This is another one of those “I was watching ‘-’ on tv, and got to wondering” questions. In this case it was a story on 60 minutes about an 11 year old accused of killing a neighbor. Who he was, and what he did are really not germane to my question.
What I’m interested in is, if a child is tried as an adult and aquitted, does he/she keep this adult standing once released?
Can he vote, enter into a contract, get married, etc?
Well, maybe not vote, but you know what I’m getting at here.
Peace,
mangeorge
I lived with a roommate who was an emancipated minor.
Although at 16 she was her own legal guardian, (an adult?) she was still not able to vote because she wasn’t of the legal voting age. Nor was she able, say, to purchase liquor, for the same reason. She could, however, legally enter into a contract.
This is the only real life correlation I can think of to your question.
Food for thought.
I believe that the proper procedure for having a minor tried as an adult is for the state to petition the court to grant that status for the case.
As far as I know, having your name made public and getting a longer sentence are the only “benefits” attached to getting tried as an adult.
The answer is no, being tried as an adult, regardless of the results of that trial, do not confer any other benefits or privileges of adulthood or legal majority upon the accused.
In Virginia, at least, the transfer of a juvenile case from Juvenile and Domestic Relations to circuit (adult) court is done when the JDR court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the juvenile is “…not a proper person to remain within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.”
In making this determination, the court must consider: the juvenile’s age; the seriousness and number of alleged offenses; whether the juvenile can be retained in the juvenile justice system long enough for effective treatment and rehabilitation; the appropriateness and availability of the services and dispositional alternatives in both the criminal justice and juvenile justice systems for dealing with the juvenile’s problems; the record and previous history of the juvenile in Virginia and other jurisdictions; whether the juvenile has previously escaped from custody of a juvenile correctional facility; the extent, if any, of the juvenile’s degree of mental retardation or mental illness; the juvenile’s school record and education; the juvenile’s mental and emotional maturity; and the juvenile’s physical condition and physical maturity.
The standards for emancipation are quite different. The JDR court may order a minor emancipated if: the minor has entered into a valid marriage; the minor is on active duty with any of the armed forces of the United States of America; or the minor willingly lives separate and apart from his parents or guardian, with the consent or acquiescence of the parents or guardian, and that the minor is or is capable of supporting himself and competently managing his own financial affairs.
- Rick
I don’t know if there is an answer to this, but maybe someone can shed some light on this. Under our court system, people are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Why, then, does an innocent child get tried as an adult. Shouldn’t they be tried as a minor, and if the circumstances warrant, after guilt is determined, they could be sentenced as an adult?
I had a friend who dropped out of high school just after his 17th birthday and joined the US Navy (he had to get his mother’s permission).
But after 6 months, they determined that they couldn’t place him in the program he wanted. Not wanting to try anything else the Navy offered, he took the discharge that was his right to take.
So now he was barely 17 1/2. But upon leaving, he had to register for the draft, even though he was under 18.
I would assume that you try the person as an adult and not just sentence them because the procedures in “adult” courts are much different from juvenile courts. There might be differences with how evidence is introduced.
Juvenile proceedings are confidential, while adult trials aren’t.
Exactly my point BobT. Shouldn’t the “child” who is presumed innocent be given the protections afforded by the juvenile court until he found guilty?
Gazoo, what an excellent, ingenious point! I hope somebody knows, 'cause now I’m dying to know too.
WAG: Maybe the phrase “tried as an adult” is just a silly, imaccurate colloquialism (sp?) that does not really describe the legalities of what’s involved.
The assignment to an adult court does not affect the presumptioon of innocence.
As for the issue of emancipated minors: what is the effect of this? Would an emancipated minor sstill be “jailbait”?
**
[/QUOTE]
The assignment to an adult court does not affect the presumptioon of innocence.
**
[/QUOTE]
Well, to some extent I think the fact that have been assigned to adult court weakens the presumption, but that’s just my opinion.
The presumption, though, is not the issue. The fact that they have not been proven guilty of anything yet but are losing the protections of the juvenile system is the problem that I have. Those safeguards are supposedly in place for a purpose. Why not wait until they are actually convicted before we toss the safeguards to the wayside?
Actually, IIRC, in most juridictions the procedural protections available to defendants (rules of evidence, etc.) are more stringent in adult courts than over in Juvey. So in that limited sense, a move to the adult courts might be said to strengthen modestly the presumption of innocence, or at least the procedural protection of that assumption. Balancing that is the fact that adult court proceedings are rarely sealed, but juvenile proceedings almost always are.
But Ryan, that’s not Gazoo’s (most excellent) point. See his post in reply to BobT.
The presumption of innocence should keep the accused in juvenile court because (at least theoretically) in the eyes of the law, a kid ACCUSED of a horrible crime she probably committed is just as “not guilty” as a kid ACCUSED of a little crime she probably didn’t commit. If they are the same, they should be treated the same; and bumping one up to adult court is not treating them the same. (Though, as Gazoo points out, once she’s found guilty [maybe] all bets are off.)
Another WAG: Maybe the “juvenile court” mechanism is not the entitlement we all assume it is. Perhaps it is a routinely granted legal exception – a courtesy, if you will – to MOST minors. Maybe the state can say, “Sure, we bounce 99.9% of our underaged perps to Juvie Court, but that’s cause we’re nice guys. This gal – Ms. 00.1% – she stays here with the big boys.”
(PS - I always like to assume perps and criminals are female. It’s my bit to eradicate sexist presumptions.)
Hmmm, good point Manhattan, I think you’re correct about the Rules of Evidence and procedural issues being a bit tighter in regular court.
But I would imagine that if we’re dealing with a serious crime here (which would be a safe assumption I believe), those restrictions could easily be brought into Juvenile Court.
You’ll notice that it’s the prosecution, not the defendant that seems to push for “adult” court. That is most likely because of the sentencing aspect. My suggestion is to decide first if the kid has committed the crime. Do this in a manner that protects him (sealed proceedings, protection of anonymity, etc.). Once convicted, a hearing can be held to allow a jury to decide if the defendant should be punished as a child or as an adult.
Innocent until proven guilty simply means that the onus of proof is on the prosecuting authority - it is an evidential consideration and nothing more (although it is a very important consideration). Were that not the case, no-one would ever be locked up pending trial, and that certainly happens on a regular basis, at least here in Scotland.
Tried as a minor/juvenile here means that the proceedings are not as formal as the would normally be. The Court personnel, procedures, and evidential rules are all exactly the same.
NB There is another forum for dealing with young offenders other than through the courts, but it is not always used - it depends on the severity of the crime.
A recent case from the European Court On Human Rights may mean that things have to change, but basically once you hit 8 years old you are able to be tried for any crime in the courts. Of course, you will not be sent to an adult prison for sentence, but there have been cases where 15 year olds have been locked up pending trial in adult jails.
Oh, you don’t want to suggest that. You see, if you suggested that, this thread would turn into a debate. Then I’d have to move it. And I’d have to do that before a conviction. 
Ooops! I forgot, this is the jeopardy version. Phrasing is important.
Is there a legal or procedural reason why don’t we first decide guilt when moving juveniles into the adult criminal justice system?
I supppose that if you tried as an adult, you need to have all the trappings of an adult trial. Especially something like a jury.
There aren’t any juries in juvenile court, just a judge making a decision with additional input from some case workers.
That doesn’t seem to be enough constitutional protection if you are going to be sent to death row.
I don’t wish to sound piqued, but I direct your attention to my post above, which notes the factors considered in waiving a juvenile into adult court. The ‘horrible crime’ allegedly committed is but one factor in a long list of other factors which have nothing to do with the instant offense.
In other words, it’s quite possible that a kid accused of a little crime will also be ‘bumped up’, if, for example, she is close to age 18, there is no appropriate or availabile service and dispositional alternative in the juvenile justice system, and she has previously escaped from the custody of a juvenile correctional facility.
Also note that no person, juvenile or adult, faces trial unless they probably committed the crime.
- Rick
Yes, I read your post. About five minutes after I wrote my stupid comments. Sorry about that.
Please carry on.