There are different cases when the court waives the protections provided by a juvenile court, and many reasons can justify it. For example, it occurs when an offense is severe or an offender commits crimes repeatedly. It also happens when past efforts for rehabilitation for the juvenile are unsuccessful. In the given case, it seems pretty challenging to transfer the defendant to the adult court due to the number of mental challenges. However, he has committed a serious crime by stabbing a person with a knife. In this post, evidence from peer-reviewed articles and case briefs prove that the person should be transferred from the juvenile court to the adult one.
Among the mental disorders that the defender has been experiencing, there are several autism-spectrum disorders, such as Asperger’s syndrome and general anxiety with symptoms that are similar to obsessive-compulsive disorder. In addition, the defendant is suffering from an oppositional defiant disorder, cerebral dysfunction, and inability to regulate his mood correctly. Attention hyperactivity disorder is also included in the list of the defendant’s mental challenges. Thus, it can create obstacles while transferring him from the juvenile court.
Despite the mental challenges that the defender faces, it should be noted that autism-spectrum disorders are quite different. For example, a person with the diagnosis of Asperger’s syndrome can experience one group of symptoms, while another patient can have other signs. As noted by Mirkovic & Gérardin (2019), this syndrome is part of the family of autism spectrum disorders, so its clinical presentations are heterogeneous. It means that some patients can experience stereotypies and limited interests, while others may display difficulties in social interactions. It should be noted that in many cases, Asperger’s syndrome almost does not present a problem for cognitive abilities. Thus, the detailed list of symptoms of the defendant should be taken into consideration. As Berryessa (2019) reports, most people with autistic-spectrum disorders are law-abiding citizens who are not likely to commit a criminal act, which is considered by multiple researchers. Thus, it can be assumed that the defendant does not have such grave mental challenges that made him unconscious of his actions.
The fact that the defendant was actually comprehending what he was doing while stabbing the person with a knife had been witnessed by another person. Although Berryessa (2019) notes that many people with autism-spectrum disorders may not be aware of the harm that they cause, the defendant seems to be mindful of this. For example, he stated: “I blank sometimes, but I’m not psychotic.” This phrase allows for assuming that the defendant partially denies his mental disability that could become a ground for keeping him into the jurisdiction of a juvenile court. He accepted his fault, assuming that it was him who stabbed the victim, and asked: “Don’t let him die.” Thus, the defendant understands that he has committed a crime and that his actions have led to severe harm to another person’s health.
In addition to that, the defendant seems to be entirely cognitive while bringing the weapon with him. He did this in order to protect himself from some attack. Thus, despite the number of mental challenges, he was analyzing his actions quite clearly. Before the crime, he has intently entered the bathroom together with the victim. As Dr. Alison puts it, the defendant had the substantial capacity to understand that his actions were wrong at the moment of committing the crime.
From the legal point of view, the transfer from the juvenile court to an adult one is a common practice for a number of states. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (n.d.), some forms of such transfer include judicially controlled transfer and statutory exclusion. Prosecutorial direction transfer and the transfer according to the principle “once an adult, always an adult” can also be an option for some states. As illustrated by the National Conference of State Legislatures (n.d.), a judicially controlled transfer is accepted in such states as Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, Texas, and others. According to this kind of transfer, all cases that begin in juvenile court are transferred into adult court regardless of the obstacles.
Statutory exclusion takes some cases from the juvenile court depending on the seriousness of the crime. For example, the instances where the crime was committed in a violent or aggressive manner are subject to the transfer to an adult court. According to the “once an adult, always an adult” principle, if a juvenile has previously committed a serious crime and was criminally prosecuted, they are transferred to an adult court. It is made regardless of the seriousness of the subsequent crimes. According to prosecutorial discretion transfer, prosecutors can choose whether to send the juvenile to the adult or juvenile court. As long as the defendant has been purposely carrying the knife with him without any threat for his life, it can be assumed that it was an aggressive and premeditated murder. The juvenile’s record and sophistication are also taken into consideration. In addition, the manner of the crime is considered since alleged offenses to a person or property are subject to transfer.
Now, it is reasonable to find specific examples from scientific literature and court decisions that can justify transferring the individual to an adult court. The decision in State v. Aalim (2017) reveals that the Supreme Court did not find any violation of a juvenile’s rights when Aalim was transferred to an adult court. Knowlden (2018) also comments on this case and stipulates that such an approach is justified when a juvenile offender is at least 16 years old and “there is a probable cause to believe that they committed the act charged” (p. 252). Jordan (2017) also admits that waiver to criminal courts is necessary because of the “once an adult, always an adult” principle. Finally, the decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016) reveals that teenagers should not be heard in adult courts when a life-without-parole sentence is imposed. Thus, the offender under analysis should be charged as an adult because the case does not imply this harsh sentence.
In conclusion, sufficient evidence demonstrates that the teen should be transferred from the juvenile court to the adult one for stabbing his peer with a knife. On the one hand, it is challenging to prove that his numerous medical conditions resulted in the fact that the offender was not aware of his actions and possible consequences. On the other hand, the current theoretical data and recent court cases reveal that the strategy of trying adolescents in adult courts is in line with the “once an adult, always an adult” principle. If a life-without-parole sentence is not imposed, a waiver to an adult court is a reasonable and acceptable approach.
References
Berryessa, C. (2019). Judiciary views on criminal behavior and intention of offenders with high-functioning autism.Journal of Intellectual Disabilities and Offending Behavior, 5(2): 97-106.
Jordan, K. L. (2017). Waiver to criminal court (also transfer or certification). The Encyclopedia of Juvenile Delinquency and Justice, 1-4.
Knowlden, J. (2018). State of Ohio v. Aalim: Due process and mandatory transfer of juveniles to adult court. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 87(1), 251-278.
Mirkovic, B., & GĂ©rardin, P. (2019). Asperger’s syndrome: What to consider?L’Encephale, 45(2), 169-174.
Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016). 136 S. Ct. 718, 734.
National Conference of State Legislatures (n.d.). Juvenile age of jurisdiction and transfer to adult court laws.
State v. Aalim. (2017). Ohio-2956, 150 Ohio St. 3d 489, 83 N.E.3d 883.