Megosh | 1

Isabelle Megosh

Ms. Russell

Critical Thinking Paper

June 3, 2019

Commit an Adult Crime, Serve Adult Time: Should Juveniles be Tried as Adults?

Introduction

On April 7, 1990, in the Chicago suburb of Winnetka, Nancy Langert, three-months

pregnant, was shot in the abdomen and Richard Langert was shot in the back of the head

(Wilson). The couple begged for their lives and the life of their unborn child while Nancy

attempted to write a message in blood (Wilson and Tamarkin). The police arrested

sixteen-year-old David Biro on October 5, 1990 for the murder of Nancy and Richard Langert

(Wilson). Major crimes like Biro’s hadn’t been reported in Winnetka since May 20, 1988, when

Laurie Dann, a babysitter, went on a shooting rampage at Hubbard Woods Elementary School,

killing one student (O’Connell). According to the prosecutors handling Biro’s case, Biro kept

news stories about Laurie Dann in his room (Wilson). Previously, Biro had been admitted to a

psychiatric hospital for attempting to poison his family (Tamarkin). If Biro was tried as a

juvenile, the harshest sentence he could have faced would be serving time in a juvenile detention

center until he was 21 years old (Fountain). Biro was charged and tried as an adult, ensuring that

this adult violent crime received adult time.

Current laws that allow juveniles to be tried as adults, also referred to as waivers to adult

court, vary from state to state. Each individual state, therefore, has the authority to determine

whether a juvenile will be charged as an adult. These laws are necessary and appropriate. The
 Megosh | 2

waiver to adult court serves as an effective deterrent to juveniles committing violent crimes.

States must have the discretion to consider the waiver a viable option because the current

juvenile system is not equipped to handle cases involving adult crimes. Moreover, giving the

juvenile defendant a punishment as severe as the crime provides justice to victims and their

families, something which the short sentences in the juvenile justice system cannot accomplish.

Finally, juveniles tried as adults receive a fair trial by a jury in adult court and avoid a possibly

biased judge in juvenile court. No compelling reasons exist to change current state laws allowing

for the juvenile waiver to adult court.

Deterrent to Crime

Rise in Juvenile Crime

Juvenile violent crimes have been on the rise, and the criminal justice system should treat

these crimes as it does dangerous crimes perpetrated by an adult. The American Criminal Law

Review reported that between 1973 and 2000, the juvenile crime rate doubled, with juveniles

committing the greatest proportion of violent crimes in the country (Feldblum). The law review

also found that more than one third of all murders were committed by people under the age of 21

(Feldblum). In Cook County, the county where David Biro murdered Nancy and Robert Langert,

in 1992, 146 juveniles in adult court were convicted of first degree murder, an increase of more

than 100% from the previous year (Fountain). Cook County state’s attorney, Jack O’Malley,

says, “Those kids that have demonstrated a tendency to violence, we have to get them out of the

schools and other places so they don't kill other kids. We're going to aggressively prosecute those

cases" (Fountain). The juvenile violent crime rate is increasing and the best way to handle these

dangerous crimes is to try them with other dangerous crimes, in adult court.
 Megosh | 3

Zero Consequences

The consequences juveniles face in the juvenile justice system do not deter juveniles

from repeating their crimes (Fountain). Current sentences in juvenile court are so short that

juvenile defendants are not dramatically impacted by their sentences (“Should Juveniles Be Tried

As Adults?”). Jerry Kilgore, a former prosecutor says, “There were no consequences. [Juveniles]

could commit a crime and just go through this revolving door system that we had in the juvenile

court system” (“Should Juveniles Be Tried As Adults?”). Like crimes, which are the same exact

crimes, with one committed by an adult and the other by a juvenile, must have the same

consequences. In Illinois, an adult convicted of first degree murder can be sentenced up to life in

prison without parole (Fountain). All a judge can give to a juvenile in juvenile court is an order

to be held in a detention center until they are 21 (Fountain). In a National Public Radio interview

exchange between psychiatrist Scott Henggeler and journalist Daniel Zwerdling, Zwerdling

poses this question: “I know that you think forcing judges to try kids as adults is a bad idea, but

let me ask you this - if a 15-year-old and a 30-year-old commit the same, awful rape and murder,

why shouldn't society treat them the same? I mean, the effect of their violence is the same”

(“Should Juveniles Be Tried As Adults?”). Juveniles can walk through the revolving door of the

juvenile prison system with nothing but a slap on their wrist, while adults spend years and

decades in prison for the same crime. Trying juveniles as adults and imposing adult punishments

on juveniles brings more accountability and lowers crime rates (“Should Juveniles Be Tried As

Adults?”).

Unfit Juvenile Justice System

 Megosh | 4

The current juvenile system was not created to deal with violent crimes and still is not

equipped to handle dangerous crimes. Juvenile court was established to handle truancy,

shoplifting, vandalism, and other small crimes and is not equipped to handle more violent

crimes, such as assault or murder (Estudillo). The crimes committed by juveniles that are

currently being tried in adult court are not petty crimes and need to be kept out of the juvenile

justice system (Estudillo). Recent statistics discussing the breakdown of crimes committed by

juveniles incarcerated as adults show that 57% committed person crimes, 21% committed

property crimes, and 10% committed drug-related crimes (Austin). Person crimes include

harassment, stalking, assault, kidnapping, hate crimes, and domestic violence, and property

crimes include theft, arson, burglary, and robbery (“Criminal Charges”). The juvenile justice

system can barely handle the petty crimes it was intended to deal with; it cannot also take the

responsibility of dealing with these dangerous crimes. Psychiatrist Henggeler talks about how

poorly the juvenile justice system rehabilitates juveniles: “Traditionally, rehabilitation, whether

coming from mental health or from juvenile justice, has not been very successful with serious

offenders” (“Should Juveniles Be Tried As Adults?”). The current juvenile system does not have

enough judges, probation officers, diversion programs, or other resources to handle the juvenile

crime rate (Feldman). A former professor at Georgetown Law University, Chai Feldman, says,

“When a kid commits a misdemeanor crime right now in this nation... you will find that that

child is not even taken before a court, let alone when they are taken that they actually see any

meaningful punishment, be that community service or otherwise” (Feldman). The juvenile

justice system is unfit to handle dangerous crimes, and the juveniles who commit dangerous

crimes should be in adult courts which are better equipped to handle such cases.
 Megosh | 5

Justice to the Victim

The only way to give justice to the victim is to punish the perpetrator. Justice cannot be

served unless the person who committed the crime receives a punishment reflecting the severity

of their crime. Mary Onelia Estudillo, a journalist for The Guardian, discusses those who have a

preference for juveniles to stay in juvenile courts and writes:

They fail to put themselves in the position of the daughters whose Dartmouth parents

were brutally stabbed in the head and chest by 16 and 17 year old boys. They forget the

pain of the Columbine shootings. They forget to put themselves in the shoes of a parent

whose 5 year old daughter was killed for her bike. They forget that a crime is a crime,

regardless of the offender's age. They forget that sometimes, the criminal justice system

works harder for the criminal than the victim. (Estudillo)

Trying juveniles as adults “is not a war on youth” (Estudillo). It is punishing a criminal for a

crime they commited that resulted in an injury, psychological trauma, or a death (Estudillo).

Families of a crime victim should feel safe and vindicated knowing that a criminal is serving an

appropriate amount of time in jail (Estudillo). The families will not feel this way if the criminal

is only serving a few months in jail in a juvenile detention center (Estudillo). Arieh Neier, a

human rights advocate says, “In a society of law, we say it is not up to the individual victims to

exercise vengeance, but rather up to society to demonstrate respect for the victim, for the one

who suffered, by rendering the victimizer accountable” (qtd. in Herman). Victims of crimes

committed by juveniles cannot feel safe if their perpetrator receives a short and light sentence in

juvenile court. Sterling Burnett of the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas argues, "The

only way to treat the victim as a full human being—to fully honor the memory of the victim—is
 Megosh | 6

to punish the perpetrator" (qtd. in Estudillo). Adult sentences must be an option for juveniles in

order for victims and their families to receive justice and so that juveniles can be held

accountable for the consequences of their actions.

Just and Fair Trial

Juvenile’s Right to a Jury

While juveniles who commit dangerous crimes are being rightfully tried in adult court,

they are still viewed as juveniles before the eyes of a jury. A jury’s previously perceived notion

of the culpability of a juvenile gives juveniles a benefit they don’t have in juvenile court. In

juvenile court, juveniles do not have the right to a jury; instead, juvenile courts use a bench trial,

where the case is presented to a single judge. Over time, courts have expanded juveniles’ rights

in juvenile courts (Ketcham). In 1971, however, the Supreme Court strayed from their previous

expansion of juvenile rights (Ketcham). With Mckeiver v. Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court

established that juveniles do not have the right to a jury ("McKeiver v. Pennsylvania"). In that

case, when two young boys charged with robbery and theft requested a jury, their request was

denied ("McKeiver v. Pennsylvania"). When they appealed to the Supreme Court, the Court

ruled that there is no constitutional requirement for juveniles to have a trial ("McKeiver v.

Pennsylvania"). The Court held that the “right to trial by jury is not essential to assure

fundamental fairness in a juvenile court trial” (Ketcham). If a juvenile is tried as an adult,

however, they have the right to a jury trial. A jury trial in adult court is not only just as fair as a

bench trial in juvenile court, but it is also beneficial to a juvenile defendant.

Benefits of a Jury for Defendants in Adult Court

 Megosh | 7

In most criminal court cases, a trial by jury is beneficial to the defendant because juries

believe compelling stories, are a more diverse audience, and are less susceptible to bias than

judges. Juries are an easier audience for defendants because they tend to follow a court case like

a drama or a movie and make decisions based on how compelling an argument is, not necessarily

who is right under the law ("Trial by Jury May Be a Better Choice than a Bench Trial"). A judge,

on the other hand, “may render a totally different verdict than a jury simply because they analyze

the case not as a normal lay person, but as a highly trained and experienced legal professional”

("Trial by Jury May Be a Better Choice than a Bench Trial"). Put another way, judges are not

swayed by the emotional appeal of a story and decide cases based on objective criteria such as

legal nuances or precedents; whereas, juries’ decisions consider the emotional appeal of a

defendant’s story. The jury’s willingness to sympathize with the defendant has proven to benefit

the defendant ("Trial by Jury May Be a Better Choice than a Bench Trial"). The alternative to a

jury is a judge, and although judges have become more diverse overtime, they still do not reflect

diversity in the same way a jury can (Hans et. al.). As well, judges have “the potential for being

beholden to special interests” and previous bias when making decisions. A jury, however, is less

likely to be moved by special interests or previous rulings (Hans et. al.). The benefits of a trial by

jury outweigh the benefits of a bench trial, yet juveniles in juvenile court are subject to a bench

trial and do not benefit from the advantages of a jury.

Benefits of a Jury for Juveniles in Adult Court

Juveniles would benefit from trial by jury in adult court because they often receive

shorter sentences due to their young age. In previous studies conducted by Connie Tang and

Narina Nunez, age has always been a factor in jury trials (Tang et. al.). One of their studies
 Megosh | 8

published in the American Journal of Criminal Justice concluded, “Research suggests that the

age of the defendant is correlated with their perceived culpability” (Tang et. al.). For example,

when sentencing a juvenile to death was still legal, younger defendants were less likely to

receive the death penalty (Tang et. al.). Juries recognize that adolescence is a time of immense

social and cognitive growth, so jurors are more likely to view juveniles as less culpable than

adult defendants because they are more susceptible to immature decisions (Tang et. al.). In the

study published in the American Journal of Criminal Justice, when a 13-year-old and a

16-year-old were tried for the same crime with the same evidence, the 13-year-old was found

guilty less often than the 16-year-old (Tang et. al.). In a different study conducted by Diane

Warling and Michele Peterson-Badali, data was gathered by two sample juries (Warling et. al.).

The mock jurors were given trials that involved either a 13, 17, or 25-year-old (Warling et. al.).

In the study, younger defendants received shorter sentences than the older defendants, further

emphasizing the correlation between a defendant’s age and perceived culpability (Warling et.

al.). In both studies, it is clear that “by all appearances, some jurors might lose neutrality when

judging juveniles tried as adults” (Tang et. al.). When juveniles are tried in adult court, their fate

is decided by a jury who is diverse and empathetic to their age and circumstances. Thus, the jury

trial creates a significant chance of a more lenient sentence than one imposed by a possibly

biased judge.

Counter Argument

Those who oppose current laws that allow the waiver of juveniles to adult court and

support banning such laws believe that adult prisons cannot provide juveniles with the same

educational and psychological programs tailored to juveniles that juvenile detention centers can.
 Megosh | 9

Adult prisons, however, offer a variety of different educational and psychological programs to

aid with rehabilitation and to lower recidivism. In fact, adult prisons contain the same, if not,

more expansive, educational and psychological resources that juvenile courts and prisons offer.

In the United States, 93% of adult prisons housing juveniles provide formal elementary or

secondary education, 100% offer GED preparation, 100% offer counseling programs, and 98%

offer psychological/psychiatric counseling (Austin). Incarcerated juveniles in adult prisons are

required to have regular, special, and vocational services (Austin). These services must comply

with the standards set by state laws regarding public schools, the Fourteenth Amendment, and

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Austin). All juveniles are offered five and a half

hours of instruction five days a week by qualified instructors, and all adult facilities offer GED

preparation and testing to qualifying juveniles (Austin). Juveniles in adult prisons receive the

same opportunities that would have been presented to them if they were housed in a juvenile

detention center.

Conclusion

David Biro murdered a pregnant woman and her husband, and he was justifiably treated

as an adult. With the rising rate of violent crimes committed by juveniles, there is no reason to

change current laws that allow a juvenile to be tried as an adult. The laws are necessary to serve

as a deterrent to violent crimes, and like crimes must receive the same punishment no matter the

offender’s age. In its current state, the juvenile justice system cannot handle violent juvenile

crimes. Furthermore, a punishment that reflects the severity of the crime is imperative to secure

justice for victims and their families. When tried in an adult court, a juvenile still receives a fair
 Megosh | 10

trial and can benefit from having a trial by jury as opposed to a bench trial. It is time for

juveniles to learn that one who commits an adult crime serves adult time.
 Megosh | 11

Works Cited

Austin, James. "Juveniles in Adult Prisons and Jails: A National Assessment." ​Bureau of Justice

Assistance,​ www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bja/182503.pdf. Accessed 13 May 2019.

"Criminal Charges." ​FindLaw,​ criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges.html. Accessed 2 June

2019.

Estudillo, Mary Onelia. "Juveniles Should Be Tried as Adults in Certain Circumstances." ​The

Guardian​ [San Diego], 2008,

www.appohigh.org/ourpages/auto/2016/3/16/38572502/Juveniles%20Tried%20as%20Ad

ults.pdf. Accessed 13 May 2019.

Feldblum, Chai. "Juvenile Justice: Reform After One-Hundred Years." ​The American Criminal

Law Review​, vol. 37, no. 4, 2000, pp. 1409-1428​. ProQuest,​

https://search.proquest.com/docview/230338949?accountid=1095. Accessed 19 May

2019.

Fountain, John W. "As Violence Rises, so do Trials of Teens as Adults: NORTH SPORTS

FINAL, C Edition." ​Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext)​, Feb 19, 1992, pp. 1​. ProQuest​,

https://search.proquest.com/docview/283290545?accountid=1095. Accessed 19 May

2019.

Hans, Valerie P., and Neil Vidmar. "THE VERDICT ON JURIES." ​Judicature,​ vol. 91, no. 5,

2008, pp. 226-230​. ProQuest,​

https://search.proquest.com/docview/274594174?accountid=1095. Accessed 19 May

2019.
 Megosh | 12

Herman, Judith Lewis. "Justice from the Victim's Perspective." ​Harvard Library Office for

Scholarly Communication,​ Nov. 2003. ​Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard,​

nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:34961943. Accessed 3 June 2019.

Ketcham, Orman. "McKeiver v Pennsylvania the Last Word on Juvenile Court Adjudications."

Cornell Law Review,​ vol. 57, no. 4, Apr. 1972. ​Cornell Law​,

scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4003&context=clr. Accessed 2

June 2019.

"McKeiver v. Pennsylvania." ​Oyez,​ www.oyez.org/cases/1970/322. Accessed 10 May 2019.

O'Connell, Chris. "48 Hours: The Killer Was My Schoolmate." ​CBS News​, 24 Dec. 2016. ​CBS

News,​ www.cbsnews.com/news/48-hours-the-killer-was-my-schoolmate/. Accessed 2

June 2019.

“Should Juveniles Be Tried As Adults?” NPR, Washington, D.C., 1996​. ProQuest​,

https://search.proquest.com/docview/190084074?accountid=1151. Accessed 19 May

2019.

Tamarkin, Civia. "David Biro Said He Was a Killer; Now the Police Seem to Agree." ​People​, 12

Nov. 1990. ​People,​

people.com/archive/david-biro-said-he-was-a-killer-now-the-police-seem-to-agree-vol-34

-no-19/. Accessed 2 June 2019.

Tang, Connie M., and Narina Nunez. "EFFECTS OF DEFENDANT AGE AND JUROR BIAS

ON JUDGMENT OF CULPABILITY: What Happens when a Juvenile is Tried as an

Adult?" ​American Journal of Criminal Justice : AJCJ,​ vol. 28, no. 1, 2003, pp. 37-52​.
 Megosh | 13

ProQuest​, https://search.proquest.com/docview/203522617?accountid=1095,

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02885751. Accessed 19 May 2019.

"Trial by Jury May Be a Better Choice than a Bench Trial." ​HG Legal Resources​,

www.hg.org/legal-articles/trial-by-jury-may-be-a-better-choice-than-a-bench-trial-6613.

Accessed 19 May 2019.

Warling, Diane, and Michele Peterson-Badali. "The Verdict on Jury Trials for Juveniles: The

Effects of Defendant's Age on Trial Outcomes." ​Behavioral Sciences and the Law​, vol.

21, no. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2003. ​Wiley Online Library​,

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/bsl.517. Accessed 17 May 2019.

Wilson, Terry. "Biro Sentenced to Life in Winnetka Slayings." ​Chicago Tribune​ [Chicago], 21

Dec. 1991. ​Chicago Tribune​,

www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1991-12-21-chi-911221winnetka-murders-story.

html. Accessed 2 June 2019.