Juvenile Justice: Recognizing the Difference Between Juvenile and Adult Criminal Courts

The concept of adulthood is not merely sociological. In American society, it also holds legal relevance. Once a person turns eighteen and becomes an adult, they can for the first time legally vote, buy a lottery ticket, get a tattoo, and much more. In many states, they can even legally adopt a child. The law explicitly recognizes the difference between a minor and an adult, opening up a whole new world of responsibilities for an individual on their eighteenth birthday.

Despite this acknowledgment, it is not uncommon for a juvenile to be tried as an adult in the criminal justice system. In fact, there are still states where minors, under certain conditions, are automatically charged in adult courts at the discretion of the prosecutor without a hearing or a chance to defend themselves in a circumstance called direct file. Trying juveniles in the adult courts, under direct file rules or otherwise, is a direct contradiction with the legally acknowledged difference between adults and minors. As a result, all juveniles should have the right to be tried in the juvenile court system.

Correspondingly, in the 2023-2024 session of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, a bill was introduced to address these concerns. Inspired by recommendations from the bipartisan Pennsylvania Juvenile Justice Task Force, HB 1551 would not only repeal the state's direct file law but also prohibit the prosecution of any child as an adult.1,2 Endorsed by many Democrat lawmakers and the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, the bill hopes to provide further protections for juveniles in the criminal justice system.

The bill additionally aims to better safeguard youth defendants from the racial bias in the court system. Representative Christopher Rabb, the main supporter of this bill, describes direct bail as being "inspired by the racist 'super-predator' trope that was applied to young Black men in the mid-'90s."3 In addition to this racially-motivated past, the direct bill has been proven to have a continued racial bias. In Pennsylvania, direct file accounts for more than 80% of youth tried as adults, and young Black defendants account for 57% of adult convictions, yet make up only 7% of the state's youth population.4 This racial impact also extends beyond Pennsylvania. In Florida, Black boys are tried as adults at a rate of 35 per 10,000, whereas the rate for white and Latino boys is 5 per 100,000.5 These vast discrepancies illustrate the negative impact of direct file and how it makes justice inaccessible to young people of color, thus violating the Equal Protection Clause' of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects people from discrimination from the government. Removing this policy is a valuable step in juvenile justice reform and will significantly help protect minors, especially those who are racial minorities. Moreover, guaranteeing all children the right to be tried as juveniles ensures that their youthfulness, a legally acknowledged facet, is properly considered. 

It is important to note the history of the juvenile justice system and the motivation behind its creation. This system is meant to hold youths accountable for their actions while focusing on the goal of rehabilitation.6 The first juvenile court was established in Chicago, Illinois in 1899 to rehabilitate youths under the age of sixteen.7 Prior to this time, all defendants above the age of seven were processed and incarcerated in the same system without any consideration of the developmental differences across the age range.8 However, by the mid-1920s, every state had established a juvenile justice system, following the example of Illinois, and they began to see children, as a class, as less blameworthy and with a greater capacity for change.9 Created to recognize the developmental differences between adults and children, the juvenile court serves to rehabilitate delinquents into functioning members of society as opposed to the more punishment-focused approach of the adult court system.

Beyond its differing objective from the adult courts, the juvenile justice system also has a distinct structure. Although there is some variation in each state, in the juvenile justice system there is no jury, individuals are judged as being "adjudicated delinquent" rather than being found guilty like their adult counterparts, and sentences have more emphasis on treatment, education, and therapy, rather than punishment.10 Children who are tried as adults face vastly different circumstances than those kept in the juvenile justice system. The adult justice system is driven by retribution and punishment, and there are significantly fewer, if any, rehabilitation programs.11 Thus, it is important for children to be placed into their corresponding court system which is better structured to recognize their youthfulness, providing them a proper chance to reform.

The distinction between adults and children is recognized in several Supreme Court decisions, further establishing the need for juveniles to be kept in the justice system created for them and their specific needs. To begin with, Roper v. Simmons (2005) declares that the execution of minors is unconstitutional, expanding the ruling of Thompson v Oklahoma (1988) that made it unconstitutional to impose the death penalty on individuals sixteen or younger.12,13 These rulings both reference the Eighth Amendment, more specifically the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause, and the Incorporation Doctrine in the Fourteenth Amendment that applies the former amendment to the state level. In the 5-4 opinion of Roper, Justice Anthony Kennedy cited three general differences between juveniles and adults, describing how a lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility is more common and understandable for minors, how minors are more susceptive to negative influences and pressures, and how their character is not as well formed as adults.14 These considerations largely mirror the reasons behind the creation of the juvenile justice system, which serves to cater to youths and their unique stage of development. These court decisions officially acknowledge and give legal significance to the differences between adults and juveniles, highlighting the importance of taking into consideration the youthfulness of juveniles when sentencing.

Furthermore, Graham v. Florida (2010), also using the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, determined that it was unconstitutional for juveniles to be given a life sentence without the possibility of parole for non-homicide cases.15 This later was expanded to include juvenile homicide offenders in Miller v. Alabama (2012).16 Miller also established that children are constitutionally different from adults for sentencing purposes. Taking the legally acknowledged distinction into consideration, juveniles should be tried in the juvenile court, which is fundamentally different from the court system for adults in purpose and structure and is better set up to accommodate minors and their unique position in the justice system. 

All of the named Supreme Court cases also prove that the distinction between juveniles and adults extends to even the most extreme cases that could, for an adult, lead to a death sentence or a life sentence without possibility for parole. Crimes of this degree are also the ones in which it is most common for juveniles to be tried as adults and the ones that, in some states, juveniles would automatically be tried as adults for these crimes under direct file laws. Yet, these decisions show that the degree of the crime does not decrease the significance of a juvenile's unique position in the court system, the very same position that the juvenile justice system is set up to cater to. As a result, all juveniles should have the right to be tried as juveniles.

In summary, direct file laws should be removed and all juveniles should be tried in juvenile courts, as Pennsylvania's HR 1551 suggests. Direct file has a proven racial discrepancy, thus violating the Equal Protection Clause. Additionally, the juvenile and adult court systems vary significantly in both purpose and structure with the juvenile court set up to rehabilitate youths and support them rather than being primarily driven by punishment. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the differences between adults and children and has stated that they are constitutionally different for sentencing purposes, as established in Miller v. Alabama. The juvenile court, by design, is better organized to accommodate juveniles and to give them proper sentences. Following this reasoning, no child should be tried as an adult, and they should be granted the right to be recognized for their youthfulness and all the corresponding traits, as described by the Supreme Court in Roper v. Simmons. Minors are distinct from adults in many legal considerations, and the court system in which they are tried should be one.

____________

1 "10 Differences Between Adult and Juvenile Criminal Court." Bruno Law Resources. brunolaw.com/resources/general-criminal-law/10-differences-between-adult-and-juvenile-criminal-court.

2 ACLU of Florida. “Direct File: Unjust Process, Unjust Results.” ACLU of Florida. www.aclufl.org/en/direct-file-unjust-process-unjust-results. 

3 ACLU of Pennsylvania. "HB 1551 | Prohibiting Prosecuting Children As Adults." ACLU of Pennsylvania www.aclupa.org/en/legislation/hb-1551-prohibiting-prosecuting-children-adults.

4 Development Services Group, Inc. "Age Boundaries of the Juvenile Justice System.” Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, March 2024. ojjdp.ojp.gov/model-programs-guide/literature-reviews/age-boundaries-of-the-juvenile-justice-system. 

5 “Editorial: Keep More Juveniles out of Adult Court.” Juvenile Law Center, June 2023. jlc.org/news/editorial-keep-more-juveniles-out-adult-court.

6 Kwon, Minsoo. "Trying and Sentencing Youth As Adults: Key Takeaways from Recent Petrie-Flom Center Event." Petrie-Flom Center at Harvard Law School, 13 April 2023. blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2023/04/19/trying-and-sentencing-youth-as-adults-key-takeaways-from-recent-petrie-flom-center-event/.

7 Rabb, Christopher M. “Rabb Introduces Legislation to End Charging Children as Adults in PA.” Pennsylvania House Democratic Caucus, 16 June 2022. www.pahouse.com/Rabb/InTheNews/NewsRelease/?id=125159.

8 "U.S. Supreme Court Jurisprudence on How Children are Different." UNC School of Government. www.sog.unc.edu/sites/default/files/course_materials/US%20Supreme%20Court%20cases%20on%20how%20children%20are%20different.pdf.