A friend was involved in a court case (in Vermont) where a girl cut a deal with the prosecutor, then backed out of the deal, by which time she had had her 18th Birthday and so ended up being tried as an adult.
I was completely amazed when I heard the story, it seems totally ridiculous that the age when you commit the crime is irrelevant to whether the law considers you a juvenile.
Especially considering in many cases, it can take over a year to get to trial. So basically, if you commit a crime near the end of your 16th year, you will end up as an adult offender. Kind of defeats the purpose of treating juveniles differently. As often, it seems, in the USA the law is an ass.
So what happens if the court case starts before the 18th birthday but the defendant turns 18 in the middle? Do they suddenly change court venues? Wouldn’t double jeopardy apply once the case has started? (Obviously not, in a case where the DA could lose, they would already change the rules so they can’t I assume.)
In England and Wales as PatrickLondon states, there are two issues, first the forum and the second quantum and type of sentence. For the former, if a person is over 18 when trial starts, which means at arraignment (when plea is entered) s/he is removed to the adult court of competant jurisdiction. This is such since the protections and procedures of Juvenile courts (wigs and gowns not worn, parties seated at a tables, referred to by first name) are not needed. As for quantum and type of sentence typically the Court case is removed is restricted to what Juvenile Court could have given.
An example you might be familiar with was Mohammad Amir who turned 18 after the spot fixing scandal, was tried in Crown Court but given a Juvenile sentence.
I think you are missing the point of juvenile justice. It isn’t about when the crime was committed, it is about how likely it is that the perp can be rehabilitated. Of course, the age and maturity of the person is a factor in deciding guilt or innocence, similar to mental state, but one doesn’t need a juvenile justice system to apply that information. It is all about the rehab. So it makes perfect sense to change jurisdictions when a defendant reaches the “age of maturity”.
This is in US, presumably. Wouldn’t that be a state-by-state thing?
However, it seems to be critical, and not considered by most everybody in this thread and the general public.
I don’t disagree, but it seems like the prosecutor could satisfy the public’s blood lust by simply waiting. Let’s say an 8 year old kills his classmate. The state’s law says that an 8 year old is too young to face any criminal punishment.
What is to stop the prosecutor from waiting ten years (no SOL on murder) and then charging the now 18 year old with murder and seeking whatever adult penalty is applicable?
Some states have no SOL on any felony. The juvenile justice system could be circumvented by simply deferring prosecution until the child turns 18.
i agree with Ultra Vires. Yes, it is arbitrary that someone who commits a crime at 16 may be facing a different procedure and punishment than someone who commits the same crime at 18. But, although it’s arbitrary, it’s a fixed arbitrariness, that can’t be manipulated by the prosecutor, unlike some of the other approaches mentioned in this thread. Why should the prosecutor be able to wait, knowing that a bit of a delay can automatically change the range of penalty that the accused is facing?
Note that I’m not against there being any way to raise a young person into adult court. It’s just that I don’t think that power should be given to the prosecutor in this case. If the prosecutor thinks that a young person should be treated as an adult, then give the courts the power to direct that be done. The prosecutor then would have to apply to court to make the case for the transfer, based on legal principles, and the accused would be entitled to argue against it. There would be public transparency about the decision-making process, and the court would have to give its reasons, for or against the transfer.