Young Adult Offenders

Abstract

In most states, the legal treatment of offenders changes dramatically when they reach their 18th birthday. (In some states, this transition occurs at ages 16, 17, or even 19; see Griffin, 2012.) Instead of being dealt with in the juvenile justice system, which focuses mainly on the best interests of the child, rehabilitation, and programming, offenders start being dealt with in the adult criminal justice system, which focuses on just deserts, retribution, and deterrence, with few attempts at offender programming. What is the justification for the dramatic change in legal treatment at age 18? Is there a dramatic change in criminal propensity or criminal careers, for example? Many justifications have been put forward for treating juveniles differently from adults. It has been argued that juveniles have less mature judgment; poorer emotion regulation; and self-regulation; poorer decision making in offending opportunities; and poorer executive functioning, reasoning, abstract thinking, and planning (Scott and Steinberg, 2008). Arguably, juveniles have poorer impulse control and are more likely to take risks and commit crimes for excitement rather than according to a rational cost–benefit assessment. In their decision making, juveniles are thought to be influenced more by immediate desirable consequences than by delayed possible undesirable consequences. Allegedly, they are thought to be more susceptible to peer influences, more changeable, more redeemable, and less set in their offending habits. Consequently, they are less culpable or blameworthy, have diminished responsibility, and are less deserving of punishment. Also, they have lower adjudicative competence to communicate with lawyers, make legal decisions, understand and participate in legal procedures, or stand trial (Howell, Feld, and Mears, 2012). Do all these abilities change dramatically at age 18? This seems unlikely. Although we accept that there are great variations in the methods of processing used by juvenile and adult criminal courts, we argue in this article that the usual change from rehabilitation to punishment on the 18th birthday is too abrupt. The cognitive functioning of offenders changes gradually, and young adults aged 18–24 are similar in many respects to juveniles aged 15–17. In many ways, young people continue to mature up to the mid-20s. Many justifications for the special treatment of juveniles also apply (to a greater or lesser degree) to young adult offenders. Therefore, we argue that there should be special legal provisions for young adult offenders aged 18–24, who in many respects are midway between juveniles and adults. Legal age boundaries in many areas, including juvenile and criminal justice, seem arbitrary. For example, the minimum legal ages for driving a car, drinking alcohol, owning a gun, having sexual intercourse, and getting married often are different from the minimum legal age for adult court. There are great variations in legal age boundaries between countries and between U.S. states, and great changes over time. For example, most young adults aged 18–24 may have been living independently in the 1950s, but they were not in the 2000s. The dominant theory of the life course in developmental psychology, first proposed by Erikson (1950), postulated that adolescence, lasting from the beginning of puberty until the late teens, was followed by young adulthood, lasting from the late teens to about age 40 when middle adulthood began. This paradigm may have made sense in the middle of the 20th century when most people in industrialized societies married and entered stable full-time work by around age 20 or shortly after. However, by the end of the century, this paradigm no longer fit the normative pattern in industrialized societies. Median ages of marriage had risen into the late 20s, and the early to mid-20s became a time of frequent job changes and, for many people, pursuit of post-secondary education or training. Furthermore, sexual mores had changed dramatically, and premarital sex and cohabitation in the 20s had become widely accepted. Most young people now spent the period from their late teens to their mid-20s not settling into long-term adult roles but trying out different experiences and gradually making their way toward enduring choices in love and work. The theory of emerging adulthood was proposed as a framework for recognizing that the transition to adulthood was now long enough that it constituted not merely a transition but a separate period of the life course. (Arnett, 2007: 68–69) In this article, we first discuss some aspects of the special legal treatment of juvenile offenders, and then we present knowledge about human development and offending careers from the teenage years to the 20s. We then review reentry problems of young adult offenders and the legal treatment of young adult offenders in some other countries. Finally, we suggest methods of improving the legal treatment of young adult offenders in the United States. (For more details about all of these issues, see Loeber and Farrington, 2012.) Culpability focuses on a person's blameworthiness and the degree of deserved punishment. The diminished responsibility of young people for offending is thought to require mitigated sanctions to avoid permanently life-changing penalties and provide room for reform. Compared with adults, youths’ immature judgment reflects differences in appreciation of risk, appraisal of short- and long-term consequences, self-control, and susceptibility to negative peer influences (Scott and Steinberg, 2008). The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Roper v. Simmons (2005) to abolish executions of juvenile offenders in the United States provides the backdrop for our discussion of the reduced criminal responsibility of young people. In Roper v. Simmons, the Supreme Court conducted a proportionality analysis of adolescents’ culpability to determine whether the death penalty ever could be an appropriate punishment for juveniles. A majority of the Court offered three reasons why states could not punish youths found to be criminally responsible as severely as adults. First, juveniles’ immature judgment and lesser self-control caused them to act impulsively and without full appreciation of the consequences of their actions and, thus, reduced their culpability. Second, juveniles are more susceptible to negative peer influences than are adults. In addition, juveniles’ greater dependence on parents and community extends some responsibility for their crimes to others, which diminishes their criminal responsibility. Third, juveniles’ personalities are more in flux and less fully formed than those of adults, and their crimes provide less reliable evidence of “depraved character.” Although the differences between adolescents and adults seem intuitively obvious, Roper v. Simmons provided minimal scientific evidence to support its conclusions (Denno, 2006). The Court's Roper v. Simmons decision (2005: 569) also attributed youths’ diminished culpability to a “lack of maturity and … underdeveloped sense of responsibility … [that] often result in impetuous and ill considered actions and decisions.” Roper v. Simmons focused on adolescents’ immature judgment rather than on the narrower criminal law inquiry into the ability to distinguish right from wrong, and it was concluded that their immaturity reduced their culpability. The Court's rationale recognized both adolescents’ reduced moral culpability and their greater capacity for growth and change—that is, their diminished responsibility for past offenses and their unformed and perhaps redeemable character. In sum, the Supreme Court concluded that juveniles’ reduced culpability warranted a categorical prohibition of execution (Feld, 2008). The same developmental characteristics that diminish youths’ criminal responsibility also affect their adjudicative competence adversely. Competence is the constitutional prerequisite to the exercise of other procedural rights. Due process requires a defendant to be competent to assure a fair trial. To be competent to stand trial, a criminal defendant must have “sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding [and have a] rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him,” as well as the capacity “to assist in preparing his defense” (Drope v. Missouri, 1975: 171). Adjudicative competence involves a defendant's ability to communicate with lawyers or aid in his or her defense, to make legal decisions as well as understand and participate in such legal procedures, to waive Miranda rights, to waive or assist counsel, to stand trial, and to exercise other constitutional protections. Judges evaluate a youth's competence by assessing his or her ability to (a) understand the charges and the basic elements of the adversary system (understanding), (b) appreciate one's situation as a defendant in a criminal prosecution (appreciation), and (c) relate pertinent information to counsel concerning the facts of the case (reasoning) (Bonnie and Grisso, 2000: 76). Developmental psychologists have examined adolescents’ adjudicative competence, their capacity to exercise or waive Miranda rights or the right to counsel, and their ability to participate in legal proceedings. This research questions strongly whether juveniles possess the cognitive ability, psychosocial maturity, and judgment necessary to exercise legal rights. Many young offenders, especially those than age and those with the of criminal courts, the legal for competence and Grisso, and Steinberg, 2008). Developmental psychologists argue that immaturity the same of of and to assist counsel as and it many juveniles and Grisso, This is for of (a) those who are or in (b) those who are and (c) those who are as a result of or For developmental rather than or affect their ability to understand legal communicate with and assist counsel, and make rational decisions and and Grisso, To the Supreme Court's to scientific knowledge about human development in and young For many developmental psychologists focused on capacity as the of A on has that with that in the is the of both and psychosocial 2007: see also Steinberg, which to be more or less fully by age psychosocial that decision making and as impulse emotion of and to peer to mature well into young 2007: see also and evidence that the to into early adolescence, including and into adulthood, when and are also that for is the to mature without adult until the early The of is by the that is more with with is about of offenders and but we on changes in functioning with changes in the and the early 20s to in executive functioning, including reasoning, abstract thinking, consequences, and impulse control and The on are in with evidence that are until early adulthood, as is from on the of even when for the of This is recognized widely by for for young up to age are dramatically than for It also is recognized by that not to people than age or a for than that The of that between late and early adulthood also is from For example, Steinberg, and time planning and of consequences between ages and Although this a the suggest that the ability to dramatically between early and the early 20s, with the of consequences, time less in that same a review and found that maturity of by age or maturity was by age However, the executive of the such as and impulse were not fully until age concluded that human is not mature until the early to However, it is to occurs between ages and on the work of and psychosocial maturity into three responsibility ability to act to be and to have a sense of ability to to control and and to and ability to understand and the of a decision to concluded that was especially to Although responsibility and became at age to up to the 20s 2008). also the that mature than and the to distinguish between and offenders also the of to maturity in the criminal justice system, the work of and In the review of that the minimum age for adult offending up to the mid-20s be on knowledge about the development of cognitive functioning and adults, could be considered less culpable than adults of their psychosocial that the of offending from late into adolescence, in late adolescence, and into This process is as the and The be in all of well is the an early age of with a age of is with a longer offending the of early adulthood of age of This with the of the In the in in the of the is In some it from to of all Farrington, and 2008). that the legal age of adulthood at for that ages or in some is not by a change in offending at that and it has no to the of the offenses as and to the less offenses of late and early for no occurs at age concluded that that a be between and adulthood for different the law is at with developmental Most that of juvenile offenders age into adulthood and 2012). and the questions about is in and from offending between and early is the of offending early The criminal and and of crimes and criminal careers, of offending into adulthood, and of the of offending in the young adult Most young adult offenders have juvenile For example, in the in which is a of more than of those who were between ages and had been as juveniles 2012). of all offenders were first at age or and Farrington, In this the age of the first was 17, the age of the was also of in offending it be concluded that most offenders in their early 20s. It seems that is caused by justice processing were followed by an in offending in this Farrington, and There is no that to the of from the teenage years to the 20s. To in Farrington, and examined between different age from in the found that of offenders at also were offenders at of those who were not at were offenders at The of who were between ages and and between ages and 20 could be with of at who were at and of at who were at 2006). For a of in and found that the of offenders who were years from at age to at age For offenders, the from at age to at age It is that the in the the is for than for Although the of offending and the of from the teenage years to the 20s, it not that the of a criminal to the age of or the of offenses in a criminal However, and these in the on of and they found that these with The from years for offenders at age to years for offenders at age and the of offenses from at age to at age should be into by and they could be by the age of the the of the the time the and the age of of some of the of that young adults reentry into and these are likely to to a of criminal also Steinberg, and for a of all states to more widely to or out of most of are to a period of in the of to for crimes or of their and for of are to offender The the and experiences of in and see also few have these and experiences young adult a few are for young adult offenders. A review of reentry and that of them were including work rehabilitation, education (to some and were for sex and offender review of adult found but for work and job for and few that have the of reentry adult offender research on the reentry problems of young adult offenders is of the juvenile justice system is the to which it the of juveniles to the adult criminal Griffin, 2012). In and some countries as the and also juvenile than ages or to be as adults. such as and not juveniles than age to be an adult to be adult the they young adults ages and to be juvenile law and to be in the juvenile criminal justice system, have some in this have long for juveniles less than age years in and years in and 2012). and the of in a that the of the special provisions for offending by juveniles could be up to the age of In all young adults aged have been to the of the juvenile courts, which the of the young adult to be into and to be the young adult a juvenile or adult on such as whether the moral and development of a young adult is a juvenile and whether the is a juvenile or by in to the of that young adult offenders than age should be in a way with juveniles when the is of the that they are not as mature and responsible for their actions as full adults and 2012). adult in and be to special for the treatment of young offenders, but that also be possible the adult system in many other countries. case is the adult age is but the for juveniles is in countries have penalties for juveniles than and in adult criminal sanctions to juvenile or they have sanctions for juveniles that are not too different from the law provides for adults make it to the adult age at and to apply juvenile law to young adults other including and have separate young adult provisions and separate for to The the and the countries of the have special provisions for young adults the criminal law or provide for the of the of the adult law or adult In young adults be as juveniles until they are In there is up to age In all those who their than age are by the as juveniles. ages to 20 are dealt with more than adults not in but also in other countries and the A of having young adults dealt with juvenile law is that they may from more procedural such as the of in the of such no research or the are In and as in the United the legal treatment of offenders changes dramatically when they reach their 18th birthday. Instead of being dealt with in the justice system, which focuses more on rehabilitation, they start being dealt with in the adult criminal justice system, which focuses more on punishment. However, there are some special provisions for young adult offenders, who are as those between ages and 20 In these offenders are not to a but to a young offender and their must be followed by age offenders are considered to be fully adult and fully responsible for their of about the legal treatment of young adult offenders in and the an on and the in which the in The the problems that offender aged or was as an adult and that were no to take of the immaturity of offenders aged or The argued against as an of adulthood and considered there should be criminal justice system for offenders of all ages that of the and maturity of offenders of different the argued for special provisions for young adult offenders that of their immaturity and It that to should be in criminal justice to the treatment of young adult offenders and to their transition between the and adult justice It argued that most young adult offenders from in their 20s as they treatment by the criminal justice system made them more likely to there should be in of and against for young adult offenders. The out that of were years of the of some this in not that young offender are or The also that should be to take of the maturity of young adult offenders and that in the should an of an maturity to the court. In the to A and the The that young adult offenders aged 18–24 should be recognized as a It that the should maturity and developmental could be into in the of young adults, and it should a maturity for by the criminal justice The also more of young adults from the courts, of justice, the of for offenders, and more support in the community to with alcohol, and problems of young adult offenders 2012). Many the to which the juvenile and adult justice the of juvenile and young adult offenders. questions are as What is about the of the juvenile and criminal justice in out that and of and adults often to an in offending and and that to adult rather than 2006). Second, they concluded that juveniles to the adult were more likely to more and at and more offenses than juveniles in the juvenile justice system and Third, they a by the for that juveniles who the adult justice system more crimes than juveniles in the juvenile justice they concluded that changes in and not a or a 2008). In sanctions on juvenile offenders have to become more including in juvenile and often longer for juveniles in adult criminal than for adults of the same crimes (Howell, It seems that the more of the juvenile justice system is more with than the more of the adult criminal justice system and Therefore, it seems likely that a more also be more with young adult offenders, and research on this is In of all the evidence by we that be to the likely of special and treatment provisions for young adult offenders. who are about being recognized as on may this However, a more to be more and than the adult in the of young offenders, then that be in the of young and at In evidence that the are not as as and evidence that the to on rather than on more and also argued that the and found the rehabilitation to retribution, deterrence, or their support for the of juveniles to the adult on of the and offender We that the of young adult offenders should take of criminal and other of 2006). We out with that a period between and We not that such a is for legal it be not to a in legal In the period between and early adulthood is for offending in First, the of juvenile and young adult offenders with age as is from the of the which not out until age Many offenders in their early 20s, and treatment in the adult criminal justice system may make them Second, the period between and early adulthood is in on juveniles’ cognitive and as by their and is not at ages 16, 17, or the ages at which most states the beginning of of adulthood, that is, offending and not at all on of the minimum age of We argue that there is about a legal age of adulthood and that it is on rather than on young people to be more and that the majority out of this early adulthood is well recognized by many including and It is why many seem to the propensity to commit and the improving cognitive maturity in the 20s. It also is many changes in and in a of of scientific about the between the and the development of young people often are in and from research normative in and offending and early adulthood, and these changes not well on legal the age when juvenile justice and adult criminal justice This that many young who in of offending are from juvenile its on adult criminal its more and longer in longer of without The situation is especially for young and such as those with with with often take longer to mature and is offenders with and less young offenders in adult their propensity to is with with in their time of are and and should on young adulthood for First, this some juvenile offenders in their and become adult offenders. Second, this some may become start in of such as in of and most or all adolescents are then adults should be that the law may a on age to avoid the of to peer and juveniles are more as a there be not to to the of juveniles that is not especially to peer The for in juveniles then on the of this not be adult on the of and in the for We that it is to the than to the not to the to for the of adults with the same characteristics as juveniles who not be fully of these should be in or and cost–benefit should be and differences in the of should be We the U.S. to an to our to assist states in their and that justice is more and with more knowledge of into mature adults. We that in the of and are and that our more and more than the of longer of young people in the adult justice The is whether and and the justice system lower and the for of young people. is the of at the of and an of at and of research interests are in the development of offending and from to adulthood, and in developmental and most are and The of to and in and 2012). Loeber is a of and of and at and of is also a of juvenile and development at the of research interests are in the development of and by and and in to this most are and and to and in from into and The of 2012). at the of and in the U.S. of for as of and is a research with the in has on juvenile justice, and most are and A and in is in states and their juvenile justice system and in the v. Missouri, U.S. Roper v. Simmons, U.S.