Youth Offenders
DRAFT MIDTERM PAPER
Introduction
It is estimated that thousands of children have been sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for crimes committed at an age when they are not considered responsible enough to live away from their parents, drive, make decisions related to their education or medical treatment, vote, leave school or sign a contract. In Addition, children under the age 18 cannot legally purchase or consume alcohol, serve on juries or be drafted, because they are presumed not to have the capacity to handle adult responsibilities (Labelle, Phillips, Horton, 2006).
Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Miller v. Alabama that mandatory life sentences for offenders under 18 was cruel and unusual punishment, and therefore unconstitutional. At the heart of the decision is the recognition that it is fundamentally unjust to mandate a life sentence for children convicted of homicide without considering mitigating factors.
Young offenders in the juvenile and criminal justice systems lack adjudicative competence because of developmental immaturity (Grisso et al., 2003). Moreover, the prevalence of mental illness among young offenders heightens concerns about their ability to understand and participate in legal proceedings or to assist counsel (Grisso, 2004). In some young offenders, reasoned judgments may be impaired by incomplete brain maturation. The combination of generic developmental immaturity and mental illness requires the development of protocols to assess adolescents’ competence. Depending on whether states try youth offenders in juvenile or criminal court, clarification of the operative legal standard is needed, whether an adult standard or a juvenile standard. It requires training of judges and lawyers to recognize the developmental limitations of younger offenders (Grisso, 2004).
History of Juvenile Court
Until the late 19th century, criminal courts tried youth and adults. The 16th century educational reform movement
Introduction
It is estimated that thousands of children have been sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for crimes committed at an age when they are not considered responsible enough to live away from their parents, drive, make decisions related to their education or medical treatment, vote, leave school or sign a contract. In Addition, children under the age 18 cannot legally purchase or consume alcohol, serve on juries or be drafted, because they are presumed not to have the capacity to handle adult responsibilities (Labelle, Phillips, Horton, 2006).
Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Miller v. Alabama that mandatory life sentences for offenders under 18 was cruel and unusual punishment, and therefore unconstitutional. At the heart of the decision is the recognition that it is fundamentally unjust to mandate a life sentence for children convicted of homicide without considering mitigating factors.
Young offenders in the juvenile and criminal justice systems lack adjudicative competence because of developmental immaturity (Grisso et al., 2003). Moreover, the prevalence of mental illness among young offenders heightens concerns about their ability to understand and participate in legal proceedings or to assist counsel (Grisso, 2004). In some young offenders, reasoned judgments may be impaired by incomplete brain maturation. The combination of generic developmental immaturity and mental illness requires the development of protocols to assess adolescents’ competence. Depending on whether states try youth offenders in juvenile or criminal court, clarification of the operative legal standard is needed, whether an adult standard or a juvenile standard. It requires training of judges and lawyers to recognize the developmental limitations of younger offenders (Grisso, 2004).
History of Juvenile Court
Until the late 19th century, criminal courts tried youth and adults. The 16th century educational reform movement