ELKHART, Ind. — The debate over whether harsh punishments for juveniles serve justice or cause further harm has intensified as lawmakers across the country weigh tougher penalties against growing research on adolescent brain development and rehabilitation. The question remains whether trying juveniles as adults deters crime or ultimately increases the likelihood of future offending.
On Oct. 3, 2012, three unarmed boys ages 16 and 17 committed a burglary in their neighborhood. They planned to target a vacant home to reduce the chances of getting caught. After their first attempt failed, the teens called two more friends. The youths believed the home was empty, but homeowner Rodney Scott was asleep upstairs. After hearing a noise, he ran downstairs with his handgun and shot 21-year-old Danzele Johnson dead.
Sixteen-year-old Blake Layman, 16-year-old Jose Quiroz, 17-year-old Levi Sparks and 18-year-old Anthony Sharp Jr. were arrested and charged with felony murder. Though some of them were juveniles, they were tried as adults because of an Indiana mandate requiring offenders who are at least 16 years old and charged with murder to be prosecuted in adult court. After they were tried and either found guilty or pleaded guilty, they were sentenced to at least 50 years in prison.
These charges raised many questions regarding the issue of prosecuting juveniles as adults and whether such punishments constitute cruel and unusual treatment. Layman appealed his 55-year sentence, and the Indiana Supreme Court agreed, stating that the punishment was disproportionate “given what we now know about adolescent brain development and the impact it has on a juvenile’s susceptibility to engaging in risky behaviors.”
In 2022, the state signed into law reforms designed to divert young people from the criminal justice system, yet Indiana still permitted children as young as 12 to be charged as adults. However, lawmakers have continued to pursue increased punishments for juveniles, a trend that accelerated during the pandemic when violent crime involving juveniles spiked. Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe stated that, “If a juvenile is going to act like an adult and commit a crime like an adult, they need to understand that those, unfortunately, have consequences.”
Many studies have found that incarcerating juveniles can be counterproductive, as those who face harsher punishments are often rearrested. According to the FBI, juvenile crime and arrests have risen by 75% since their peak in 1995. Advocates have suggested addressing the root causes of criminal behavior by directing juveniles to therapy, rehabilitation services and other forms of support rather than incarcerating them.
Harsher penalties simply punish juveniles rather than prevent crime from occurring in the first place. During the 1980s and 1990s, when lawmakers passed legislation allowing juveniles to be tried as adults, there was what many described as “an explosion of incarceration.”
The “Raise the Age” movement gained momentum as 11 states diverted 16- and 17-year-old offenders to juvenile court after increasing the minimum age at which they could be tried as adults. Following the rise in crime rates during the 2020 pandemic, many states have sought to focus on supporting juveniles and addressing underlying causes rather than relying solely on punishment.
Though many people continue to support harsh punishments for juveniles, arguing that lighter penalties create an easy escape from accountability, others contend that the goal should be rebuilding the lives of young people rather than imposing punishments that may foster resentment and retaliation.
Josh Gupta-Kagan, a professor at Columbia Law School, stated, “We’ve got developmental evidence, neuroscience evidence, demonstrating in a really compelling, scientific way how adolescent brains really are different than adult brains and how that does impact decision making.” There remains an ongoing debate over whether states should continue charging juveniles as adults or whether these harsh punishments further harm young people and contribute to increased crime.
Josh Rovner stated that because neurological differences are taken seriously by the law in other domains, including restrictions on joining the military or signing contracts, proponents argue that trying juveniles as adults would deter crime and reduce recidivism.
The issue of charging juveniles as adults has persisted for decades, raising fundamental questions about whether harsher penalties reduce juvenile crime or instead contribute to its continuation.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
