Introduction
Some shocking, violent crimes committed by teenagers could legally lead to them being charged as adults rather than the normal juvenile jurisdiction. Typically, for youths under 18 years old, cases go through juvenile courts aimed at rehabilitation and supervised release by 21 years old. However, states make certain allowances to try juveniles as adults when crimes involve grievous violence or display adult-level criminal sophistication. This paper will analyze two such severe offences. Next, it will cover prosecutorial criteria warranting adult charges despite age, followed by the pivotal function forensic psychologists serve in assessing developmental maturity versus risk. Lastly, the post examines colleagues’ examples, highlighting overlaps and distinctions among our chosen cases.
Juvenile Crimes
One instance of a teen crime possibly prompting adult charges is that of 17-year-old Sarah Johnson, who shot both her parents in the head execution-style in their Idaho home in 2003 (BOONE, 2017). Investigators believed the motive was to cover up stealing money from her parents to pay off her older boyfriend’s debts. The calculated planning, betrayal of closely related victims, use of a deadly weapon, and attempts to conceal the crime all signify adult-level premeditation and legal responsibility. Such cruel actions contradicting psychological traits expected in adolescents could outweigh sentencing leniency purely because of age.
One deeply troubling homicide warranting consideration of adult charges involves a 16-year-old. One deeply troubling homicide warranting consideration of adult charges involves a teen who allegedly stabbed his mother to death in their Hialeah home during a dispute. Reports indicate the teen called the police himself to turn himself in while also confessing details of the attack to relatives (MacLauchlan, 2023). The apparent intentional use of a knife to kill a family member in an impulsive rage could signify meaningful awareness of actions denoting adult-level legal responsibility. However, contrasting perspectives would caution against permanent punitive decisions for unstable juveniles amid likely untreated trauma or family dynamics that could still be addressed through rehabilitation.
Adult Trial Criteria
In most jurisdictions, state law permits prosecuting juveniles as adults for more serious crimes using judicial waiver, statutory exclusion, or concurrent jurisdiction protocols (OJJDP, 2020). Typical requirements involve violence, weapons, or intentional cruelty, displaying adult mindsets and community endangerment beyond simple youthful mistakes. A multi-factor test weighing the perpetrator’s background, prior offences, remorse, rehabilitative potential, and ongoing risk to others also guides adult certification (Kramer, 2015). meeting any single criterion does not automatically prompt waiver, but accumulating factors shift the balance toward adult court appropriate to the offence severity and public safety priorities.
Forensic Psychologists’ Role
Where the adult trial of a juvenile remains discretionary pending investigation outcomes, forensic psychology experts frequently get consulted to evaluate developmental maturity, violence risk, treatment amenability, and recidivism likelihood (Ryba et al., 2009The key legal issues for judges’ pre-adjudication are covered by doing thorough bio-psycho-social evaluations, reporting on competency-related capacities, and evaluating future hazard. This greatly assists in determining the appropriate sentence by weighing the need for punishment against the opportunity for rehabilitation provided by the juvenile system prior to the juvenile system’s loss of jurisdiction at age 21. Extensive age-normed testing safeguards juveniles’ rights under the Eighth Amendment by preventing severe punishment based solely on their young while simultaneously meeting the needs of public safety. Making such morally difficult decisions is still one of the most important tasks that professionals do.
Analysis of Colleague Examples
My colleague included two cases in their paper: a tragic convenience store heist and a 15-year-old student who attacked a classmate after witnessing something on social media. The scenes in question contrast with mine in certain angles, but they share the same characteristics of brutality and criminal modernity that are driven to grown-up waiver. More precisely, despite accidental teenage mistakes, intention is essential for both intentional acts of knife violence and premeditated robbery. A more intimate attack resulting from social media harassment also demonstrates relevant psychological traits and risk factors that will necessitate a longer sentence. Measurable assessments of mental health are essential when all factors are taken into account for supporting young offenders and guaranteeing appropriate accountability.
Conclusion
Unusual juvenile delinquency, counting murder or prescriptive mutilation, often reflects adult-level cruelty and malice that certainly exceeds what teenagers are legally allowed to commit court accountability and variables that contribute to the determination of equitable inappropriate community-based treatment programs for detention facilities. Being selective is a legal malpractice that sometimes proposes full adult sentencing for dangerous teens that is commensurate with protection needs and the capacity and composition of the offender in the wrong way.
References
BOONE, R. (2017, May 13). Appeal denied for woman convicted in parents’ deaths. AP News; AP News. https://apnews.com/general-news-4dee93a2669f4410a9ba4daace70fe7a
MacLauchlan, J. (2023, December 15). Hialeah teen accused in fatal stabbing of mom to stay in adult jail. Cbsnews.com; CBS Miami. https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/hearing-resumes-friday-for-hialeah-teen-accused-in-brutal-murder-of-his-mother/
write