I came across an interesting opinion piece on CNN.com today. It provides some compelling arguments on the merits of trying minors in juvenile court rather than adult court, even for serious offenses. This is a tough issue - and certainly can be an emotional one - centered as it often does around the notions of culpability, retribution, and ultimately the possibility for rehabilitation. If we don't think serious juvenile offenders can be rehabilitated, then they might as well be tried and sentenced as adults - or so the argument goes.
One interesting bit of data that my colleagues and I uncovered when we studied school shootings and interviewed school shooters around the US was that many of those who carried out school shootings in the 1970s and 1980s were tried and sentenced as juveniles, whereas most of those who carried out school shootings since the 1990s have been tried and sentenced as adults. There was one school shooter who declined our request to interview him because he served his time as a juvenile and was released at age 21, the records of his case were expunged, and he has since gone on to become a husband, father, and prominent member of his community. I recognize this is only one example - but it certainly underscores the possibility for rehabilitation in at least some cases. The opinion piece by Robert Schwartz, co-founder of the Juvenile Law Center, lays out far more compelling arguments, including the latest findings from child and adolescent brain development that provide strong evidence that juveniles cannot reason the same way adults do. Just some food for thought.
