Giving young offenders another chance

THE SCIENCE is now undisputed: Adolescents' brains make them more impetuous, more susceptible to peer pressure, and less able to make good decisions. This lessens their culpability for the crimes they commit.

But adolescents' brains also make it easier for them to change, and to be rehabilitated.

The question before the U.S. Supreme Court - and the country as a whole - is whether to follow the science or cling to "throw away the key" policies that have filled our prisons with many young people who could, if given the chance, be rehabilitated and go on to lead productive lives.

The court last week held hearings on whether it violates the Eighth Amendment against "cruel and unusual punishment" to sentence adolescents to life without parole for crimes other than murder. The United States is the only country that does this. There are 109 such prisoners nationwide, 77 in Florida.

But the case before the court is only one aspect of a national conversation that is proceeding about how to treat juveniles charged with crimes. This includes the 2005 Roper v. Simmons decision in which the court ruled 5-4 that juveniles should be excluded from the death penalty. It continues with hearings held last summer before the Judiciary Committee on a bill that would require states to grant parole hearings after 15 years to prisoners sentenced to life without parole for crimes committed as juveniles.

It also includes two bills and a resolution introduced into the Pennsylvania House of Representatives this fall. One, sponsored by state Rep. Kenyatta Johnson, D-Phila., would end the life-

without-parole sentence for juveniles and grant parole hearings to the 450 prisoners now serving life without parole for crimes committed as juveniles- the largest number in the world.

None of these bills suggest that juveniles who commit crimes should not be incarcerated, but that they should not be deprived of all hope of release. Much of the research on adolescents and crime has been done by Temple University psychology professor Laurence Steinberg, who this week was awarded a $1 million prize from a Swiss philanthropic organization to continue his work.

Steinberg's research, among other scientific findings listed in a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law Center, provides strong pushback against the fad of recent years to try children as adults. The research counters the idea that screams out at us from TV dramas or from people who want to establish their crime-fighting bona fides by giving up on young people. For example:

* Adolescents who are violent in their teen years are not necessarily destined for lives of crime. Far from being irredeemable, juvenile offenders often "grow out of" criminality, even without being arrested or punished first. One study found that 30 percent of boys who were examined had committed one or more violent acts by age 18 - for which few were arrested. Yet more than than three-fourths had stopped being violent by the time they reached 21 and beyond.

* The possibility of being locked away the rest of their lives does not deter juvenile crime. The same impulsiveness documented in brain studies explains why teenagers wouldn't stop to think of the legal consequences before they acted.

* It turns out that, even without the science, the founders of the juvenile-justice system got it right 100 years ago. Juvenile court held adolescents accountable for their actions, but provided at least one more chance to set their lives right. Juvenile offenders should get the chance at parole, and redemption; we hope the court concurs. *

Comments

Posted 09:00 AM, 11/13/2009

constantine

I am not against youth rehab for most kinds of crimes (while holding to the belief that we must not forget the victims - we and the criminals must not forget the physical, psychological, and financial trauma that they suffered), and I think that criminals should work or do something to show that they admit their guilt and feel remorse, reconstitute their victims, amend their ways, and make sacrifices to society for our law enforcement, judicial, and tax-payer effort & expense. Their second chance should be for improving society.

Posted 09:06 AM, 11/13/2009

constantine

I am, by the way, speaking as someone whose family has been victimized by youths (that sadly seems inevitable when you live in the inner city) and who has worked with troubled youth. But aside from this, editors should hold themselves to higher standards, politically and intellectually.It is pathetic to see a bunch of writers create the flawed conclusion and horrendous rationale in your first paragraph. Did you even bother to test your own line of reasoning? Applying your logic, "The Science is undisputed. Men commit far more crimes (of every sort) than women, for instance rape. But mens' brains make them more impetuous, more susceptible to peer pressure, and less able to make good decisions. This lessens their culpability when frat boys gangrape a co-ed... or some ex-cons gangrape an old woman whose house they are burglarizing... or some hoodie rapes a girl in an "unpremeditated 'i didn't mean to' random violence" fashion. And in other words, the difference in their brain makes these men, whether solo or mobs, less culpable if they commit rape, in contrast with women who rarely commit rape." On another note, one needs to be careful when linking "findings" in one field of hard core science (i.e. Neurology) to a field of pseudoscience (i.e. Sociology). Lastly, I couldn't help but notice the allusive use of the verb "cling." Were you paying tribute to Candidate Obama's speech about Pennsylvanians, and/or were you throwing a punch at those who you would try to deem "unscientific" "typical white people" "who cling to guns and religion?" Instead of demeaning your philosophical opponents, present their argument or findings. Otherwise, I'll continue to glance at your demagoguery with skepticism and cynicism.

Posted 12:35 PM, 11/13/2009

wfs0868

The "science" is undisputed? Not all adolescents are impetuous..not all adolescents are susceptible to peer pressure...not all adolescents would consider coming up from behind a stranger in a subway concourse and punching him for no reason and then continue to joke about it even through their trial.

Posted 01:48 PM, 11/13/2009

bill at

"The 'science' is undisputed?" That's what liberal crackheads like the DN editorial board always say when they can't rationally and logically respond to arguments. Elmer must be passing the pipe around the table again.

Posted 02:19 PM, 11/13/2009

jfar86

This editorial omits key facts. One of the defendants at issue raped at 72 year old woman. Is that something that the nameless author of this editorial would chalk up to peer pressure?

Posted 06:42 PM, 11/13/2009

Lil Bobby

maybe in some cases...the age of reason used to be 7 years old....even they would know that robbing someone, hitting a sleeping person with a hammer, and raping some old lady is wrong.

Posted 08:05 PM, 11/13/2009

WhatWouldTDDo

The problem with this "logic" is that a lot of this kids grow up to be career criminals. Look at some of our recent cop killers. They all had records going back to their late teens. How many countless murders could've been prevented by locking these kids up for long periods of time? I'd rather err on the side of caution.

Posted 09:05 AM, 11/14/2009

zen

for murder - life imprisonment. that's it. for rape - 20 years

Posted 10:20 AM, 11/14/2009

ackridgek

I see all those commenting on this topic, have priviledge on their side...none of you will ever understand...you would have to be born "other" to have a clue.

Posted 10:21 PM, 11/15/2009

turkytom

@ackridgek, that's a lame cop out that's either ignorant, or arrogant. Did EVERYONE ELSE from your neighborhood and race become a criminal? It does not necessarily mean you must turn to crime if you are born poor. And this is typically not a "second chance", it's a third chance. Their first was an education. Did they avail themselves of a High School Diploma? or did they drop out like one out of every other urban youth? If so, don't blame the schools, the degree itself is almost too easy to get, you just have to show up. And if they had a DESIRE for education, even the worst schools give you the opportunity to get one if you seek it out. Without this most basic of a "leg up" from poverty to "privilege", what other chance do you expect? If even this basic step is ignored, how many more must we offer?

Posted 03:09 PM, 11/18/2009

ackridgek

@turkytom...you totally proved my point with that ignorant rant. When I said "priviledged" those in the know...knew what I meant (white priviledge)in case you still didn't know. If you're born other, you will have many strikes against you for no other reason. We have a Black president and all hell has broken loose...some fools actually believed it was going to make a difference.