kid got special help in juvenile court just because their court date was earlier! Using the age when they did something wrong means everyone is treated more equally.

C. No More Waiting Games

If we use the age at the time of the offense, it prevents adults from trying to wait until a kid turns eighteen before taking them to court. This makes sure kids get the help they need as soon as possible.

D. Helping Kids Do Better

Juvenile courts are designed to help kids learn from their mistakes and make better choices. Kids who go through juvenile court are less likely to get in trouble again compared to kids who go through adult court.

E. Keeping Up with the Times

Many states are already changing their laws to give kids more chances and support in the juvenile court system. Using the age at the time of the offense matches these changes and helps more kids get the support they need.

IV. What About the Other Side

Some people argue that young adults over eighteen don't need the juvenile court system. They say that if someone is old enough to be considered an adult, they should be treated that way in court. But this argument doesn't consider that young adults are still developing and learning. Plus, there are rules in place to make sure adults don't end up in juvenile court, even if they did something wrong when they were younger.

Conclusion

It's time for all states to agree that when kids make mistakes, we should focus on helping them learn and grow. Using the person’s age when they did something wrong is the fairest way to make sure all kids have a chance to get the support they need. We should change the laws so that everyone is treated fairly and has the opportunity to become a responsible adult.

Link to Article