Laurence Steinberg’s essay “Should Juveniles Be Tried as Adults” explores the question of how young offenders should be treated, offering his own viewpoints on the matter. Steinberg specifically examines the disparities between the juvenile and adult systems, particularly in regards to decision-making procedures for handling treatment and punishment. In recent times, there has been a societal shift towards trying and penalizing juvenile offenders within adult correctional facilities – a stance that contradicts Steinberg’s belief in the inherent dissimilarities between juveniles and adults. He argues that these punitive measures hinder the rehabilitation process for youthful criminals (632).
The author questions the effectiveness of the judicial system in determining whether a child should be tried as an adult. The author highlights three characteristics of adolescents aged 12 to 17. Firstly, significant changes occur in their physical, intellectual, emotional, and social capabilities (632). Secondly, young individuals who have committed crimes can still be positively influenced during this period to abandon their criminal tendencies (632). Lastly, subjecting adolescent offenders to severe punishments can hinder their mental recovery due to their crucial developmental stage, potentially leading to long-lasting negative effects on their adult behavior (632).
According to Steinberg, in his second argument, he argues against overlooking the age of a young defendant. As mentioned earlier in the essay, he presents three main points to support this notion. Firstly, he asserts that the legal system operates on established rules and customs which are distinct from the more individualistic and casual environment of a juvenile court (633). To elaborate on this idea, the author highlights the distinctions between how adults and juveniles are treated within the legal system.
The author highlights the significant differences between the adult and juvenile systems. The adult system focuses on punishments such as jail time, probation, and labor, while the juvenile system goes beyond traditional forms of punishment and emphasizes rehabilitation and cooperative programs to help adolescent offenders get back on track (633). Additionally, the author raises concerns about the competency of youthful offenders to stand trial, taking into consideration factors such as maturity and mental health status (633). Lastly, the author points out that the adult court’s emphasis on punishment leaves youth offenders with limited chances for rehabilitation within that system (634).
Steinberg’s final argument addresses how different age groups should be treated in the legal systems. He asserts that children below 12 years old should never be tried in adult courtrooms. Meanwhile, individuals older than 16 are considered similar to adults. For individuals between 12 and 16, the decision to try them as adults should be based on personalized assessments of their circumstances, case specifics, and various mental, social, and intellectual factors (635). The author concludes by emphasizing that determining whether young offenders should be tried as adults is not easy. However, completely disregarding the offender’s age is comparable to ignoring an elephant in the courtroom – it may be possible, but most people will detect a foul smell (635).
