Should We Treat Juvenile Defendants as Adult Criminals?

Two cases from Virginia raise troubling questions.

Before long Richmond, Virginia, will watch two highly charged criminal trials that should make everyone think hard about how we treat juveniles.

The first involves Del. Joe Morrissey, who is accused of having sex with a 17-year-old girl who worked in his office. Morrissey, who is 57, denies the charges. He says he was set up—that someone hacked into his phone and planted incriminating text messages and the topless pic he allegedly shared with a third party.

Even if he beats the charges, “Fightin’ Joe”—as he likes to call himself—will never become the sort of role model parents will point to and ask, “Why can’t you be more like him?” His history of fistfights, ethical imbroglios, indictments, disbarment, and serial unwed fatherhood will make sure of that.

The Morrissey case is scandalous. The second case is tragic. It concerns the death of 8-year-old Martin Cobb, the brave and quiet little boy who died defending his 12-year-old sister from an attacker back in May.

Martin’s killing shocked and moved the community, which held a vigil for him. A local Crime Solvers chapter called him Richmond’s “greatest superhero.” Majority Leader Eric Cantor took to the House floor to memorialize Martin as “a fighter against all odds” who “showed he was a bigger man than most men ever dream to be.” It is hard to look at the charming photos of Martin and not want the person who killed him to rot in prison until the sun burns out.

Last week, a grand jury indicted Mairese Jershon Washington on a second-degree murder charge in Martin Cobb’s death. It also indicted him on charges of malicious wounding and strangulation in the attack on Cobb’s sister.

And here is where things get messy. Washington will be tried as an adult, even though he is only 16—a year younger than the young woman in the Morrissey case. So beyond all the carnality, the notoriety, the tragedy and the raw emotions, the two cases raise a serious question about public policy—in Virginia and across the country.

The rationale for prosecuting Morrissey is fairly straightforward: Minors are not intellectually, emotionally or morally mature enough to possess the sort of agency we ascribe to adults. In short, they are not entirely responsible for their own actions. So when a 17-year-old has sex with a much older person, the older person is taking advantage, and the younger person is a victim. Period, full stop. The same sort of reasoning supports laws (including Virginia’s) that require parental consent for medical treatment, including abortion.

Yet at the same time, Virginia allows children as young as 14 to be tried as adults. To permit that, courts must take numerous factors into consideration: the seriousness of the offense, the child’s education, his or her disciplinary history, and—significantly—his or her mental, emotional, and physical maturity.

Virginia has lots of company. Texas sets the age of sexual consent at 17, and requires parental consent for an abortion—but allows children as young as 14 to be tried as adults. In Mississippi, children as young as 13 can be tried as adults, but cannot have an abortion without parental consent until 18. In Kansas, the age of sexual consent is 16, but the age at which a child can be tried as an adult is 10.

Most states also have hard, bright lines about tattoos and body piercings. Depending on the state and the person’s age, a minor either cannot get a tattoo or piercing at all (except for ear piercing), or can’t get one without written (and sometimes notarized) parental consent.

The upshot is that, in many parts of the country, a boy or girl who has sex at 16—or who tries to get a tattoo or a nose ring—is treated as a defenseless child. But if the same individual shoots a gas-station owner during a robbery, he or she can be treated as a fully culpable adult. It’s hard to see how those two conflicting perspectives can be reconciled.

This isn’t an argument for letting Morrissey skate. If he did what he’s accused of, then it’s fair to say he deserves a long stretch in a cold cell. But if you accept the reasoning for that conclusion, then you also have to ask: Does Washington belong in there with him?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Xeones||

    No state has yet implemented a statutory minimum age for getting shot/blown up by a cop, though!

  • Almanian!||

    in many parts of the country, a boy or girl who has sex at 16—or who tries to get a tattoo or a nose ring—is treated as a defenseless child. But if the same individual shoots a gas-station owner during a robbery...

    DUH! Because secks is MY BODY MY PRIVACY MY BABY GET OUTTA MY UTERUSPENIS BED!11! But guns are icky and kill people and anyone who touches on is teh evul.

    Again. DUH! A. Barton.

    PS A. Barton Hinkleheimerschmidt
    His name is my name, too!
    Whenever we go out, people always shout,
    "There goes A. Barton Hinkleheimerschmidt!"

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Gosh, why does everything have to be about abortion?

    Anyway, the juvenile justice system does, indeed, mete out lower punishments than the regular system. OTOH, if you're prosecuted as a juvenile, you're denied a jury trial, based on the FYTW exception to the constitution.

  • Robert||

    Because abortion's an interesting subject.

  • thom||

    When I was a teenager I came to the sudden realization that teenagers are always considered adults when it is convenient to those in power, and always considered children when convenient to those same people. So I had to pay taxes like an adult, and if I did anything wrong they would punish me like an adult, but I still couldn't buy a pack of cigarettes or stay out past the 11PM municipal curfew. That was 20 years ago and I doubt much has changed.

  • MegaloMonocle||

    Its not just teenagers, thom.

  • Obama's Buttplug||

    in many parts of the country, a boy or girl who has sex at 16 is treated as a defenseless child. But if the same individual shoots a gas-station owner during a robbery, he or she can be treated as a fully culpable adult.

    Sex is a victimless crime. Shooting a gas-station owner while committing a felony? Not so much.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Sex SHOULD be a victimless act. It isn't always, or even nearly often enough.

  • SugarFree||

    My solution has always been that the age of majority in a state is always set to the age of the youngest person charged as a adult.

    Rights come with responsibilities, responsibilities come with rights.

  • Antilles||

    It's always seemed odd to me that the only way a minor can get treated like an adult is to commit a horrific crime (no amount of good behavior can accomplish this). Personally, I think everyone should be considered an adult (with all the same rights and responsibilities) at age 14.

  • BambiB||

    "The law is a ass" (Dickens).

    You expected something else from the "Just us" system? You can be tried as an adult at 10, you can be drafted at 18, handed a machine-gun and be told, "Go kill those bad, bad people", but you can't own a handgun until you're 21?

    You can slaughter innocent people as part of America's global war to enrich the military-industrial complex at age 18 - but you can't buy a beer?

    Even more twisted - If you're under 18, sending nude pictures of yourself to your boy/girl friend is "kiddie porn" and YOU and your boy/girlfriend face serious federal charges (like a year per picture plus a $250,000 fine - per pic.) But it's legal to have sex. That's right - you can have SEX with each other, but the "Just us" system says you're a criminal if you shoot nude photos of each other.

    Then there are paternity laws. Kalifornia is so twisted, that a man who has not seen his estranged wife in the 11 months prior to their divorce is IRREBUTABLY presumed to be the father of the baby she has three months after the divorce is final because the baby was conceived "during the marriage". It matters not that the father is white, the mother is white and the baby is black. (Actual case.)

    Our laws are byzantine beyond any shred of logic. This article is just the flagpole on the tip of the iceberg of governmental, legislative and legal absurdity in Amerika.

  • Laird||

    The age of majority (18, 21, whatever) is a purely arbitrary number, which varies from culture to culture and from time to time. I have no problem with using a different number for different purposes.

  • kuf||

    I don't know about the legal aspects, but does trying someone as an adult confer legal rights of an adult outside the scope of the trial? If not, then is trying someone as an adult essentially saying "we want to make sure that you're not given any leniency they may give in juvenile courts"? If so, there are no additional rights given, just potential benefits not given. The defendant is then not actually an adult now, just not given benefits given to other juveniles.


Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.