The 17 year old alleged DC shiper was in court today to determine if he should be tried as an adult. What does that mean? Are there different rules of evidence in a juvenile court? I assume it has to me more than the punishment as the judge could just set the punishment according to the defendant’s age.
The punishments are more severe. The level of culpablity is increased. The “Boys will be Boys” defence goes right out the window.
Basically, the court system goes easer on youth offenders than they do on adults - different jail systems, different court (family court for youth), different sentences.
The change seems totally appropriate in this particular case, from what limited knowledge I have.
If a crime is very serious, to the degree that the prosecution feels it would not serve justice if the individual is tried as a minor, they can petition the court to have the person tried as an adult in a “certification hearing”. Ordinarily, juveniles are tried as juveniles; they serve time in juvenile facilities and have their records expunged when they turn 18. If a juvenile (typically due to the seriousness of the offense, and maybe also past prior criminal history) is certified to stand trial as an adult, they serve adult sentences in adult facilities and are subject to penalties they wouldn’t ordinarily be subject to, like the death penalty. It’s hard to be much more specific as there are 50 different approaches to the subject.
Also, I believe that proceedings in juvenile court are not open to the public, in order to protect the interests of the juvenile defendant. After all, expunging his record later wouldn’t do much good if the whole hearing had been reported in the press.
And, AFAIK, trials in juvenile court are always decided by the judge, not by a jury.