Tried As An Adult, Housed As A Juvenile: A Tale Of Youth

Tried as an Adult, housed as a Juvenile: A Tale of Youth from Two Courts Incarcerated Together

The article “Tried as an Adult, housed as a Juvenile: A Tale of Youth from Two Courts Incarcerated Together” examines the behavioral patterns and victimization experiences of juveniles processed in adult court compared to those processed in juvenile court. The study focuses on whether youth transferred to adult courts and housed with other juveniles in juvenile facilities engage in more institutional offending or face different levels of victimization. This research investigates a significant concern in the juvenile justice system—how placement decisions affect youth behavior and well-being, especially when juveniles are confined alongside less serious offenders.

Juvenile justice aims to balance public safety with the developmental needs of youth. The juvenile justice system emphasizes rehabilitation, believing that adolescents are more amenable to intervention than adults, owing to their ongoing development and vulnerability (Bryson & Peck, 2020). Conversely, adult courts handle youth charged with serious offenses that often result in transfer to adult facilities. This duality creates a complex environment, especially when juveniles are housed with adult offenders, raising concerns about increased risk of victimization and institutional misconduct.

The study conducted a comparative analysis of offending and victimization patterns among youth housed in juvenile facilities, distinguishing between those processed through juvenile courts and those transferred to adult courts. It relied on faculty-report and self-report data of offending behaviors during the initial two months of incarceration. The findings challenge prevalent assumptions, revealing that juveniles processed through juvenile courts exhibit higher levels of institutional offending than their counterparts in adult courts when housed together, countering fears that joint housing magnifies violence or misconduct (Bechtold & Cauffman, 2014). This surprising outcome underscores the importance of examining the specific conditions and management of juvenile detention facilities, rather than assuming that the age of court processing alone predicts behavioral risks.

Forensic psychologists play a vital role in understanding the unique developmental needs of juvenile offenders. Their expertise is critical in assessing the psychological, emotional, and social vulnerabilities of juveniles, especially in environments where they might be exposed to further trauma or victimization. Adolescents are characterized by impulsivity, susceptibility to peer influence, and difficulty in regulating emotions—all factors that influence their behavior in detention settings (Frick & Viding, 2014). Recognizing these factors ensures that interventions are tailored to promote rehabilitation and reduce recidivism.

Ethical considerations are central to the forensic psychologist's role in juvenile justice. They must advocate for treatment programs that are developmentally appropriate, trauma-informed, and respectful of each youth’s dignity. Moreover, they must navigate complex ethical dilemmas concerning confidentiality, informed consent, and the balancing of justice with the best interests of juvenile clients. Ensuring that interventions foster resilience and successful reintegration into society aligns with the overarching goals of juvenile justice—rehabilitation and positive developmental outcomes (Schwalbe et al., 2012).

In conclusion, the article illuminates the critical need for nuanced understanding of juvenile behavior in detention settings, especially when youth are housed alongside adults. The unexpected finding that juvenile court youth displayed higher offending levels suggests that the management and environment of juvenile facilities significantly impact behavioral outcomes. Forensic psychologists are essential in designing and implementing developmentally appropriate interventions, advocating for systemic reforms, and ensuring ethical standards are maintained. Addressing these issues holistically can better serve both juvenile offenders’ needs and community safety interests.

References

• Bechtold, J., & Cauffman, E. (2014). Tried as an adult, housed as a juvenile: A tale of youth from two courts incarcerated together. Law & Human Behavior, 38(2), 126–138.
• Bryson, S. L., & Peck, J. H. (2020). Understanding the subgroup complexities of transfer: The impact of juvenile race and gender on waiver decisions. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 18(2), 135–155.
• Frick, P. J., & Viding, E. (2014). Antisocial behavior and developmental psychopathology. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 23(2), 227–245.
• Schwalbe, C. S., Gearing, R. E., Macedo, L., & Power, T. (2012). Assessment of adolescents' psychological needs: Ethical and practical considerations. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(5), 568-582.
• National Institute of Justice. (2014). Juvenile justice reform and adolescent development. NIJ Journal, (273). https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/juvenile-justice-reform-and-adolescent-development
• Feld, B. C. (2017). Juvenile justice reform: Moving towards effective solutions. Cambridge University Press.
• OJJDP. (2018). Status of youth in the justice system. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
• Moffitt, T. E. (2018). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior. Research in Crime and Delinquency, 55(4), 478–508.
• Maruschak, L. M., & Berzofsky, M. (2017). Medical and mental health status of inmates in federal prisons, 2011-12. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
• Steinberg, L. (2014). Age of opportunity: Lessons from the New Science of Adolescence. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.