Children Should Be Treated Like Children - And Response (5)

Recently, Hamilton County District Attorney Coty Wamp announced that in 2023, her office had transferred the cases of 14 juvenile offenders to criminal court to be tried as adults. According to DA Wamp, these transfers are necessary to deter other juvenile offenders from engaging in criminal activity, thus promoting public safety.

However, the evidence does not support this claim. Studies have shown that trying children as adults does not reduce crime and may even lead to worse outcomes. For example, one study found that the arrest rate for violent crimes committed by juveniles in Idaho increased 13 percent after the state implemented a juvenile transfer law. Another study, which analyzed juvenile arrest rates in New York, found that a state law that automatically sent juveniles charged with violent crimes to adult court had no deterrent effect on juvenile crime. Several similar studies also support the conclusion that transferring more juveniles to adult court does not reduce the juvenile crime rate.

Furthermore, some studies have even found that trying juveniles as adults increases their likelihood of committing future crimes. For example, a study done by the CDC found that in Florida, youths sent to the adult system were 34 percent more likely to be rearrested for felonies than those retained in the juvenile system.

According to researcher Dr. Richard E. Redding, there are several possible explanations for this phenomenon, including “the stigmatization and other negative effects of labeling juveniles as convicted felons, the sense of resentment and injustice juveniles feel about being tried as adults, the decreased focus on rehabilitation and family support in the adult system, and the learning of criminal mores and behavior from adult criminals.” The harsh environment of the adult criminal legal system likely contributes to a cycle of criminal behavior rather than rehabilitation, increasing the crime rate and making society less safe.

When considering juvenile crime, it is also essential to understand the impact of adolescent brain development on behavior. One of the main differences between adult and adolescent brains is that adolescents’ brains lack prefrontal cortex development. Because of this, adolescents struggle to understand the risks and consequences of their actions, manage impulse control, and cope with stressful situations such as economic instability and violence. All adolescents experience a period of brain development that makes them more susceptible to crime, but youth suffering from mental health disorders are at even greater risk. Approximately 70 percent of youth in the juvenile system have a diagnosable mental health disorder, and over 90 percent have at least one Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE), such as witnessing or experiencing violence, growing up in extreme poverty, or having a parent incarcerated. The lack of brain development in juveniles makes them fundamentally less culpable than adults and often plays a major role in juveniles’ criminal behavior.

To be clear, this is not to say that it is never appropriate to try juveniles as adults. However, it is a decision that must not be taken lightly and should be made only after careful consideration of the circumstances of each individual case. In most cases, though, it is in the best interest of both the juveniles and society to keep young offenders in juvenile court. This is because the primary goal of juvenile courts is rehabilitation and treatment rather than punishment. The principles underlying the juvenile system are based on the understanding that adolescents are still developing and can be positively influenced to lead law-abiding lives. Juvenile courts can provide meaningful and practical solutions to address juvenile crime through restorative justice practices, evidence-based interventions, and collaborative efforts with community-based organizations while also ensuring that juvenile offenders are held accountable. Through these measures, the juvenile system can address the root causes of criminal behavior and offer interventions to guide children toward becoming productive members of society.

Tyler Foster

A native of Chattanooga, Tyler Foster is "a formerly incarcerated individual who is passionate about creating a more equitable criminal legal system." He serves on the Board of Directors for Chattanoogans in Action for Love, Equality, and Benevolence, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that works on criminal legal reform. He also serves on the Governance Committee of the Formerly Incarcerated College Graduates Network, a national nonprofit organization that helps formerly incarcerated individuals pursue higher education. He graduated summa cum laude from the University of Memphis in May 2023 and will be attending law school next fall.

* * *

Ernie McCarson

* * *

I agree with Mr. Foster. Many of these young people, especially those going on to commit even serious crimes, have been broken down at such a young, vulnerable and impressionable age, the outcome is predictable. Many in the field of child behaviors have been warning for decades.

When you break children like limbs from trees and carve worthless, failure, monster, (read the book "Monster"--Walter Dean Myers) and label them with other derogatory names on their souls, conscience and tiny masks, along with the physical abuse so many have endured earlier on in life, you risk the chance producing more hardened criminals without a conscience.

Some years ago, studies were showing young people committing crimes were imitating things that had been done to them while being stopped. Down to and including invasive pat downs and such.

You can see the change emerging in many of these young people, especially young boys, by third grade. I personally witnessed it working in the school system over 30 years ago. They came into school being those inquisitive, impish, curious, excited little tykes...with that light in their eyes. Then by third grade the light was gone and replaced with this dull stare.

Girls often internalize their pain, and commit self destructive acts. While boys go inward and out, self destructing and exploding on society.

These youths committing crimes, aren't feeding off one another as much as they're imitating and regurgitating adult behaviors and their experiences when having crossed paths with those adults who've harmed and damaged them/ physically, psychologically and emotionally.

Brenda Washington

* * *

I absolutely agree with DA Wamp’s decision to try teenagers as adults for certain levels of criminal offenses. It is quite obvious, the Juvenile Court route has not been successful in stopping or slowing down these crimes. It actually seems to have become an enticement for teens to participate. It seems these crimes have become a sort of initiation. There seems to be a level of pride, which is evident when they are caught, sent to Juvenile Court and released. Maybe they have proven their skill level.

This is not a race issue. All races are guilty of ongoing blatant and dangerous practices which, if not stopped will multiply with time.

The parents of these teenagers should be held responsible for the actions of their children.

Kudos to DA Wamp. I am so thankful that we have a DA in place who is determined to make a difference.

Gene Porter

* * *

I believe the proper solution lies in a balanced approach. It is essential to impose stricter punishments for aggressive crimes committed by children, while also addressing the underlying causes such as education and poverty.

Additionally, it is crucial to acknowledge the role of parents in shaping their children's behavior. Growing up in poverty myself, I understand the significance of providing opportunities for personal growth. However, it is important to recognize that young minds may not be fully developed, and the current systems of punishment often fail to address the root issues.

Implementing comprehensive programs that focus on education and poverty alleviation, alongside rehabilitation and skill-building after release, can help break the cycle of re-offending. It is imperative to find a middle ground in treating these young individuals, considering the severity of their actions. Understanding the reasons behind their mindset is also crucial for effective interventions.

Christopher Cooper

* * * 

The notion of major juvenile crime and proportional punishment was brought home to my family this week.  A granddaughter will graduate from college in May as a teacher, so she’s student teaching this spring.  I asked her where, and she named an elementary school in a small town several miles west of Athens, Ga.

Curious, I looked it up on the maps, then sought specific information on the little town.  Uh-oh!  In 1986 a 13-year-old boy stabbed the school’s principal to death with a nail file.  News items from that time are available online; one of them says the boy “who was paddled the day before was charged with fatally stabbing principal Murray Kennedy during a heated meeting with the boy's mother.”

Say what you will, the boy was black, the murdered man was white, and things got exciting.  The usual bunch of support groups came to town to add their two cents’ worth to the festivities.  The young murderer was tried as an adult and sentenced to 15 years in prison.  

When I told this to my granddaughter and the rest of the family (ages 17 to 76), their united reactions might surprise you.  Nobody said, “Poor boy!” or “That’s extreme; he was just a kid!”  Nobody even asked where he got the nail file.  Without exception, they began, “Only fifteen years?!”  Yes, only fifteen years.  “For murder?!”  Yes, for murder.  And then someone did the arithmetic:  “That murderer is out of jail now!”  I did the math, too; the victim and I were age-mates.

A relatively young, educated, useful professional man was murdered.  He was just as dead as if he’d been shot by a dozen adult terrorists with a dozen guns.  But nobody here was concerned about the killer’s age or other details; it didn’t matter whether the mush in the kid’s skull had gelled yet, or whatever other excuse might be posited.  The important thing was that an innocent man was dead, as dead as anybody could ever make him.

It’s safe to say that in my family, at least, prosecuting serious young criminals as adults is accepted as reasonable.  The problem with the case in point is not that the trial and sentence of the kid was excessive; the problem is that the penalty wasn’t proportional to the crime.  It’s not a question of age or race, mush-for-brains or bad environment or anything else of the sort.  That principal was absolutely dead at 43 years old, and his murderer paid a shamefully small price for his crime.

Maybe someone will do the research and discover that the murdering kid turned his life around and is now the most useful citizen of that small town.  By now he’d be 50 years old, if he isn’t dead himself.  Mr. Murray Kennedy, the dead principal, would’ve been the same age I am now, 80 years old.  But he was murdered, and he didn’t get to spend Christmas 2023 with his kids and grandkids.  I think that's significant.

Larry Cloud