Study Asserts that Violent Juveniles Should Not Be Charged as Adults

I have written quite a few blog posts about crimes that have been committed against children, including recent cases of abduction and rape in my home state of California. And, in my first novel, Compulsion , Emily Stone tracks the pedophiles and killers who terrorize the communities around her. But, what happens when the person committing the crime is a child? A recent study to come out of Maryland suggests our justice system may be handling these young offenders wrong.

On her blog, forensic psychologist Karen Franklin shares some findings released earlier this week by Just Kids Partnership to End the Automatic Prosecution of Youth as Adults . The study followed 135 youths in Baltimore who were charged as adults and found that most were sent back to juvenile court or had their cases dismissed. Before this happened, however, these young people spent an average of five months in adult prison.

Those juveniles who were sentenced to adult prison were found to be much more likely to commit more severe, violent crimes in the future. The cell served as more of a training ground and place of brewing anger than its intended purpose of punishment and rehabilitation. Instead, the researchers recommended that young people be offered treatment options as opposed to serious jail time.

Granted, this is just one study and perhaps different research findings would endorse punishing violent juveniles as adults . So, what do you think the consequence should be for a juvenile who decides to commit a horrible and violent crime ? Is rehabilitation more likely if the offender is still young? Or, do we need to stick with the theory that people who are "old enough to do the crime are old enough to do the time"?