OK, according to the DA, it’s mandatory that homicide suspects be charged as adults. I can understand that if a suspect is 16 years old, then it mightn’t be safe to put him into juvenile detention. But ISTM that in no way should a ten-year-old be charged as an adult, regardless of any bureaucracy.
I don’t read every news article, and I don’t even read every news article involving murder. Further, I don’t read every news article where the suspect(s) is(are) a minor. The majority of the ones that I, personally, do read indicate that a juvenile offender is being charged as an adult. So why bother with juvenile laws at all? There’s a reason we have a juvenile justice system, but I often read about adolescent or preadolescent children being ‘charged as an adult’. I’ve heard that the human brain isn’t fully developed until the age of 25. I’m not suggesting that 25-year-olds be considered ‘juveniles’, but I don’t think a child (defined, IMO, as someone who is not yet 18) should be charged, tried, and incarcerated under the adult justice system. Have there been instances where a 17-year-old commits a crime, having been told that he’ll get off easy because he’s a kid? Sure, if TV dramas are to be believed. But most places define a ‘child’ as a person who is under 18 years of age. Either the person is legally a child, or he isn’t.
So what do you do when a 17-year-old robs and murders an old lady or a baby? Say ‘Close enough. Charge him as an adult’? If that’s OK, then why not a 16-year-old? Or a 12-year-old? Or an 8-year-old? I think states should define an adult. If the accused does not meet the criterion/criteria to be an adult, then charge him under the juvenile system. If a juvenile can literally ‘get away with murder’ under juvenile laws, change the juvenile laws. But don’t charge him as an adult just because the crime was particularly heinous, he happens to be an ethnic minority, it’s an election year and the DA wants to be seen as ‘tough on crime’, or whatever.
There is still a possibility that the child may be transferred to a juvenile court. The linked article indicates that the child’s attorney either has filed or is expected to file a motion seeking such a transfer. If PA works like my state, the juvenile courts simply do not have jurisdiction over certain crimes…in my state that includes anything that carries a possible sentence of death and/or life in prison. The adult court may decide to reduce the charge and transfer the case to juvenile court.
The linked story is what set me off. It does indeed sound as if it’s a procedural thing, and that it’s very possible he’ll be tried as a juvenile. But my larger issue is that so many children are being charged – and tried and convicted – as adults.
The states do define it, but it often depends upon the crime and you can find it in the criminal law , most likely either as “age of criminal responsibility” or in a section describing the “defense of infancy”.* For example, in my state everyone over 16 is charged as an adult. Anyone over 13 can be charged as an adult for a murder and anyone over 14 can additionally be charged as an adult for a kidnapping, manslaughter,rape or other sexual assault , and certain burglary, arson, robbery and weapon possession charges. Those under 7 have no responsibility at all and cannot even be charged as juveniles. There may be some choice as about whether or not those 13-15 year-olds can be charged as adults or as juveniles, but a 16 year old cannot be charged as a juvenile and a ten year old cannot be charged as an adult.
Although it seems to be different in Pennsylvania, in my state someone under 16 doesn’t go to an adult prison- he or she goes to a secure juvenile detention facility, even if they were charged, convicted and sentenced as an adult. They may remain there until age 21 depending on their sentence. Those who were adjudicated juvenile delinquents in Family Court go to different centers. Those adjudicated juvenile delinquents can only be kept in custody until age 18. I’m not so sure I’m thrilled with any part of the system, but I am pretty sure I don’t think a one year sentence is long enough for a 17 year old murderer or rapist which is what would happen if a 17 year old is treated as a juvenile. Unless you changed juvenile sentences to be the closer to adult sentences, and I don’t think 25-life for a ten year old murderer is appropriate either.
The reason you rarely hear about juvenile offenders being charged as juveniles is because juveniles under the minimum age to be charged as an adult rarely commit crimes that make the news. You'll occasionally see a mention that a 12 year old is charged as a juvenile for a murder or rape , especially if there are older teenagers involved who were charged as adults but you'll never see newspaper articles about the crimes more commonly committed by those under 16- shoplifting, minor assaults, trespassing, criminal mischief,harassment.
There really isn’t one age overall where someone is considered an adult for all purposes. 18 is the most common age, but the age of consent is often below 18, the drinking age is 21. And no matter what the age or what the purpose is, it’s going to be an arbitrary line where it’s hard to justify why someone one or two days older or younger should be treated differently.