Since Homicide Watch first started reporting homicides in DC, six defendants have been under the age of 18 at the time of their arrest. Only one has been tried as a juvenile. Now, a Cambridge University professor says that not only should the other five be kept out of the adult criminal justice system, anyone under age 30 shouldn’t be tried, or sentenced, as adults, either.
At the National Institute of Justice’s annual convention today Professor David Farrington suggested that youthful offenders, up to age 25, did not belong in the U.S.’s general population for criminal justice services.
Citing a study funded by NIJ in 2008, the results of which are expected to be published soon, Farrington said he and his colleagues had determined that because young people’s brains aren’t fully developed until they reach young adulthood they don’t have full control over their impulses and thus are more likely than adults to break the law, act out and engage in delinquency. Young people exhibiting those behaviors are likely to benefit from treatment outside of the adult criminal justice population, Farrington said.
Brain development should be of particular concern to those working with delinquents and crime-prone populations because stress factors, including living in high crime area, can delay a person’s brain development even more, Farrington said.
His recommendation? Different treatment and punishment for offenders aged 29 and under.
Homicide Watch is currently tracking the cases of 49 DC murder defendants arrested since October 2010.
Of those defendants:
- 34 are 29 years old or younger
- 16 are age 21 or younger
- 6 are age 18 or younger
- Only one defendant of the 49 has been tried as a juvenile.
Where do these young people belong? In the adult criminal justice system? The juvenile system? Or somewhere else entirely?
