Kelsey McGovern, Staff Writer

Children are held to the same standards as adults when committing heinous crimes. While the severity of the crime committed by the child must be intense, children are not equal to adults regarding brain development standards. Should this scientific factor be considered when sentencing a 15-year-old to jail time? Or should children be expected to know right versus wrong in any given situation? 

Many advocates for the juvenile justice system believe that reform is necessary to reflect accountability and safety measures while also providing rehabilitation for youth offenders. The Juvenile Act implements principles that preserve family unity, child development and supervision while simultaneously ensuring the safety of those around them. 

In New Jersey, the law defines a “child” as a person under the age of 18 or under the age of 21 who committed a delinquent act before turning 18. If the child is at least 15 years old and used a deadly weapon during an offense, they may be sentenced for rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, aggravated assault, robbery, robbery of motor vehicle, aggravated indecent assault, kidnapping, voluntary manslaughter, murder attempt, repeat of violent offenses and criminal contempt related to proceedings. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 6303 (LexisNexis, Lexis Advance through 2026 Regular Session Act 17; P.S. documents are current through 2026 Regular Session Act 17).

For a matter not considered a delinquent act should be transferred to juvenile court all depends on the background of the offender, the impact of the crime on all victims and treatment prospects. The decision-maker has discretion in determining whether a case should be transferred to juvenile court. “Although each juvenile is an individual, he is also a member of a community. The needs of an individual are often at odds with the needs of society. The exercise of discretion routinely requires a balancing of competing concerns.” Commonwealth v. Cotto, 562 Pa. 32, 41, 753 A.2d 217, 222 (2000). Therefore, juvenile discretion is described as complex to reflect the child’s background pertaining to psychological or family issues. 

So the question is, should children be tried in court as adults when committing a horrible crime? Will incarceration work for their benefit or permanently damage their ability to develop? 

The American Bar Association takes a stab at this concern, stating, “Despite the formation of a separate juvenile court system specifically designed to ‘treat, rather than punish’, this over-criminalization and policing has resulted in youth being pushed into the adult criminal system. Although the United States Supreme Court has recognized the differences between youth and adults, courts consistently fail to consider these attributes and the best interests of youth before transferring them to the adult criminal system.” The state’s statutory parameters establish the power to transfer charges from a juvenile court to adult court depending on age, offense, and circumstances. In Wisconsin, children as young as 10 years old are mandated to be transferred for first- and second-degree intentional homicide, and first-degree reckless homicide. Wis. Stat. Ann. §938.183. 

Should a ten-year-old who committed such a horrendous crime be punished for the remainder of their life? Or should a ten-year-old be given support to not engage in this damaging behavior ever again? Some would say ten-year-olds have a conscience and know right from wrong, but is that equivalent to being charged as an adult, a person with much more understanding of how impactful their choices are?

Children being prosecuted in adult prisons are exposed to increased rates of sexual assault, adding to their collateral damage, not decreasing it. A child committing an abhorrent crime may need psychological evaluations to ensure the safety of the public, not isolation within prisons. Children must be treated according to their brain capacities to reflect positive behaviors in the future.