Judging Juveniles By Aaron Kupchik Summary

Research has shown that transferring adolescents from juvenile court to criminal court increases the recidivism rate. Thus, exposing minors to adult treatment increases crime. Generally, juvenile detention facilities are equip for rehabilitation, offering programs to aid reformation. Society does not hold youth to the same maturity level of an adult. Furthermore, juveniles are not afforded the same rights as adults (e.g. smoking, drinking, voting) because we understand their inability to make responsible decisions. The developmental differences are what set an adult apart from a child. In Judging Juveniles, Aaron Kupchik argues that if we understand the psychological needs of adolescents, why do we transfer them to criminal court? In his study

First, if the juvenile statutory criteria are met. For example, if the state require that all person 14 years and over accused of a violent felony. Second, a judge can transfer serious case. Lastly, direct file grants prosecutors the right to decide whether case with be handled in juvenile or criminal court. Transfer to criminal court can have negative impact for the juvenile. While juvenile proceeding are closed to the public, criminal court is open to the public. Being convicted as a juvenile, the accused record is sealed. However, criminal record generally is open to the public. Juvenile prosecute in criminal face harsher penalties. Thus, youth are subjected to physical and sexual victimization in adult

The idea behind invention of juvenile court was that a court could effectively deal with juvenile delinquency, instead of prosecuting children alongside adult offenders. Kupchik argues that juvenile court is designed to treat adolescents’ special needs. Allowing the key participants, such as, judge, prosecutor, defense, social service, and parents to work together for the best interest of the child. In criminal court juveniles are not giving this same opportunities until the sentencing phase. In the event that a minor commit such a serious offense they must be sent to criminal court. Then, the juvenile faces more serve sanctions, but on the other hand he or she is afforded all constitutional rights which is not necessary granted in juvenile court. One case highlighted in the book was the D.C. sniper attacks. The case involved a juvenile (17 years-old) and an adult (42 years-old) who coordinated a series of shootings in the Northern District area of Washington, D.C. as well as a few other states. During the rampage, seventeen people were killed and others were injured. Kupchik discussed how the adult in this case was sentenced to death, however the juvenile has to spend the rest of his life in prison without the possibility of parole. The jury held the adult to a higher standard of culpability, but spared the child’s