Youthful offenders

Dear Readers, We pass laws to criminalize aberrant behavior. One size does not fit all. We punish repeat offenders and provide leniency for first-time offenders.

We also treat youthful offenders differently from adults. This started way back in 1899 with the first juvenile court established in Chicago (Cook County), Illinois. The idea was to lean into a principal mission of rehabilitating instead of punishing minors. By the 1920s, this was nationally a uniform philosophy, and juvenile sentences stopped at the age of majority (18 years old).

Fifty years or so ago, in the wake of a rise in juvenile (often gang-related) violence, the ground shifted. Laws were passed permitting a waiver process, or even “direct-filing,” to move certain categories of crimes from juvenile to adult court. Georgia even categorized any crime committed by someone 17 or older as an adult. This creates all manner of correctional complexities because juveniles cannot be housed by adults.

Juvenile courts bear many of the earmarks of the parallel adult criminal justice system. But for the right to a jury trial, all of the constitutional rights commonly depicted in police television and movies procedurals apply to the juvenile court system … with some twists.

Typical constitutional rights burden the state with proving guilt, in the face of the presumption of innocence, beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt. Rules of evidence dictate how and when evidence is accepted by a trial judge. These are the same for juvenile court. In fact, given how often juvenile cases end up in what is called an “adjudicatory hearing,” this is an excellent forum for trial lawyers to train, learning and applying these rules.

We all know about Miranda Rights. In some instances, children have the right to have a parent present before questioning. Courts have to apply discretionary rules to decide if a Miranda Waiver is valid and effective; a child’s knowing and intelligent waiver has to be weighed by age and social development. Moreover, the presence or ready availability of a parent/guardian has to be considered.

However, the nexus between school and criminal behavior creates another quirk. School educators and administrators are not police officers. Miranda does not apply to their questions.

The 8^th Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. This means that insane people cannot be executed until they are returned to “legal competency.” Similarly, a person may not be of sufficient intelligence to understand the depravity of a criminal act. The death penalty has no efficacy unless there is an ability to contemplate and appreciate one’s sins.

Logically, this leads to two (2) principles when juveniles are being sentenced, in acknowledgment that their brains are not fully developed. First, the death penalty is forbidden for minors. Second, while life in prison is a possible sentence for a juvenile, mandatory life-without-parole sentences are also verboten.

This has led to some odd, even scary, results. On March 5, 2001, Charles Williams was 15 when he used his father’s revolver to kill two students and injure 13 others at Santana High School (San Diego). He was convicted and sentenced to 50-years-to-life in prison, the functional equivalent of life without parole in California.

He became eligible for parole for the first time in September of 2024. The state board denied him parole because it was an “unreasonable risk to public safety.”

This was not the last word on his eligibility for release. A law passed in 2011 gives juveniles the right to petition for re-sentencing if illegally sentenced to life. However, even though Williams is now 39, his tender age at the time of this mass shooting means his conviction is reclassified as “true findings” from juvenile court. And, since he is now an adult, he can no longer be incarcerated – meaning the worst sentence he might receive is being placed on juvenile probation.

A similar quirk in the law confronted the State of Massachusetts when Michael Skakel (a nephew of Ethel Kennedy) was accused as an adult of the bludgeoning murder of Martha Coxley when he was 15. As a juvenile, the issue was whether he could be tried in adult court.

In this case, he was. After his conviction, he spent over a decade incarcerated in prison. However, his conviction was overturned because his attorney failed to present an alibi defense.

What started at the end of the 19^th Century as a laudable proposition – make allowances for children – has evolved and no longer seems so simple.

WarnerRobinsattorneyJimRockefelleristheformerChiefAssistantDistrictAttorneyforHoustonCounty,andaformer AssistantStateAttorneyinMiami.OwnerofRockefellerLawCenter,Jimhasbeeninprivatepracticesince2000.E-mail your comments or confidential legal questions to ajr@rockefellerlawcenter.com.