ILNews

IBA: When Kids Become Adults

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By Joe Delamater
 

delamater-joe.jpg Delamater

Charging juveniles as adults is a topic that has garnered media attention lately with a rash of gun-related deaths among teens. It’s also an area where we need to balance sympathy for the victims and for the minor offenders.

In order for a juvenile to be tried as an adult under typical circumstances, the State must request that the juvenile court waive its jurisdiction. Whether that is requested and ultimately granted depends on many things, including the age of the child and the type of crime. The court will hold an evidentiary hearing in order to determine whether the waiver of jurisdiction is appropriate.

However, for some crimes, the juvenile court simply does not have jurisdiction. When an offense listed in Indiana Code § 31-30-1-4 is committed by an individual sixteen or older, the adult courts have jurisdiction. These are typically referred to as “direct file” charges.

In determining whether a given crime is on the direct file list, I use a mnemonic: “guns, drugs and gangs.” If the crime is related to one of those areas, it’s worth looking at the statute to see whether it is listed. Not every crime on the list fits neatly under that mnemonic–it’s just my personal reference tool.

The “guns and gangs” crimes that can be directly filed are Attempted Murder, Murder, Kidnapping, Rape, Criminal Deviate Conduct, Robbery (with a deadly weapon or causing bodily injury), Carjacking, Criminal Gang Activity, Criminal Gang Intimidation, Carrying a Handgun Without a License (as a felony), Children and Firearms (as a felony), and Dealing in a Sawed-off Shotgun. The drug cases that are eligible are Manufacturing or Dealing in Cocaine or a Narcotic Drug, Dealing in Methamphetamine, Dealing in a Schedule I, II, III, or IV Controlled Substance, if and only if the individual has a prior unrelated conviction or juvenile adjudication for one of those same substance offenses.

This begs the question of why we allow children to be charged as adults and why the type of offense determines whether adult charges are filed? Those topics alone merit a more in-depth discussion than can be afforded here. However, the General Assembly has decided there is little distinction between a carjacker who commits the act two days before their eighteenth birthday and the one who waits until after. The inference is that the type of offense and its community impact outweighs certain rehabilitative programs afforded in juvenile court when the offender is moderately close to adulthood.

Also noteworthy are the crimes that are not given direct file treatment: Burglary, Arson, Human Trafficking (i.e. think of pimping or the movie Taken) Child Molesting, Strangulation and more. These are all crimes that go straight to juvenile court and can only move to adult court after a separate jurisdictional waiver process. For these serious offenses, the General Assembly left the juvenile court with the discretion to determine whether that child is beyond the rehabilitation of the juvenile justice system. While the juvenile court is not given that discretion for direct file crimes, this discretion does not disappear. Instead, it is shifted.

Whether to charge a child as an adult is discretionary and rests with the Prosecuting Attorney of your county. A prosecutor may opt to charge a lesser offense in order to keep the accused in juvenile court; the notion of potentially making a child a felon is not taken lightly. Consideration will be given to the marked sentencing disparities between adult and juvenile court. This difference is one of many considerations a prosecutor will evaluate in their deliberation in filing charges. Among others may be the child’s delinquency history, the nature of the offense, and the child’s character.

Juvenile courts exist to afford children an opportunity to receive the care, treatment and rehabilitation that they each deserve. The court assumes the role of parens patriae for each child within its jurisdiction. Acting as a parent, the juvenile courts must make tough calls in setting their “children” on the right path (and helping to ensure they stay on that path). Juvenile courts work to balance society’s interest in community safety and peacekeeping with the best interests of the child presented to them to “parent.” However, Hoosiers have decided that these particular crimes are so serious that the juvenile courts lose that discretion because the acts cross the thin line between the juvenile and adult justice systems. These serious crimes are when kids become adults.•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Well written, begs more information
    I enjoyed this, but wonder about the recidivism data associated with the varying ways these cases are handled. I also suspect an astute lawyer for the defense might manipulate the state by encouraging a client to appear more juvenile and remorseful than recalcitrant and adult. Should law be so subjective?! We all know that gangs have used little children to run drugs and weapons, to commit murder, etc., since the child will not be prosecuted as an adult. Kids know they don't want to be murdered, so by default they know what they are doing is very serious and bad. At what age does that adult-line blur, especially given how fast kids grow up these days, with access to the internet, super-violent movies, and other media that potentially dull the emotional impact of their transgressions. Do the ages drop over time, as the times change? How young can a life sentence be applied? How have statistics shown the ages of these serious offenders to be trending over the past few decades?

    My take-away is that there is a judgement being made by the state on many cases as to whether a crime is prosecuted as juvenile or adult, and that many serious crimes still default to juvenile court. If my family member was a victim , I might not like hearing that the state opted for Juvenile court based on the idea that the assailant "might" be rehabilitate-able.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT