Republicans and Democrats in the General Assembly can’t seem to agree on much of anything. Just look at what has happened with HB2, or the squabble between the Board of Education and the state superintendent’s office, or the number of Gubernatorial appointees that have been slashed. But there may be common ground when it comes to one aspect of juvenile justice reform. That’s because North Carolina Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Martin recently announced his support for raising the age that a juvenile can be tried as an adult, from 16 to 18. Some political pundits argue such reform is long overdue, citing that North Carolina is only one of two states (New York being the other) where a 16-year-old is tried as an adult. But that characterization is a bit misleading.
The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 allows states to set their own definition of “juvenile” as they see fit. According to a January 2016 article in The Atlantic, nine states, not two, have set the upper limit for trying kids as adults at 16 years of age. The distinction for North Carolina is that we “automatically” consider a 16-year-old to be an adult. That doesn’t make us an anomaly, it just means we’re in compliance with JJDPA regs. That aside, our image as a rebel state isn’t the driving force behind the push for reform.
Those who want change, first point to a flaw in the adjudication process itself. They say that a 16-year-old is not fully competent to stand trial, and that their decision making ability is different from that of an adult. But a study published in “Law and Behavior” magazine reports that juveniles age 16 to 17 are no less competent to stand trial than someone who is 18 or over. Moreover, I really don’t care about a 16-year-old’s capacity for decision-making. If he “decides” to murder someone, then his capacity in that regard is moot. Not convinced? Then let’s look at what these poor little juveniles are really capable of.
In 2001, a 12-year-old in South Carolina murdered his grandparents by blowing them to bits with a shotgun. In 2009, a 16-year-old boy in New York killed a man, but it was no accident. He stabbed the man 50 times in the throat. In 2013, a 16-year-old Las Vegas boy robbed and murdered a 71-year-old woman. He shot her multiple times. In 2016, a 16-year-old Pittsburgh boy shot another youth in the face, then took a selfie of himself standing by the corpse. And then there were the four female juveniles who last year tortured and killed a 12-year-old girl because they were jealous of her. They stabbed the little girl repeatedly, then set her on fire and burned her alive. These are NOT isolated cases.
The Bureau of Justice Assistance reports that 64% of juvenile arrests involve violent felonies, and a study by U.S. states attorneys says that the number of juveniles under 18 arrested for murder is on the rise. In fact, nearly 18% of all serious violent crimes are committed by juveniles, and homicide arrests of kids ages 15 and over is up by 24%. And there’s more. A 2008 report by the U.S. Department of Justice says that 34% of murders are committed by young people, and 11% of those are under the age of 17. In addition, 25% of all murders of sisters are committed by siblings between the ages of 13 and 18. Meanwhile, boys ages 16 to 19 were most often the perpetrators in parental killings.
Another argument given for why we shouldn’t try 16- and 17-year-olds as adults is that, if convicted, they are often placed in jails and prisons with hardened adult offenders. The Campaign for Youth Justice says that each year, 250,000 youths are tried as adults. But statistics differ on how many of those kids are actually incarcerated with adults. BJA says 14,500. The Atlantic says 10,000. Nevertheless, reformers point to a 1989 study published in the Juvenile and Family Court Journal, which says that kids kept in adult facilities are 5 times more likely to be sexually assaulted, and twice as likely to be beaten. And a study by the University of Illinois says youth prisoners are 7.7 times more likely to commit suicide if housed with adults. And just in case those statistics don’t convince conservative lawmakers in Raleigh to stop incarcerating 16-year-olds, the Justice Policy Institute says that it costs over $148,000 per year to keep these kids locked up. That’s 10 times the cost of giving them a K-12 education.
I’m all for isolating youthful murderers from older felons, but local sheriffs don’t currently have the funds to create and operate separate facilities. Perhaps, then, instead of raising the age that a youth can be tried as an adult, the General Assembly should simply allocate the necessary funding to house violent youth in segregated sections of our state’s jails and prisons. Regardless, we should not give 16- and 17-year-old murderers a pass just because they’re not yet 18. If you’re old enough to stab someone 50 times in the throat, shoot an elderly woman multiple times, or burn a child alive, then you’re old enough to be tried as an adult. To think otherwise is criminal.
16 to 18 is a Bad Idea
Republicans and Democrats in the General Assembly can’t seem to agree on much of anything. Just look at what has happened with HB2, or the squabble between the Board of Education and the state superintendent’s office, or the number of Gubernatorial appointees that have been slashed. But there may be common ground when it comes to one aspect of juvenile justice reform. That’s because North Carolina Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Martin recently announced his support for raising the age that a juvenile can be tried as an adult, from 16 to 18. Some political pundits argue such reform is long overdue, citing that North Carolina is only one of two states (New York being the other) where a 16-year-old is tried as an adult. But that characterization is a bit misleading.
The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 allows states to set their own definition of “juvenile” as they see fit. According to a January 2016 article in The Atlantic, nine states, not two, have set the upper limit for trying kids as adults at 16 years of age. The distinction for North Carolina is that we “automatically” consider a 16-year-old to be an adult. That doesn’t make us an anomaly, it just means we’re in compliance with JJDPA regs. That aside, our image as a rebel state isn’t the driving force behind the push for reform.
Those who want change, first point to a flaw in the adjudication process itself. They say that a 16-year-old is not fully competent to stand trial, and that their decision making ability is different from that of an adult. But a study published in “Law and Behavior” magazine reports that juveniles age 16 to 17 are no less competent to stand trial than someone who is 18 or over. Moreover, I really don’t care about a 16-year-old’s capacity for decision-making. If he “decides” to murder someone, then his capacity in that regard is moot. Not convinced? Then let’s look at what these poor little juveniles are really capable of.
In 2001, a 12-year-old in South Carolina murdered his grandparents by blowing them to bits with a shotgun. In 2009, a 16-year-old boy in New York killed a man, but it was no accident. He stabbed the man 50 times in the throat. In 2013, a 16-year-old Las Vegas boy robbed and murdered a 71-year-old woman. He shot her multiple times. In 2016, a 16-year-old Pittsburgh boy shot another youth in the face, then took a selfie of himself standing by the corpse. And then there were the four female juveniles who last year tortured and killed a 12-year-old girl because they were jealous of her. They stabbed the little girl repeatedly, then set her on fire and burned her alive. These are NOT isolated cases.
The Bureau of Justice Assistance reports that 64% of juvenile arrests involve violent felonies, and a study by U.S. states attorneys says that the number of juveniles under 18 arrested for murder is on the rise. In fact, nearly 18% of all serious violent crimes are committed by juveniles, and homicide arrests of kids ages 15 and over is up by 24%. And there’s more. A 2008 report by the U.S. Department of Justice says that 34% of murders are committed by young people, and 11% of those are under the age of 17. In addition, 25% of all murders of sisters are committed by siblings between the ages of 13 and 18. Meanwhile, boys ages 16 to 19 were most often the perpetrators in parental killings.
Another argument given for why we shouldn’t try 16- and 17-year-olds as adults is that, if convicted, they are often placed in jails and prisons with hardened adult offenders. The Campaign for Youth Justice says that each year, 250,000 youths are tried as adults. But statistics differ on how many of those kids are actually incarcerated with adults. BJA says 14,500. The Atlantic says 10,000. Nevertheless, reformers point to a 1989 study published in the Juvenile and Family Court Journal, which says that kids kept in adult facilities are 5 times more likely to be sexually assaulted, and twice as likely to be beaten. And a study by the University of Illinois says youth prisoners are 7.7 times more likely to commit suicide if housed with adults. And just in case those statistics don’t convince conservative lawmakers in Raleigh to stop incarcerating 16-year-olds, the Justice Policy Institute says that it costs over $148,000 per year to keep these kids locked up. That’s 10 times the cost of giving them a K-12 education.
I’m all for isolating youthful murderers from older felons, but local sheriffs don’t currently have the funds to create and operate separate facilities. Perhaps, then, instead of raising the age that a youth can be tried as an adult, the General Assembly should simply allocate the necessary funding to house violent youth in segregated sections of our state’s jails and prisons. Regardless, we should not give 16- and 17-year-old murderers a pass just because they’re not yet 18. If you’re old enough to stab someone 50 times in the throat, shoot an elderly woman multiple times, or burn a child alive, then you’re old enough to be tried as an adult. To think otherwise is criminal.