ARTICLE 1

When Should Teens Be Tried As Adults

New York and North Carolina are the last two states that still prosecute all 16- and 17-year-olds as adults in criminal court and
house many in adult facilities. But changes may be coming.

Both states are considering bills to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 18, with backers saying the measures could save
millions of dollars by providing rehabilitative services young people need to keep from reoffending. The proposal also would allow
young offenders to avoid adult records that can affect their opportunities for housing, loans and higher education.

“You can’t go to a tanning booth without your parents’ permission if you’re not 18,” said Paige Pierce, chief executive of child
advocacy group Families Together in New York State. “Voting, joining the military, buying cigarettes, these are regulated because
they’re minors. Why would we, in this one area, consider 16- and 17-year-olds as adults?

Child advocates say the research is clear: The brain of a 16- or 17-year-old is not fully developed, and the adult criminal system
does not include parental or community involvement for mental health, public education and social services that younger offenders
need to create a life outside of the criminal system.
Adapted from: https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2017/02/26/when-should-teen-be-tried-as-adult/
ARTICLE 2

Raising the Age Juveniles Are Tried as Adults Doesn’t Lower Crime
Charles Loeffler is an assistant professor of criminology at the University of Pennsylvania.
UPDATED DECEMBER 14, 2015, 3:21 AM

Policy makers have long debated the appropriate age at which young law-breakers should be tried as adults instead of juveniles,
the so-called age of majority.

When juvenile courts were first created at the turn of the 20th century, most states set this boundary between 16 and 18 years of
age. Starting in the 1980s, however, a number of states began lowering this age, or making it easier for juvenile offenders to be
transferred to criminal court, amid anxiety over rising juvenile crime.

More recently, the tides have shifted again, catalyzed by research suggesting that the adolescent brain is not fully mature until the
mid-20s. A number of states with sub-18 ages of majority raised them, in hopes that the juvenile justice system’s focus on
rehabilitation would lower offending rates.

Unfortunately, longitudinal research conducted by myself and others suggests that the specific age of majority has little to no
impact on juvenile crime. In Illinois, a 2010 law change had no discernable effect on juvenile re-offending rates. And in Connecticut,
the lauded decreases in the offending rates of 16-year-olds after the law change turned out to be statistically indistinguishable from
those of age groups unaffected by the law.

Studies examining the most common types of juvenile offenses – property and drug crimes – have found minimal differences
between juvenile offenders arrested immediately before or after they hit the age of majority. Sadly, these studies also showed very
high recidivism rates for both groups, regardless of whether they were processed in the juvenile or adult justice systems.
This is not to suggest that nothing can be done to lower offending rates among juveniles. Cognitive behavioral therapy; swift,
certain and fair sanction systems; and summer job programs have all been shown to positively impact recidivism rates. What does
not work, however, are policies that simply shift the age of majority without otherwise engaging these young offenders.

Adapted from:

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/12/14/what-age-should-young-criminals-be-tried-as-adults/raising-the-age-juveniles-
are-tried-as-adults-doesnt-lower-crime