Teens Behind Bars

Noah Schultz’s life was spinning out of control. At 17, he was already involved with drugs and gangs in his Portland, Oregon, neighborhood. When someone cheated him in a drug deal, Schultz decided to get revenge. He tracked the man down, then beat him with a pistol, causing severe bruising to his face. 

That night in 2009 would mark the end of Schultz’s freedom for more than seven years. Within 24 hours he was arrested, charged with assault as an adult, and held on $500,000 bail. He was transferred among several adult jails as he awaited trial.  

“I couldn’t believe what happened so quickly,” Schultz recalls. “I’m sitting in this jail with a bunch of grown men thinking: How did I get here?” 

Schultz was housed in adult jails after his arrest because Oregon is one of 27 states where prosecutors can choose to charge 16- and 17-year-old offenders as adults. (Prosecutors in another six states must do so.) If found guilty, the teens are then sentenced as adults and sent to adult jails.

Noah Schultz’s life was spinning out of control. At 17, he was already involved with drugs and gangs in Portland, Oregon, where he lived. When someone cheated him in a drug deal, Schultz decided to get revenge. He tracked the man down. Schultz then beat him with a pistol. That beating caused severe bruising to the man’s face.

That night in 2009 would mark the end of Schultz’s freedom for more than seven years. Within 24 hours he was arrested. Schultz was charged with assault as an adult and held on $500,000 bail. He was transferred among several adult jails as he awaited trial.

“I couldn’t believe what happened so quickly,” Schultz recalls. “I’m sitting in this jail with a bunch of grown men thinking: How did I get here?”

Schultz was housed in adult jails after his arrest. Oregon is one of 27 states where prosecutors can choose to charge 16- and 17-year-old offenders as adults. (Prosecutors in another six states must do so.) If found guilty, the teens are then sentenced as adults and sent to adult jails.

But recently, some states have begun to make it harder to charge juveniles—people under the age of 18—as adults. Instead, they’re focusing on rehabilitating young offenders. New scientific research and several Supreme Court rulings involving teens and crime have prompted these states to reverse policies that led to harsher penalties for young people who commit serious crimes.

“Legislators have finally started to realize that treating juveniles just like adults does more harm than good,” says David DeMatteo, a law professor at Drexel University in Philadelphia. 

However, some victims’ rights groups and lawmakers are pushing back. They say that the worst criminals deserve harsh punishments, no matter how old they are.

Juveniles are people under the age of 18. Some states have begun to make it harder to charge juveniles as adults. Instead, they are focusing on rehabilitating young offenders. New scientific research and several Supreme Court rulings that involve teens and crime have prompted these states to reverse policies that led to harsher penalties for young people who commit serious crimes.

“Legislators have finally started to realize that treating juveniles just like adults does more harm than good,” says David DeMatteo. He is a law professor at Drexel University in Philadelphia.

However, some victims’ rights groups and lawmakers are pushing back. They say that the worst criminals deserve harsh punishments. It does not matter how old they are.

The idea of treating juveniles differently in the justice system has a long history. In the early 1800s, special facilities to deal with juveniles were created in cities such as New York and Chicago. Those “reformatories” housed kids classified as “juvenile delinquents” (see “Key Dates: Juvenile Justice,” below).

The creation of the first juvenile court in 1899 in Illinois marked the beginning of the modern-day juvenile justice system. Most states created their own such courts in the decades that followed. These courts were staffed by judges and lawyers who often used methods such as probation, compensation to victims, and occasionally incarceration to try to rehabilitate young people who had gotten into trouble. 

This system remained largely unchanged for most of the 20th century. But in the 1980s, juvenile crime rates—especially for violent crimes—began to increase drastically, in part because of a nationwide epidemic of the drug crack cocaine.

The government’s response was to pass tougher laws in the early 1990s,  making it easier for prosecutors to seek stiff penalties against juveniles. 

“Once we got the harsh laws and sentencing guidelines, the system became about punishment and not rehabilitation,” says Christina Gilbert of the National Juvenile Defender Center, an organization dedicated to providing legal defense for juveniles.

The idea of treating juveniles differently in the justice system has a long history. In the early 1800s, special facilities to deal with juveniles were created in cities such as New York and Chicago. Those “reformatories” housed kids classified as “juvenile delinquents.” (See “Key Dates: Juvenile Justice,” below.)

The creation of the first juvenile court in 1899 in Illinois marked the beginning of the modern-day juvenile justice system. Most states created their own such courts in the decades that followed. These courts were staffed by judges and lawyers. They often used methods such as probation, compensation to victims, and sometimes incarceration to try to rehabilitate young people who had gotten into trouble.

This system remained largely unchanged for most of the 20th century. But in the 1980s, juvenile crime rates began to increase drastically, especially violent crimes. That was partly because of a nationwide epidemic of a drug called crack cocaine.

The government responded by passing tougher laws in the early 1990s. That made it easier for prosecutors to seek stiff penalties against juveniles.

“Once we got the harsh laws and sentencing guidelines, the system became about punishment and not rehabilitation,” says Christina Gilbert. She works for the National Juvenile Defender Center, an organization dedicated to providing legal defense for juveniles.

The shift toward punishment led to a rapidly growing juvenile prison population in the 1990s. By 2000, young offenders were regularly sent into adult systems. Adult prisons are generally less safe than juvenile facilities and also tend to offer fewer opportunities for rehabilitation.

In the new century, authorities began to rethink their approach. In several cases from 2005 to 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that both the death penalty and mandatory life sentences were unconstitutional for juvenile offenders. The high court cited the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishments.”

The rulings also took into account new scientific research, including findings that the areas of the brain that deal with impulsiveness, decision making, and consequences are often not fully developed until people are in their 20s. 

Studies have also shown that teens are more likely than adult offenders to respond to interventions and grow out of criminal behavior.

The shift toward punishment led to a fast-growing juvenile prison population in the 1990s. By 2000, young offenders were regularly sent into adult systems. Adult prisons are generally less safe than juvenile facilities. They also tend to offer fewer opportunities for rehabilitation.

In the new century, authorities began to rethink their approach. In several cases from 2005 to 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that both the death penalty and mandatory life sentences were unconstitutional for juvenile offenders. The high court referred to the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishments.”

The rulings also took into account new scientific research. That included findings that the areas of the brain that deal with impulsiveness, decision making, and consequences are often not fully developed until people are in their 20s.

Studies have also shown that teens are more likely than adult offenders to respond to interventions and grow out of criminal behavior.

Hernan Carvente says he was one of those teens who was saved by a second chance. He was two days shy of his 16th birthday when he shot a rival gang member in New York City in 2008. After the shooting, he says, “It hit me that . . . I had thrown my life away.”

Arrested and then sentenced to two to six years in prison for attempted murder, Carvente served his time in a juvenile facility because he was still 15 when the shooting occurred. Had he committed his crime just a few days later, after he had turned 16, he would have faced adult charges. 

While in custody, Carvente received counseling and other support. He also began a college program.

Carvente, who served four years for the shooting, knows he deserved to be punished for his crime. He’s also grateful for the opportunities given to him while he was behind bars. Now 25, Carvente has a college degree and is planning to go to graduate school.  

“If we put kids in situations where there’s mentors, where there’s love and support, they can turn their lives around,” he says. “I’m proof of that.” 

Recently, seven states—including Illinois, Louisiana, and New Hampshire—passed laws barring anyone under 17 from being automatically charged as an adult. In 2020, the minimum age for charging teens as adults in North Carolina will rise from 16 to 18. And last year, Vermont decided to raise its minimum age from 18 to 21. Many other states have also started to favor rehabilitation over long prison sentences for teens.

Hernan Carvente says he was one of those teens who was saved by a second chance. He was two days shy of his 16th birthday when he shot a rival gang member in New York City in 2008. After the shooting, he says, “It hit me that . . . I had thrown my life away.”

Carvente was arrested and then sentenced to two to six years in prison for attempted murder. He served his time in a juvenile facility. That was because he was still 15 when the shooting occurred. If he had committed his crime just a few days later, after he had turned 16, he would have faced adult charges.

While in custody, Carvente received counseling and other support. He also began a college program.

Carvente served four years for the shooting. He knows he deserved to be punished for his crime. He is also grateful for the chances given to him while he was behind bars. Now 25, Carvente has a college degree and is planning to go to graduate school.

“If we put kids in situations where there’s mentors, where there’s love and support, they can turn their lives around,” he says. “I’m proof of that.”

Recently, seven states—including Illinois, Louisiana, and New Hampshire—passed laws that bar anyone under 17 from being automatically charged as an adult. In 2020, the minimum age for charging teens as adults in North Carolina will rise from 16 to 18. And last year, Vermont decided to raise its minimum age from 18 to 21. Many other states have also started to favor rehabilitation over long prison sentences for teens.

Despite success stories like Carvente’s, some officials and victims’ rights groups say offenders like him should be punished more severely, not less.  

In 2016, Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, blocked legislation that would  have made it harder for states to jail juveniles in adult prisons.

“If this grand experiment in criminal leniency goes [wrong], how many lives will be ruined?” Cotton asked of that bill. “How many dead? How much of the anti-crime progress of the last generation will be wiped away for the next?” 

Cotton isn’t the only lawmaker who’s against changes. A measure to raise the age of criminal responsibility in Texas from 17 to 18 failed to pass last year. Legislation to improve education in Maryland’s juvenile system also failed.

Despite success stories like Carvente’s, some officials and victims’ rights groups say offenders like him should be punished more severely, not less.

Senator Tom Cotton is a Republican from Arkansas. In 2016, he blocked legislation that would have made it harder for states to jail juveniles in adult prisons.

“If this grand experiment in criminal leniency goes [wrong], how many lives will be ruined?” Cotton asked of that bill. “How many dead? How much of the anti-crime progress of the last generation will be wiped away for the next?”

Cotton is not the only lawmaker who is against changes. A measure to raise the age of criminal responsibility in Texas from 17 to 18 failed to pass last year. Legislation to improve education in Maryland’s juvenile system also failed.

Some criminal justice experts also warn against shifting away from punishing juvenile offenders. William G. Otis, a law professor at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., argues that harsher sentences—at both the juvenile and the adult level—are the best way to reduce crime.

As an example, Otis points to the case of Wendell Callahan. After being arrested in Ohio at the age of 17, Callahan was sentenced to a long prison term for a drug conviction. But he gained early release after more than a decade in prison. Less than two years later, Callahan murdered his ex-girlfriend and her two young children. 

Otis says that the Callahan case is just one example of why tough punishments are often necessary. 

“When people are incarcerated, they aren’t out in the street ransacking your home or [killing people],” he says. 

But many states continue to head in the opposite direction, emphasizing treatment, education, and rehabilitation. 

Noah Schultz, the Oregon teen arrested for assault, benefited from that approach. His lawyer struck a deal with prosecutors that allowed Schultz to be moved out of an adult jail to a juvenile center. He served more than seven years, and earned two bachelor’s degrees, before his release in 2016. Schultz now works with at-risk kids. 

“It was a struggle,” he says. “But I was able to completely reinvent myself, and a lot of that is due to having the opportunity to grow while I was incarcerated.”

Some criminal justice experts also warn against shifting away from punishing juvenile offenders. William G. Otis is a law professor at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. He argues that harsher sentences, at both the juvenile and the adult levels, are the best way to reduce crime.

As an example, Otis points to the case of Wendell Callahan. After being arrested in Ohio at the age of 17, Callahan was sentenced to a long prison term for a drug conviction. But he gained early release after more than 10 years in prison. Less than two years later, Callahan murdered his ex-girlfriend and her two young children.

Otis says that the Callahan case is just one example of why tough punishments are often necessary.

“When people are incarcerated, they aren’t out in the street ransacking your home or [killing people],” he says.

But many states continue to head in the opposite direction. These states emphasize treatment, education, and rehabilitation.

Noah Schultz, the Oregon teen arrested for assault, benefited from that approach. His lawyer made a deal with prosecutors that allowed Schultz to be moved out of an adult jail to a juvenile center. He served more than seven years, and earned two bachelor’s degrees, before his release in 2016. Schultz now works with at-risk kids.

“It was a struggle,” he says. “But I was able to completely reinvent myself, and a lot of that is due to having the opportunity to grow while I was incarcerated.”