C

h
i
l
d
r
e
n

&

T
e
e
n
s
YOUTH
IN THE ADULT
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SYSTEM
Sometimes all it takes is one
case to change the course
of public opinion and national
policy. The Central Park
Jogger case did just that. On
April 19, 1989, a 29-year-old
investment banker was raped
and left unconscious, and the
ensuing Central Park Jogger
case changed the course of
public opinion and national
policy. Five teenagerswho
later became known as the
Central Park Fiveconfessed
to police, were convicted in
the rape, and served sentences
ranging from seven to 11 years.
The press inamed public fears,
coining new phrases such as
the activity wilding where
packs of bloodthirsty teens
from the tenements, bursting
with boredom and rage, roam
the streets getting kicks from
an evening of ultra-violence.
23
16
As a result of the Central Park Jogger case, prominent and inuential
individuals, such as political scientist and eventual George W. Bush
Administration appointee, John DiIulio, made doom and gloom predictions
about the emergence of a generational wolfpack of fatherless, Godless
and jobless youth. According to these observers, this situation was not
confined to New York City but was indicative of a national wave of
superpredators.
24
The superpredator phrase stuck and almost every state passed new laws
to make it easier to try and sentence youth in the adult criminal justice
system during the subsequent decade. Punitive policies also were
introduced on a national level, when former U.S. Representative Bill
McCollum (R-FL), then chair of the Crime Subcommittee in the House
Judiciary Committee, rst introduced the Violent Youth Predator Act
of 1996, and then reintroduced it as the Violent Juvenile and Repeat
Ofender Act of 1997. At a committee oversight hearing on the legislation
he said, Brace yourself for the coming generation of superpredators.
The roving waves of super-violent youth never materialized. In fact, the
juvenile crime rate proceeded to fall for a dozen years to a 30-year low. And
the youth in the Central Park Jogger have since been found innocent. This
stunning reversal did not garner the same coverage that the original case
did, and the myth of exaggerated youth violence still holds.
National and state research and the experience of young people, their
parents, and their families give us a concrete picture of how the laws
governing the trying, sentencing, and incarceration of youth do not
promote public safety.
#1
The overwhelming majority of youth
who enter the adult court are not
there for serious, violent crimes.
I never saw any superpredators in my court. What I saw
were 14- and 15-year-olds, scared to death.
Judge David A. Young, Circuit Court for Baltimore City
Estimates range on the number of youth prosecuted in adult court
nationally. Some researchers believe that as many as 250,000 youth are
prosecuted every year.
25
Despite the fact that many of the state laws
were intended to prosecute the most serious ofenders, most youth who
are tried in adult courts are there no matter how minor their ofense.
26

Two states allow prosecutors to charge any 16 year old as an adult for
any ofense, and eleven automatically prosecute 17 year olds as adults.
#2
Youth who are charged as adults can
be held pre-trial in adult jails where they
are at risk of assault, abuse, and death.
Barbaric.
DC Superior Court Judge Wendell Gardner in reference
to placing a girl in isolation in the DC jail
27
Federal protections approved by Congress in 1974 and 1980 to protect
youth from the dangers of adult jails and lockups do not apply to youth
who are prosecuted as adults. The vast majority of states have statutes
that require or allow youth prosecuted as adults to be placed in adult
jails without federal protections. Currently, most states permit or require
youth charged as adults go to an adult jail.
28
On any given day, nearly
7,500 young people are in adult jails.
29
State laws that allow for youth
under age 18 to be conned in the adult criminal justice system seem to
contradict the intent of the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act, which, for more than 30 years, has required sight and
sound separation when youth are housed in adult lock-ups, as well as
speedy removal of youth whenever they are placed in adult jails.
30
This policy places thousands of young people at risk as it is extremely
difcult to keep youth safe in adult jails. Jail ofcials are in a catch-22
when it comes to young people in their custody. On the one hand, regular
contact with adults can result in serious physical and emotional harm
to youth. On the other hand, separating youth from adults generally
places them in isolation for long periods of time. This equates to solitary
connement and can lead to depression, exacerbate already existing
mental health issues, and put youth at risk of suicide. Essentially, this
is a no-win situation for jail officials. In fact, the American Jail
Association opposes housing juveniles in any jail unless that facility is
specially designed for juvenile detention and staffed with specially
trained personnel.
31
Recent national research also shows that youth may await trial in adult
jails before being sent back to juvenile court by adult court judges for
prosecution. In some cases, these youth are not even convicted.
32
Instead
of adult jail, states and counties could place youth, if they pose a risk to
public safety, into juvenile detention facilities where they are more likely
to receive developmentally appropriate services, educational programming,
and support by trained staf. 17
#3
Youth sentenced as adults
can be placed in adult prisons.
Youths should not be placed in prison with adults where
rape and drugs are the norm.
Dwayne Betts, Presidential Appointee on the Federal Coordinating
Council on Juvenile Justice about his experience in adult prison
On any given day, approximately 2,700 young people are locked up in adult
prisons.
33
Youth in adult prisons are at risk of abuse, sexual assault, suicide
and death. Only 1 percent of jail inmates are juveniles, but according to
research by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, youth under the age of 18
represented 21 percent of all substantiated victims of inmate-on-inmate
sexual violence in jails in 2005, and 13 percent in 2006.
34
The National
Prison Rape Elimination Commission found that youth incarcerated
with adults are probably at the highest risk for sexual abuse of any group
of incarcerated persons.
35
The National Institute of Corrections, the leading professional association
in the eld of corrections, has encouraged legislators, executives and their
members to review policies and statutes so that young offenders can
receive the critical service and supervision they need in an appropriate
correctional setting.
36
#4
The decision to send youth to adult
court is most often not made by the
one person best considered to analyze
the merits of the youths casethe
juvenile court judge.
I know if James would have went before the judge, the judge
could have looked at him individually and he would have been able
to assess the risk factors of my brother. There is no doubt in my
mind that the judge would have kept him at the juvenile facility...
Nicole Miera, on her brothers death in jail in Colorado
37
Since the founding of the rst juvenile court in Chicago in 1899, youth
generally entered the adult court because a juvenile court judged the
young person unfit for rehabilitation. Judicial transfer was used in
limited circumstances and after a careful deliberation process that
included a hearing.
Since the 1990s, juvenile court judges rarely make the decision about
whether a youth should be prosecuted in adult court.
38
Despite the fact
that a juvenile court judge is in the best position to investigate the facts
and make an informed decision, state laws have removed authority and
discretion from these judges and, instead, require placement of youth
in adult court, on the motion of a prosecutor, or through automatic
transfer or statutory exclusion provisions.
39
These inexible statutes
are based on age and/or category of ofense and therefore neither allow
for judicial review nor provide discretion for juvenile court judges to
keep youth in juvenile court.
#5
These policies disproportionately
affect youth of color.
Our job, in working to achieve fairness and equity, is to
sound the alarm about the unjust criminal justice system
and demand that our leaders and those in power act now
to halt this destructive, unfair treatment of our brothers
and sisters, especially of our children.
James Bell, Executive Director of the Haywood Burns Institute
African-American youth overwhelmingly receive harsher treatment
than white youth in the juvenile justice system at most stages of case
processing. African-American youth make up 30 percent of those arrested
while they only represent 17 percent of the overall youth population. At
the other extreme end of the system, African-American youth are 62
percent of the youth prosecuted in the adult criminal system and are
nine times more likely than white youth to receive an adult prison
sentence.
40
Compared to white youth, Latino youth are 4 percent more likely to be
petitioned, 16 percent more likely to be adjudicated delinquent, 28
percent more likely to be detained, and 41 percent more likely to receive
an out-of-home placement. The most severe disparities occur for Latino
youth tried in the adult system. Latino children are 43 percent more
likely than white youth to be waived to the adult system and 40 percent
more likely to be admitted to adult prison.
41
Native American youth are more likely to receive the two most severe
punishments in juvenile justice systems: out-of-home placement (i.e.,
incarceration in a state correctional facility) and waiver to the adult
system. Compared to white youth, Native American youth are 1.5 times
more likely to receive out-of-home placement and are 1.5 times more
likely to be waived to the adult criminal system. Nationwide, the average
rate of new commitments to adult state prison for Native American
youth is 1.84 times that of white youth.
42
C
h
i
l
d
r
e
n

&

T
e
e
n
s
18
#6
Girls are affected too, but little
is known about them.
Were not talking about axe murderers. These are mostly
runaways, shoplifters and truants. They needed our help,
but didnt get it. Most of them dont belong in prison.
Mickey Kramer, child advocate on girls
in Connecticuts prison system
Very limited data are available on girls in the adult criminal justice system.
No recent, comprehensive national research studies have been undertaken
that document the impact of the placement of girls in the adult criminal
justice system. We cannot adequately address the unique and special
needs of girls in the justice system without extensive research, but we
can recognize that the adult system puts girls, like boys, at serious risk.
#7
The consequences for prosecuting
youth in adult court arent minor.
While incarcerated, you have nothing but time to sit back
and reect It cost me family members, relationships and time
that I couldve been using to do something productive I leave
everyone with the challenge of exposing younger generations
to a better way of living, with opportunities and dreams, rather
than exposing children to prison.
Michael Kemp on his experience in the justice system
in The Washington Post on March 9, 2012
Youth tried as adults face the same punishments as adults. They can be
placed in adult jails pre- and post-trial, sentenced to serve time in adult
prisons, or be placed on adult probation with few to no rehabilitative
services. Youth also are subject to the same sentencing guidelines as
adults except as related to the death penalty and life without parole and
may receive mandatory minimum sentences or life without parole.
Approximately 80 percent of youth convicted as adults will be released
from prison before their 21
st
birthday, and 95 percent will be released
before their 25
th
birthday.
43
These young people carry the stigma of an
adult criminal conviction. They may have difculty nding a job or
getting a college degree to help them turn their lives around. Access to
a drivers license may be severely restricted, and in some states, youth
may never be able to vote or hold public ofce. The consequences of an
adult conviction arent minor; they are serious, long-term, and
life-threatening.
44
#8
Transferring youth to the adult
criminal justice system does
not promote public safety.
[Y]oung offenders are signicantly unlike adults in ways
that matter a great deal for effective treatment, appropriate
punishment, and delinquency prevention. Society needs
a system that understands kids capacities and limits, and
that punishes them in developmentally appropriate ways.
r. Lawrence Steinberg, Director of the MacArthur
Foundation Research Network
Every study conducted on this issue shows that sending youth to the
adult criminal justice system increases the likelihood that they will
reofend. A 2008 Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) Task Force report found that transferring youth to the adult
criminal system increases violence, causes harm to juveniles and
threatens public safety.
45
The CDC task force recommended against laws or policies facilitating
the transfer of juveniles from the juvenile to the adult judicial system.
They stated that to the extent that transfer policies are implemented
to reduce violent or other criminal behavior, available evidence indicates
that they do more harm than good, and the use of transfer laws and
strengthened transfer policies is counterproductive to reducing juvenile
violence and enhancing public safety.
A U.S. Department of Justice Ofce of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention report mirrored these ndings, concluding, To best achieve
reductions in recidivism, the overall number of juvenile offenders
transferred to the criminal justice system should be minimized. Moreover,
those who are transferred should be chronic repeat ofendersrather
than rst-time ofenders 19
#9
Assessing the scope of the issue
is difcult because of a lack
of available data.
If the goal is to decrease crime, were not doing a very good job.
Representative Michael Lawlor (D-East Haven), Co-chair of the
Connecticut state Judiciary Committee on Connecticuts law
before reforms
There is no one single, credible, national data source that tracks all the
youth prosecuted in adult courts. In a 2011 report, the U.S. Department
of Justices Ofce of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)
noted that only 13 states collect any data on youth prosecuted in adult
courts. The remainder of states provides no data on the number of
transfers/waivers to adult court made by prosecutors, the availability
or use of objective criteria for prosecutorial decision-making, or analysis
on the exercise of discretion not to send a youth to adult court.
46
If researchers are not able to really know the magnitude of the impact
of these state laws on youth, policymakers lack the information to make
informed decisions. There is a need to collect more data so that we can
understand just how many youth are afected.
#10
The public should invest its dollars
in programs that work.
Does society want to nourish our youth with continued criminal
education or do we want to deter our youth with an opportunity
to recover from their mistake?
Vicky Gunderson, parent of a child
who committed suicide in adult jail
47
The long-term benets to society nationwide of returning youth to the
jurisdiction of the juvenile court far outweigh any short-term costs
because of the reduced youth crime rates and therefore reduced recidivism
rates. According to the Urban Institutes senior researcher and economist
John Roman, less crime will mean fewer victims, fewer missed days of
work, lower medical bills and maybe most important, less fear and less
sufering. Overall, he estimates that returning 16- and 17-year-olds to
juvenile court jurisdiction will result in approximately a $3 savings benet
for the correctional and judicial systems for every $1 spent.
48
New research
shows that programs, including ones that treat serious, chronic and
violent ofenders in the juvenile justice system, reduce juvenile crime,
and that the public should invest in these instead of the current system.
Finally, the cost of keeping the system as is afects society in ways that
cannot be calculated in dollars and cents. No study could calculate the
astronomical price tag on the lost opportunities for that young person
or to society. What we do have is the testimony of individuals who were
given a second chance in the juvenile justice system, rather than
prosecution in adult court, and who have achieved success in our society.
These include Olympic Gold Medalist Bob Beamon, former U.S. Senator
Alan Simpson, D.C. Superior Court Judge Reggie Walton, singer Ella
Fitzgerald, and author Claude Brown.
49
The list could go on, but it will
stop if we retain the harsh laws that were passed in the wake of the
superpredator myth.
C
h
i
l
d
r
e
n

&

T
e
e
n
s
In a 2011 report, the OJJDP noted that only 13 states
collect data on youth prosecuted in adult courts. 20
The Opportunity for Change
At the age of 16, I was charged as an adult in the adult criminal
justice system. To get to school we had to walk through a tunnel
that went through the adult mens prison. One day the facility
went on lock down. We were told to turn our backs and close
our eyes. But, in jail you learn to never turn your back or close
your eyes. That day, we saw a man get stabbed to death.
Jabriera Handy
50
For todays policymakers, there is a new direction that will increase
public safety and nurture the successful transition of our youth into
adulthood. And, all the new research supports a change in policy direction.
State and local policymakers did not have the benefit of this new
compelling research on recidivism, competency, adolescent brain
development, and efective juvenile justice programs when they were
considering changes to their states laws on trying youth as adults. But
research now provides a strong basis for re-examination of and
substantial changes to state statutes and policies.
The nation recognizes the need for change, and some states are imple-
menting reforms. Scores of prominent national, state and local organiza-
tions are calling for major changes in national and state policy. Youth,
their parents, and their families, who have been most afected by these
policies, are speaking out, organizing and educating national and state
policymakers. A report by the National Conference of State Legislatures,
Juvenile Justice Trends in State Legislation, 2001-2011, shows trends
in juvenile justice state legislation over the past decade reducing the
prosecution of youth in adult criminal court.
51
The public strongly supports reform. A national survey released in October
of 2011 revealed that Americans reject placement of youth in adult jails
and prisons (69 percent) and favor involving youths families in treatment
(86 percent), keeping youth close to home (77 percent), ensuring youth
maintain connection with their families (86 percent), individualized
determinations by juvenile court judges over automatic prosecution in
adult criminal court (76 percent) and requiring the juvenile justice system
to reduce racial and ethnic disparities (66 percent).
52
On the 100
th
anniversary of the juvenile court, more than 100 prominent
national organizations gathered to recommit to the basic principles of
the juvenile court such as:
53
Youth have diferent needs from those of adults
and need adult protection and guidance;
Youth have constitutional and human rights
and need adult involvement to ensure those rights;
Young people are everyones responsibility.
State statutes that make it easier to try youth as adults have eroded these
founding principles and threaten to dismantle the juvenile courts major
goal to rehabilitate youth. As a society, are we only going to commit to
providing our youth with a jail cell or a prison bed? Or will we commit
to reinvesting in our nations youth through policies, programs, and laws
that nurture a successful transition into adulthood and the realization
of their full potential? The choice is ours.
Liz Ryan
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
CAMPAIGN FOR
YOUTH JUSTICE
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Liz brings more than two decades of experience to
the Campaign for Youth Justice (CFYJ), an organization
she founded that is dedicated to ending the practice
of trying, sentencing and incarcerating children
in the adult criminal justice system. In
her capacity at CFYJ, Liz is responsible
for overall strategy, management and
fundraising. Liz currently serves on
the steering committee of the National
Juvenile Justice & Delinquency
Prevention Coalition. Prior to starting The Campaign
for Youth Justice, Liz served for ve years as the
Advocacy Director for the Youth Law Centers Building
Blocks for Youth Initiative, a project to reduce the
over-incarceration and disparate treatment of children
of color in the juvenile justice system. Liz previously
served as Deputy Chief of Staff and Legislative Director
to U.S. Senator Thomas R. Carper during his terms as
Delawares Governor and member of the U.S. House
of Representatives. She also served as a lobbyist for
the Childrens Defense Fund. Liz is a former VISTA
volunteer. She holds a B.A. from Dickinson College
(Carlisle, P.A.) and an M.A. from the George Washington
University (Washington, D.C.).
21