Should more juveniles be charged as adults?

Posted at 11:55 AM on March 13, 2008 by Bob Collins (22 Comments)

A Minnesota House committee approved "Emily's Law" this afternoon (HF699). Filed by Rep. Bud Nornes and Rep. Torrey Westrom, it's nicknamed after 2-year-old Emily Johnson of Fergus Falls, who died a day after she was sexually assaulted and then thrown against a wall by the 13-year-old son of the daycare provider.

Currently in Minnesota, persons as young as 14 can be charged as adults.

"Why is our daughter laying in the ground and this person is in a group home?" asked Lynn Johnson at the House Public Safety and Civil Justice Committee hearing this afternoon, shortly before the committee approved the bill on a 12-to-6 vote. She said the young man charged with manslaughter in the case, was just 19 days from his 14th birthday.

"In Kansas and Vermont, it's 10. In Missouri and Colorado, it's 12," said her husband, Travis, who rattled off a list of states with ages for being tried as an adult younger than Minnesota's requirement.

He disputed opponents of the bill, who said 13 year olds may not know the difference between right and wrong. "Why must the brain be fully developed before one is held accountable for his actions?" Travis Johnson said.

Doug Johnson, the Washington County Attorney, testified against the bill, saying if children were tried as adults, they could be released sooner than if they entered the juvenile justice system. He said the boy who assaulted the Johnson's toddler, "would be out of the system before he was 18" had he been tried as an adult.

"If you send a kid to prison as an adult, you're going to get nothing when he comes out other than a future criminal," he said.

Another opponent said juveniles in prison as adults are eight times more likely to be sexually assaulted as adults and are more likely to commit suicide.

A psychologist, Sue Foss, testified that until age 15, adolescents are "not able to pick up cues" that adults are, saying an adolescent is more likely to consider a crying child to be deliberately trying to annoy. "Thirteen year olds don't have the capacity of adults or modify their behavior to avoid future negative consequences," she said, adding that that doesn't mean they shouldn't be held accountable for their actions.

According to state public defender John Stuart, there are no 14 or 15 year olds currently in state prison.

Rep. Debra Hilstrom,DFL-Brooklyn Center, who served on a sexual offender task force, said "the goal for me at the end of the incarceration period is to make sure there isn't one more victim. Less than 25 percent of the people who are incarcerated as an adult get sex offender treatment even if they're ordered to by the court."

Hilstrom said she didn't get the information she needed to make sure that "these parents get what they're asking for."

---

Comments (22)

Children's brains are not fully developed until they are in their mid-20s, especially the part of the brain where mental activities like making decisions reside. (Which is why teenagers should not smoke, drink, or have unprotected sex: they have no idea what they're doing.)
Children, especially, are redeemable and should be given every chance (and help) to grow up and change their ways. Emotions and grief should not trump reality and real justice.

Posted by Ginny | March 13, 2008 3:01 PM

---

The bizarre quote from the victim's father (about why the brain must be fully developed to hold a child responsible for their actions) highlights a common problem in crime reporting. The parents of a homicide victim do not suddenly become experts on criminal behavior. They are distraught and they are angry and they are prone to saying irrational things. They should be comforted and allowed to mourn, but they are not in a position to make sound policy. Angry people rarely are.

The same is true of the families of accused criminals. The parents of a killer will always insist on their child's innocence. There is no news in quoting people in shock and mourning. The decent thing would be to leave them alone unless there is a compelling reason to quote them.

We have a juvenile justice system because children are not little adults. Thirteen year olds (nor fourteen year olds for that matter) do not think like rational adults. The severity of the crime does not change that. It is also coming to light that as many as half of all violent children suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome which impedes the brain's ability to feel empathy.

The solution is not to imprison child offenders nor is it to ignore their crimes and hope it doesn't happen again. Unfortunately, the real solution is complicated and expensive and doesn't make good sound bites.

Juvenile justice requires the adults to make the hard and unsatisfying decisions. Group home treatment for Emily's killer may seems like no justice, but sending a child to Stillwater for 40 years is no justice either.

Posted by Eryc Leaf | March 13, 2008 3:58 PM

---

Very well said, Eryc.

We don't ask victims of car accidents to redesign cars. Why? The desire to prevent their own pain would push them toward designing tanks that encase the driver in foam.

We can get testimony from victims of violent crime and their loved ones, but there is an all-too-human tendency for leaders to show sympathy through legislation.

I'm sure there are cases where this approach works, but I would guess, like Eryc said, that most of this testimony is not about the merits of a potential law, but rather about mourning and grief.

Unfortunately, it looks callous to be thoughtful and logical when a parent is crying about their murdered child. I don't envy the legislators' role in that scenario, but I do expect them to be able to formulate rational explanations for laws beyond placating a bereft citizen.

Posted by Brendon Etter | March 13, 2008 5:34 PM

---

I do not know what it is like being 13 and a boy in puberty, perhaps, but I am sure there is more behind this story than "a 13 year old sexually assulted a 2 year old little girl". I am not making excuses for the boy but trying to understand what happened. Who knows what was going on with him and his family life and upbringing. I am sure the child psychologist is/was looking into it. This child needs healing and direction and some consequences but not detention in a state facility with adult criminals who were mentally fully developed when they commited their crimes.

Posted by c | March 13, 2008 7:28 PM

---

The boy is in a group home and would be unaffected by this legislation. He's already been sentenced.

Posted by Bob Collins | March 13, 2008 8:24 PM

---

Trying kids as adults will do nothing to prevent future crime by juveniles. The problem isn't that kids aren't treated like adults, the problem is that these kids behave inappropriately in the first place. That is the problem that needs to be solved, rather than increasing the punishment for undesireable actions. I can't imagine that the 13yr old in question considered potential punishments for his actions before assaulting the toddler. If changing the law doesn't change the frequency or likelihood of such criminal behavior, what's the point?

Posted by bsimon | March 14, 2008 12:57 PM

---

i think that this young boy is responsible for his actions because he may not know that consequenses of his actions but he knows what he does is wrong at this age!!!!!

Posted by kwana | April 9, 2008 2:40 PM

---

Society seems to struggle with age limit in a sporadic, useless manner. So, let's see:

14 - old enough to be considered capable of understanding the consequences of their actions and then going to jail

16 - old enough to be considered capable of understanding the consequences of their actions and then having sex

18 - old enough to be considered capable of understanding the consequences of their actions and then doing just about anything

21 - old enough to be considered capable of understanding the consequences of their actions and then consuming alcohol.

How old is "old enough"? How can anyone possibly imagine a 14 year old is really capable of understanding what he's doing, and the real consequences of his actions .... but turn around and tell a 19 year old Army soldier that she can't drink a beer because she don't understand what she's doing??

We think a 15 year old is too *young* to realize the consequences of consentual sex, but *is* old enough to realizing the consequences of sexually assaulting someone? Either they get it or they don't. Society can't have it both ways.

Posted by GopherMPH | April 17, 2008 10:17 AM

---

nope dont think they should they should learn there lession with like house arrest or lock up bc thats wat i had to do and im only 15

Posted by nick | September 4, 2008 11:00 AM

---

I believe that they charge any teenager over the age of 18 as an adult they arent capable of living in prison and living under those harsh standards with all the big time peoplel. like the drug dealers and the big time killers. they arent that big of criminals....

Posted by Sheebie | October 29, 2008 1:55 PM

---

i think that young teens, do know wath they are doing! it's just that they are to imature to look beyond.. and see the consequences!.. teens do things before they actually think!
They ACT before they thinK!!!

Posted by BAnks | January 13, 2009 9:13 PM

---

This little boy is responsible for his actions....he knows what he was doing...theres no excuse for what he done...emily was just a baby...how could u not know that what you were doing was wrong...i mean come on now!!! she was just a baby for gods sake!!!! TO EMILYS PARENTS,IM VERY SORRY FOR YOUR LOSS OF YOUR BABY GIRL,I AM ON YOUR SIDE 100 PERCENT OF THE WAY....SHE WAS VERY BEAUTIFUL....

Posted by K | January 21, 2009 2:32 PM

---

Lower the age!!!! If you dont know right from wrong at age 13 you should not be allowed alone with anyone. That is a sick sick thing to do. Maybe the parents need to be investigated. Sick, it makes me SICK!!!

Posted by Jessica | February 12, 2009 1:09 AM

---

Im pretty sure the kid knew what he was doing, but morally he may have been influenced by who knows what factors in his life. Anyways when i was 13 i dont think i would have sexually assaulted a baby and threw her against a wall though. I mean common having good morals is just something we naturally have. but to have some kid at this age do something this serious, there must be something wrong with him though. i hope he gets what he needs help with but sometimes i just feel like kids are begging to use their age as an excuse to commit more and more serious crimes. But at the same time it is very true that they do not fully comprehend the fact that their consequences could severly effect their future, they know the consequences but not how it might affect them in the future. i just hope things will work out for the parents who lost their child. why the heck is a 13 year old kid watching a baby anyways, its the parents fault in the first place...

Posted by james | February 13, 2009 10:56 AM

---

10 and up the pre-teens know what they are doing, they might not realize the conciquences but they really know what they are doing, im 14 and i know whats right and wrong, its not that hard to justify weather you want to execpt that or not!

Posted by katie | March 5, 2009 8:44 AM

---

yes, that boy should be locked up.
100% sure.

Posted by kassee :] | March 17, 2009 1:02 PM

---

The problem is not that young teens dont understand the consequences of there actions. The problem is they dont really what good opportunities for life they waiting. They have only known were they live and leaving seems so distant to them. Therefor they figure there is nothing better in life so what if I get in trouble. So what if I go to jail. Once these kids hit close to eighteen, everything changes because now they have the right to leave. They have the right to change how they are living and make a better life for themselfs. Locking these young children up will just cause them to die in the system from suicide or when they do get out, there hearts will be cold and they will be unpreductive in society. Punishment is an MUST, but adult prison is way way too much. God Bless.

Posted by Chelsea Dewberry | March 27, 2009 9:28 AM

---

yall dumb as fuck if yall think that just because he was 15 he didnt know what he was doing. when i was fifteen i knew what the hell could get me put in jail i knew what was right from wrong hell my three year old niece know the difference from right and wrong. Let some body have done that to yall kids yall would want that littke boy dead right now. You dont do no stuff like that to any body let alone a two year old baby he need to be in jail for life.

Posted by ater | April 22, 2009 1:12 PM

---

kids know right from wrong. they don't understand the consequences of them. but I certainly love the fact that kids can reap the punishment of crimes as an adult and not reap the benefits of what "adults" have. You know smoke, drive, drink, sex, die for your country. NO wonder kids today are so messed up! There is'nt a set consequence for what is right or wrong in any state. I also love the fact that its always the parents to blame, when most kids are in the presence of the PUBLIC SCHOOL system for 8 hours, 5 times a week. Looks like they spend more time there!! Its really sad what happened to that BB girl! Its just gonna keep on gettn worse, sick but true!

Posted by rumor | May 7, 2009 1:23 PM

---

Anyone who believe´s that this 13yo didn´t know right from wrong, but he knew how to have sex and kill? All of you that believe this is just as guilty as this monster. WATCH THE NEWS HOW MANY CHILDREN ARE GOING MISSING FROM SEX OFFENDERS LEAVING A HALFWAY HOME. NOW EXPLAIN TO ME WHY YOU THINK THAT THEY (SEX OFFENDER) CAN BE CURED? YOU PEOPLE MAKE ME SICK. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE 46 MALES BUSTED IN A KIDDIE PORN RING THAT SUBJECTED CHILDREN TO RAPE AGING 1YO-12YO CAN YOU JUSTIFY THIS. I SAY CASTRATE THE SEX OFFENDER

Posted by Ann | June 11, 2009 12:50 AM

---

Yes, children should have to face the same law as adults. It is unfair to the victims and their loved ones. The law should serve the victims too.

Posted by Erick | October 10, 2009 9:09 PM

---

yes, i do belive children should be tried as adults to a certain extent. It's proven that many of the children who murder or sexually offend have physcological issues. Putting these children back out into the world after some therapy and a slap on the wrist won't fix this problem. It's more of an innitiative for them to commit a crinme again because they know they wil get little puishment for what they have done... Just keep in mind what you would want if emily was your child... would you want her murderer back out on the streets?

Posted by Ray | October 26, 2009 10:42 PM

---

Post a comment

The following HTML tags are allowed in your comments:
+ Bold: <b>Text</b>
+ Italic: <i>Text</i>
+ Link: <a href="http://url" target="_blank">Link</a>
Fields marked with * are required.

Name*:

E-mail Address*:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments*:

Comment Preview appears above this form upon pressing the "preview" button. Edit your comment and press "preview" again, until you are satisfied with your comment.

Your comment may not appear on the blog until several minutes after it was submitted.

• E-mail this page
• Print this page
• Save to Delicious
• Submit to Digg
• Share this

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories

Become a Sponsor