This WWW site is developed and revised by Shane R. Jimerson, Ph.D. at
the University of California, Santa Barbara.
The authors of each of the topics are graduate students enrolled in
the Adolescent Development seminar at UCSB.
Each year, we will continue to post additional papers addressing current
issues in adolescent development.
If you have questions or comments please e-mail Dr. Jimerson at Jimerson@education.ucsb.edu
When Should Adolescent Offenders Be Tried As Adults?
Cheryl S. Meyers & Angela D. Whipple
University of California, Santa Barbara
"Should adolescents be tried as adults?" is a question that may be considered moot in the United States (U.S.) today as several states currently try adolescents as adults when serious crimes have been committed. Perhaps a more thought-provoking question is, "At what age should adolescents be tried as adults?" At the present, there are two opposing views that are held within the U.S. legal system. The "adolescent-as-child" view perceives adolescents as substantially different from adults and holds that fundamental rights and general legal standards do not fully apply until adulthood. Alternatively, the "adolescent-as-adult" viewpoint conceives of the adolescent as similar to an adult, where adult rights and standards are strictly applied. In order to answer the proposed question, it is necessary to examine the historical-legal perspective, theoretical moral development, and current research.
Prior to the nineteenth century, Western culture did not clearly differentiate
between children, adolescents, and adults. Youth were often thought
of as miniature adults and were treated with harsh discipline. During
the nineteenth century, reformers promoted a new view of children and adolescents,
where they were then perceived as malleable creatures who could be shaped
into God-fearing adults (Jost, 1993).
Around the turn of the century the nation's first separate court
for youth under the age of sixteen was established in Chicago, Illinois.
Prior to this, children were tried in the adult courts, given similar sentences,
and often served prison time in the same facilities as adults. By
1925 juvenile courts existed in all but two states (Jost, 1993).
During the 1960's the juvenile courts came under criticism for failing to both protect the rights of children and to rehabilitate them. In the 1970's and 1980's two differing philosophies battled for dominance in the courts. The first was a de-emphasis on punishment, while simultaneously focusing on rehabilitation. The second philosophy underscored punishment, with the credo, "you do the crime, you do the time" (Jost, 1993).
In 1978, New York state mandated that all 13-year-olds charged with murder and all 14- and 15-year-olds accused of felonies were to be tried in adult criminal courts. By the late 1980's, violent juvenile crime began to escalate dramatically, especially crimes involving guns and drugs. By 1994 juvenile crime had climbed to the top of the nation's worries. Today, more states are strengthening their gun laws, particularly when possession involves a minor (Jost, 1993). In California, a 14-year-old minor could be found unfit for trial as a juvenile by the juvenile court judge and would subsequently be tried as an adult. Current law imposes a presumption of unfitness for trial as a juvenile for most serious crimes including murder, particularly where the adolescent has direct culpability. Therefore, California law has viewed the age of 14 as the turning point toward perceiving the "adolescent-as-adult."
Turning to a theoretical examination of moral development and reasoning, two main thematic categories emerge: social and cognitive. Freud, a social theorist, proposed a psychoanalytic theory where children form a conscience or superego through identification with the same sex parent (Cole & Cole, 1996). A child would behave morally in order to avoid guilt and criticism from the internalized superego. The conscience was considered developed by age 6, with reinforcement during middle childhood. Erickson, another social theorist, modified Freudian theory by extending the idea that moral development continued into adulthood (Berk, 1994). The superego was viewed more positively with behavior motivated by ideals versus sanctions. In contrast, Bandura's social learning theory (1991) outlines moral development as a consequence of modeling, where children observe and imitate the moral behavior of the adults in their world. The model's characteristics are important as children tend to imitate those who are perceived to be caring, competent, and consistent. Damon constructed a theory whereby morality emerged from social experiences with parents and peers (Cole & Cole, 1996). Changes in reasoning after the age of eight reflect a child's increasing sophistication at logically examining a situation, while also taking into account empathy and emotional feeling in their evaluations as well.
Piaget developed a two-stage concept of cognitive moral
reasoning, where mental structures called schemas are adapted and
updated over time (Berk, 1994; Santrock, 1998). This theory holds
that young children perceive rules as unchangeable and requiring obedience.
Around age eleven, the cognitive capacity is acquired for critical thinking
and reasoning, and children then move to the second moral stage where rules
are viewed as changeable and socially agreed upon (Berk, 1994). Kohlberg
(1983) adapted Piagetian theory and outlined six sequential stages of thinking
that motivate moral behavior. The stages range from a concern for
punishment and obedience to a belief in humanitarianism. Gilligan
(1982) modified Kohlberg's stages due to observed gender differences.
Females tend to hold a care orientation while males utilize a justice orientation
toward moral dilemmas. Both orientations or stages should be considered
equal rather than sequential (Gilligan, 1982).
Moving from theory to current research: there are several indications
that early adolescence is an important definitional stage during which
a value system and behavior code are shaped (Levy, 1988). Weithorn and
Campbell (1982) found that 14-year-olds were as competent as 18- and 21-year-olds
when presented with moral dilemmas. Diver-Stamnes and Thomas (1995)
found no age-related differences in moral reasoning among 9-, 14-, 17-,
and 21-year-olds. Astor (1994) studied 8-, 10-, and 12-year-olds
from two inner city schools, identifying violent and nonviolent behavior
groups and found no significant differences in the moral judgments between
the three age groups. Cohn (1991) studied 7th through 12th grade
students and found significant gender differences in ego development, which
is associated with empathy, aggression, and moral development. The
girls tended to display more ego development at each grade, with the gap
beginning to close by the end of high school. Lower ego development
of boys may help to explain the disproportionately large percentage of
serious crimes committed by male juveniles (Berk, 1994; Cohn, 1991).
Several themes emerge when evaluating the three levels of information
presented. First, the judicial and legal system is continuing to
move toward trying teens as adults in court for serious crimes such as
rape and murder (Jost, 1993). While the lower bound age limit varies
from state to state, national legislation has been proposed that would
set the minimum age of 14 for juveniles to stand trial as an adult.
Second, the various social and cognitive theorists of moral development
and reasoning are not consistent in establishing an age for which moral
reasoning is considered mature or adult-like. The lower bound age
range found in the theories presented herein are from ages six to eleven
(Berk, 1994; Cole & Cole, 1996). In any case, with development
an increasing ability to reason about hypothetical moral dilemmas should
lead to a stronger consistency between measures of behavior and judgment
(Flavell & Markham, 1983).
Third, current research indicates that children as young as nine can reason similarly to an adult aged 18 or 21. It appears that adolescents, at least by age 14, are comparable to adults in their ability to understand and consider options, weigh pros and cons, make purposeful choices, and defend those choices (Weithorn & Campbell, 1982). Therefore, a lower bound age of fourteen appears to be reasonable for trial as an adult when serious crimes have been committed.
And finally, it is time to studiously examine why teenagers are
committing serious crimes. Astor (1994) noted that several theories
assume that the approval of violence is related to deficits in moral reasoning.
Many times, it is assumed that when children approve of violence they are
either not using moral thinking, they lack cognitive social skills to assess
what behaviors are acceptable, or they act based on irrational or nonrational
impulses. Astor (1994) found that violent children assign similar
weight to both "physical harm" and "psychological harm" and may perceive
"hitting back" as an act of reciprocity, giving greater weight to their
own sense of justice. These perceptions have been present in several
of the recent school shootings throughout the nation (Los Angeles Times,
5/22/98). In the end, further research is needed to examine the roots
of moral development as well as to firmly establish an age range for higher
order moral reasoning.
References
Astor, R. (1994). Children's moral reasoning about family
and peer violence: The role of provocation and retribution. Child
Development, 65, 1054-1067.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of moral thought
and action. In W. Kurtines & J. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral
behavior and development (Vol. 1, pp. 45-103). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Berk, L. (1994). Child Development (3rd Edition).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Cohn, L. (1991). Sex differences in the course of personality
development: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 252-266.
Cole, M., & Cole, S. (1996). The development of children
(3rd Edition). New York: W.H. Freeman & Co.
Diver-Stamnes, A., & Thomas, R. (1995). Prevent, repent,
reform, revenge: A study in adolescent moral development. Westport,
CT: Greenwood Press.
Flavell, J., & Markham, E. (1983). Cognitive development:
Handbook of child psychology (4th Edition). New York: Wiley.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Jost. (1993). Children's legal rights. CQ Researcher,
339, 121-125.
Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The
cognitive-developmental approach. In J. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development
behavior: Theory, research, and social issues. New York: Holt, Reinhart,
and Winston.
Kohlberg, L., Levine, C., & Hewer, A. (1983). Moral
stages: A current formulation and a response to critics. Basel: Karger.
Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development:
The nature and validity of moral stages (Vol. 2). New York: Harper
& Row.
Levy, T. (1988). Making a difference in the middle.
Social Education, 52, 104-106.
Santrock, J. (1998). Adolescence (7th Edition).
Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Thirteen school deaths since October. Anne-Marie O'Connor.
Los Angeles Times, 5/22/98.
Weithorn, L., & Campbell, S. (1982). The competency
of children and adolescents to make informed treatment decisions.
Child Development, 53, 1589-98.
Appendix 1
Webpages
Adolescent Directory On-Line
http://education.indiana.edu/cas/adol/adol.html
* Award-winning site from Indiana University, includes information
about conflict and violence, mental health issues, teacher resources, other
links
The Character Education Pages
http://www.neiu.edu/~ccunning/chared/welcome.htm
* organized by Dr. Cunningham at Northwestern Illinois University,
includes a general introduction to character education, classroom strategies,
Internet links
Ethics
http://ethics.acusd.edu
* edited by Dr. Hinman at the University of San Diego, takes a philosophical
perspective toward ethics and morality, very comprehensive and includes
a search engine, relevant links
Measurements of Morality
http://www.ematusov.com/final.paper.pub/_pwfsfp/00000008.htm
* a paper that discusses limitations in current methodologies used
to explain and measure moral development
Studies in Moral Development & Education Home Page
http://www.uic.edu/~Inucci/MoralEd/
* organized by Dr. Nucci at the University of Illinois at Chicago,
includes recent articles, classroom applications, book listings, Internet
resources and a listserve