2 Comments
Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumblePublished Monday, Dec. 1, 2008 | 5:03 p.m.
Updated Monday, Dec. 1, 2008 | 8:36 p.m.
What's the point of taking great care to elect judges if lawmakers, in an attempt to pander to shell-shocked voters, tie the hands of the judiciary with laws that rob the bench of its discretion? That was the case during the tough-on-crime, truth-in-sentencing days of the '90s. Empowered by catchy mantras like "adult time for adult crime," legislatures throughout the country passed laws requiring blanket treatment of juveniles charged with certain violent offenses.
Much has changed since then, including scientific advances that reveal the decision-making judgment centers of the brain are not fully developed until the mid-20s, especially in males. Yet adult prosecution of minors, a course of action historically reserved for the worst offenders, is all too routine in Clark County. Juvenile offenders are regularly "certified" as adults, not necessarily because the alleged offense warrants it, but as one prosecutor told us today, because the District Attorney does not want to mix hardened 17-year-olds with youngsters who may still be ripe for rehabilitation.
But is a lack of state resources reason to thrust the older child into the adult system, when he may have benefited from juvenile court? And are attorneys, who often advise juveniles to opt for adult court in hopes of probation rather than a lengthy stay in a juvenile facility, robbing their young clients of potentially valuable services available to juvenile offenders?
Tonight Jon talks with the attorneys who argued against one another before the Nevada Supreme Court, which last week tossed out the state's law requiring that certain juveniles be tried as adults. The law allowed the offenders to remain in the juvenile system by admitting their offense was related to an emotional, behavioral or drug problem. The court says requiring an admission of guilt in juvenile court in order to avoid adult prosecution is unconstitutional.
"including scientific advances that reveal the decision-making judgment centers of the brain are not fully developed until the mid-20s"
I guess we should change the voting age to 25.
I have worked in both the juvenile and adult system and it is difficult but not impossible to see the children who can be helped. There are exceptions with some kids that the juvenile system keeps coddling and will not take just action. These are the frustrating cases. Many 16 and 17 year olds know the system very well and know exactly what they can get away with. Their "decision-making judgment centers" may not be fully developed but their manipulating trouble making centers sure work fine. These are the kids who keep committing violent crimes and need to be sent to the adult system. And just so you know, I have never seen a youth in my experience go to the adult system for less that a robbery with a gun. Could have happened, but I didn't see it.