Should 11-Year-Olds Be Tried as Adults?

It's a sad state of affairs when we argue that an 11-year-old is beyond hope. But that's exactly what happened at a hearing in Pennsylvania on Friday, where prosecutors made the case that Jordan Brown -- who allegedly shot and killed his father's pregnant girlfriend when he was 11 -- should be tried as an adult, and potentially sentenced to life in prison.

A state-hired psychiatrist testified that Brown (left) would have a "very limited" chance of being rehabilitated through the juvenile justice system. A Pennsylvania judge will decide within the next few weeks whether Brown's case will remain in the adult system or be sent to juvenile court, where he would face incarceration through his 21st birthday.

Perhaps psychiatrist John O'Brien's thoughts on Brown's "amenability to rehabilitation" were influenced by the fact that we don't try too hard to rehabilitate prisoners in the U.S. anyway. Does the problem lie with Brown's character, or one with our system?

If Brown committed this terrible crime, he deserves some measure of punishment, but such a young child undoubtedly needs treatment -- and a second chance. When our addiction to incarceration ensnares the lives of preteens who committed heinous crimes they could not possibly have fully understood, it's gone too far.

The hearings on Brown's future come at a time when officials in the United Kingdom are debating that country's historically harsh treatment of juvenile offenders as well.

Last week, the British government rejected a proposal by the nation’s children’s minister to raise the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 12. While most young offenders are treated as juveniles in the U.K., this policy means 10-year-olds are eligible to be tried -- and treated -- as adults. (These policies vary state by state in the U.S., but Pennsylvania is one of only a few states with no minimum age for murder trials to be held in adult court.)

The issue has flared up in England after the arrest of a man formerly known as Jon Venables for an undisclosed crime. Venables and co-defendant Robert Thompson, both 10 years old at the time, caused a worldwide uproar when they were charged and convicted in 1993 of killing another 10-year-old boy. They were convicted in adult court and sentenced to custody until they reached age 18 -- and were released in 2001.

Author Brian Masters, who sat through the entire trial of Venables and Thompson, writes passionately in the Telegraph that the Venables arrested last week can't be the same person who committed the horrible crime in 1993, and society is making a mistake to seek ongoing vengeance. "To continue feeding indignation against a 10-year-old boy who glimpsed Hell, and who knew it, is at best unworthy, and at worst is itself a manifestation of wickedness," he writes.

Treating a 10-year-old as a criminal means they’re more likely to mature into a life of crime. When we make the mistake of seeking punishment for horrible crimes at all costs, we create system that perpetuates itself – and helps no one.

Children should be treated differently than adults, and juvenile justice systems can work. As Children’s Defense Fund President Marian Wright Edelman wrote in this space on Saturday, Missouri is leading the way on juvenile justice reform, focusing on treatment and services -- and seeing an enormous reduction in the recidivism rate as a result. In her strong, thoughtful post, Edelman deunks common myths about Missouri’s success and lays out a clear roadmap for juvenile justice improvement. The U.K. -- and Pennsylvania -- should be taking notes.

Photo Credit: Lawrence County, Pennsylvania