What happens if someone commits a crime as a juvenile, but has become an adult before he is caught? Do they still try him in juvenile court? Or regular adult court?
Or is the ex-kid home free?
Does it matter what the crime is? Like, they’ll just go “tsk tsk” if he just did a burglary, but try him if he shot and killed someone?
Does it matter how long has passed? What if he committed the burglary at age 17y360 days and is caught a week later vs. did the murder at 14 and isn’t found out until he’s thirty?
It depends on the circumstances and the jurisdiction. IIRC there’s a 90+ year old woman in Germany being tried in juvenile court for crimes against humanity as a result of her having worked a concentration camp.
I believe there is no statue of limitations on murder, so he can be tried at any time of his life. If he’s an adult, he probably would be tried as one, as well. In some jurisdictions, crimes such as sex offenses with minors, crimes of violence, kidnapping, arson, and forgery also have no statue of limitations.
As has already been posted, the ultimate answer is the lawyer’s go-to - it depends. In Arizona, some prosecutor’s offices have deliberately waited to charge a juvenile in adult court with a crime until they turned 18, rather than be subject to any possible motions/contests by the defense to try to send the case to juvenile court if a defendant is under 18.
Ultimately, though, in most if not all U.S. states, someone would only go to juvenile court if they were still a juvenile, regardless of what age they were when the offense occurred. Particularly since the statute of limitations is tolled when someone willfully absents themselves from proceedings and the state can show (after the fact) that they made reasonably diligent efforts to try to locate the person.
That’s invariably so in Germany - the age at the time of the offence determines whether it’s no criminal penalty (age 0-13), juvenile court (age 14-17), optional juvenile court (age 18-20 if defendant is considered immature) or adult court (age 21+)
I confess I don’t know what the situation is in the UK but I’d be horrified to think that an adult would be treated the same for a crime committed when a child vs the same crime committed as an adult.
ELIZABETH, N.J.
But this 52-year-old man, now soft around the middle and wrinkled along the brow, was 15 at the time of the murder. And so, in a twist the judge called “extraordinary,” Carlton Franklin was tried as a juvenile.
His case was heard here this month in family, not criminal, court. And Thursday, after Judge Robert Kirsch found that he had killed Lena Triano — bludgeoning, raping, and stabbing — Mr. Franklin was not technically declared guilty, but rather, as “adjudicated delinquent.”
what is the appropriate forum/procedure for arguing over the evidence and arriving at a decision as to guilt and innocence?
if there’s a guilty verdict, what is the appropriate sentence?
As I understand it, a juvenile court is set up in particular way and with particular procedures appropriate to the age of the young people who appear before it. There’s no reason why a grown adult would need the kind of special procedures and organisational arrangements a child would.
As to sentence, the Sentencing Council explains it at some length (NB: this only applies in England and Wales, things might be different in Scotland and Northern Ireland) - and draws attention to a particular high-profile case in point, the murder of Stephen Lawrence, where two men were convicted in adult court in their mid-30s of a crime committed in their late teens:
*In sentencing, Lord Justice Treacy said:
“…the law dictates that I must sentence you by reference to your age and maturity at the time of the crime. I cannot sentence you as the mature men you now are. In addition I must sentence you in accordance with the practice in force before the coming into force of Schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 which now governs sentencing for more modern murders.”
In essence therefore, while the law at the time of the offence sets the scope of sentence lengths, a modern approach to the assessment of an offence’s seriousness is used through sentencing guidelines, while other appropriate current practice will also be applied.*
I’m guessing that a big chunk of the “that depends” part might involve looking at what the perp has done since.
Like if he was some kid who robbed a 7-11 when he was 16, but he’s now 30 and for the past 14 years has lived a law-abiding life – has a job, family, caused no trouble – I can see whoever makes these decisions (District Attorneys?) deciding he’s basically rehabilitated himself and what would be gained by prosecuting?
Or it could go the other way, I guess. He’d turned into a major criminal, and the DA could seize on this as an opportunity to put him away. Like nailing Capone for his tax returns.
For what reason do we prosecute and subject the convicted to punishment? Would that reason not have some bearing on the method of determining the sentence? Or do we just sentence people according to some succinct and dusty rule, without regard to the purpose of doing so? Just to make a grandiose show of law-and-order.
I have known clergymen of middle-age, who grew up as street toughs. If all their crimes were known and prosecuted, they would spend the rest of their lives in prison. What is to be gained by that?
It will be very interesting when the circumstances go the other way!
That is, when a person who commits a crime as an adult in subsequently charged as a juvenile. I think (IANAL so perhaps this situation won’t actually occur) this is currently happening in Louisiana. We do take care of things differently around here…
As I understand the situation, currently the cutoff age to be tried as an adult in La. is 17. However, adult prisons are run and paid for by the state. Juvenile prisons are run and paid for by local governments. So, in order to save money, La. is becoming more progressive and raising the cutoff age to 18. If I have this right, a person who commits a crime at age 17 would have been tried as an adult but if he can hold out for a few months until the law changes, he will be tried as a juvenile.
Interesting! There was a Law & Order episode just like this. (The headlines were ripped from L&O, in this case!)
In the episode, the juvenile offender was tried in family court. If convicted, she could have only been incarcerated (at a juvenile facility) until she was 18. Since she was already 28 or something, she faced no time even if convicted. (As it was, she was acquitted.)
And I think the max for a juvenile crime is 3 years. There is a provision for raising a charge to adult court, but it has to be particularly serious; I don’t recall a lot of situations where someone is tried as an adult. And… juvenile offenders except in exceptional situations cannot be tried as adults.
In fact, there was a case many years ago where someone was assaulted on the Toronto subway. The newspaper printed the name of the people charged, then later had to issue a retraction/apology to note that for one of the accused, it was his 18th birthday the day of the crime so the crown withdrew adult charges and charged him as a juvenile. That’s how the law was written, he had to be treated as a juvenile, they should not have published his name. (IIRC it was the crown not the paper that messed up on that detail).
In Washington State, it’s age at the time or charging. When I represented criminal defendants, we would often get 17 year old offenders and there was usually an issue whether the prosecution would charge them right away (juvenile court) or wait until their 18th birthday and charge them. As you might imagine, huge difference in consequences to the young person. If i recall correctly, their policy was to charge as juvenile in most cases, but exceptions could be made if they person’s crime or background were bad enough.
I’m pretty sure L&O ripped the headlines from the case of Michael Skakel, who was 15 when Martha Moxley was murdered, and 39 when he was arraigned in juvenile court for her murder. The case was subsequently transferred to adult court, Skakel was convicted, and he’s now well into a 20-to-life sentence, although appeals continue.
This is totally bizarre to me. So basically, the offender is penalised for the police’s lack of success? You commit a crime at 14, they do a brilliant job and catch you a week later, you’re tried as a juvenile. You commit a crime at 14 and the officers on the case happen to be useless, or a sample goes astray, or something, and they don’t catch you for four years…and because of that, you’re tried as an adult?