Increasing the age when teens would be tried as adults
Published June 5, 2013
By Gene Arnold
by Gene Arnold
Regarding increasing the age limit to 18 years of age for pre-adults to be tried as adults for certain crimes, it seems striking to me that if we are willing to ask young adults to serve in military obligations at 18, and not 16, it is only fitting they should raise the age limit to 18 years of age to be tried as an adult. Additionally, while the maturation rate in young adults varies dramatically by individual, the training offered by the military suffices to prepare individuals to serve in service to their country. It is also a recognized fact, individuals not quite ready to enter the job force often turn to the military for further training for adulthood. This seems to admit that 18 is the age for the transition to maturity rather than 16 years of age.
Having posed the above rationale it is also necessary to admit our juvenile court system is outmoded, antiquated, and in desperate need for overhaul. Even the facilities are woefully inadequate to house individuals who have committed crimes requiring incarceration. To allow youths to participate in crimes and to serve a shortened sentence only to have their record expunged demands addressing the total issue of juvenile punishment.
Add to this mix the presence of gang culture and gang related criminal activity requires a different approach that society has been reluctant to address.
The bottom line is the issue is greater than just changing the age for punishment of crimes. The issue is to resolve the multifaceted approach to juvenile justice in North Carolina. It has languished in the dark ages far too long not to have a champion come forth to attempt a fix.
Gene Arnold is a former legislator and an NC Spin Panelist.
June 5, 2013 at 8:48 pm
dj anderson says:
The concept of setting an 'age of accountability' is arbitrary at best. We all know that one 16 or 18 year old is more mature than another, has more experience than another, and not only IQ or sex defines differences.
Perhaps the crime is a better measure than age, in truth, in the end?
While increasing the age before treating those committing criminal acts as adults is popular among those thinking it enlightened, there is a case to the contrary that shows the juvenile court fails to hold law breakers accountable enough to change behavior and actually encourages rather than discourages illegal behavior in a significant number of cases.
I know from personal experience how shocked the just-turned-sixteen year old at being arrested for assault and taken to jail after having punched others without going anywhere but home. It's the same for theft and other offenses. How quickly the young person goes from getting a cotton glove to a handcuff!
Also, many advocates wants to increase the status offense of compulsory education from age 16 to age 18. What problems will this cause? No one wants to note that juvenile delinquency crimes decrease over the summer and peak around Christmas at school mid-terms.
There's improvement needed, but using arbitrary age levels is not a fix, it's a problem.
