Home subscribe manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue

Opinion
Feb. 05, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: Is this a 'juvenile' crime?

Nevada's 'presumptive certification' law challenged

Nevada state law says juveniles 14 and older are presumed eligible for prosecution as adults if their alleged offense involved use of a deadly weapon.

Take the current Las Vegas cases involving William Molina and Marques Butler, both of whom were 17 at the time they were accused of robbery.

Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

Most Popular Stories
  • LETTERS: No school administrator left behind
  • LETTERS: Professor needs to get with the program
  • LETTERS: Washington loves rewarding failure
  • FROM OUR READERS: We can't do worse than country's current leadership
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Shall we save the economy ... or the government?
  • EDITORIAL: The governor's e-mail
  • EDITORIAL: Tuition hikes
  • LETTERS: Don't expect district to cut waste
  • EDITORIAL: Sending the right message
  • EDITORIAL: 'A cautionary tale'



    • Molina, who professes his innocence, is charged with the 2006 armed robbery of a Las Vegas taco shop. Butler is charged with several crimes arising from the armed robbery of two men in a local park in 2006.

    Both young men are represented by Las Vegas attorney Kristina Wildeveld, who has filed briefs that raise constitutional issues.

    To stay out of adult court, state law allows juveniles to present evidence that emotional, behavioral or substance abuse problems led to the commission of their crimes.

    (By definition, it would seem that committing an armed robbery is pretty good evidence of a "behavioral problem." But we'll leave a more detailed dissection of this psychological lingo for another day.)

    Note what's missing from the list above. Juveniles accused of committing a crime with a deadly weapon cannot avoid trial in adult court -- where the penalties can be far more severe -- by arguing that they simply weren't there and didn't do it.

    Molina, for instance, faces up to 36 years in prison if convicted as an adult. He would face far milder consequences in juvenile court.

    In essence, the brief by Ms. Wildeveld argues, in order to undergo the psychological evaluations and other testing that might allow them to stay in juvenile court, her clients would have had to plead guilty.

    When he pleaded "not guilty" to his charge, Williams was automatically transferred to adult court, the brief says.

    What's more, once the determination has been made whether to prosecute in juvenile or adult court, any information presented while seeking to keep the case in juvenile court can be used against the youth in further proceedings -- a violation of due process rights, Ms. Wildeveld argues.

    The Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law Center and the ACLU of Nevada have filed friend-of-the-court briefs, pointing out that in other states, information gathered during the evaluation process which decides whether to retain the case in juvenile court cannot be used in a subsequent prosecution.

    Now, common sense has to ask, if the defendant didn't do it, why would he want a chance to argue he did it because of drugs or because his father beat him? Attorneys should not be urging innocent people to plead guilty just to get a better deal.

    But Ms. Wildeveld and the "friends of the court" make a good point. To hold the threat of harsher punishment over a defendant's head in an effort to extract a de facto guilty plea comes very close to coercion in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

    On the other hand, adult court is precisely where many such offenders belong. Much of our juvenile justice system comes down to us from the days when the typical offenses of "juvenile delinquents" involved theft of lawn ornaments or stealing apples from a fruit stand -- when it could sensibly be argued these were "good kids at heart" who might well be reformed by spending a few months on a farm, somewhere.

    Few who have ever looked down the barrel of a loaded handgun brandished by a 17-year-old during an armed robbery would agree with Ms. Wildeveld that these are mere "children."

    The plaintiffs have a point, even if they may not like the obvious two-part solution.

    Yes, any information the defendant volunteers during the well-defined process of deciding court jurisdiction (but not, for instance, at the time of his arrest) should be confidential, to preserve the accused's vital Fifth Amendment rights.

    But the Legislature also needs to considerably narrow any loopholes that allow armed 16- and 17-year-old thugs to avoid serious punishment for their serious crimes merely by pleading that they smoke dope or had a tough childhood.

    People don't commit armed robbery by accident. Nor does it qualify as a "childhood prank."



    Leave Your Comment 10 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    LVCOP wrote on February 05, 2008 08:49 PM: One problem that remains to be a thorn on my side is dealing w/juveniles. Most of them know they will not be charged as an adult and use it to their advantage. Although, I do blame the parents to an extent.......


    Brendan Perez wrote on February 05, 2008 04:59 PM: TimeRanger,

    The concept of "do the crime, do the time" falls apart when one group of people is subject to a set of laws that the rest are not.

    I'm basically in favor of realigning the age of majority to more closely match the demands people have for accountability.

    If our society is going to demand adult-like accountability and responsibility, we have no right to deny adult-like the rights and privileges that go along with that.


    Dear Brendan wrote on February 05, 2008 02:14 PM: Brendan - You are equating a person's actions with an age at which they should be allowed to reap the benefits of what we call an adult. These are two seperate issues. Society dictates that at a certain age a person should be mature enough to drink, drive, live on their own, defend their country, vote, etc (note the word Should). It does not state that at 18 they suddenly know the difference between right and wrong, this is learned much earlier on. To me there shouldn't be courts based on age --- kill a person and here is the penalty (be you 8 or 80), boost a hubcab and here is the penalty. Mitigation should be based on circumstances (1st time...5th time...mental illness...), not age. You're just as dead with a 10 year old pulling the trigger or a 100 year old pulling the trigger. Same crime - same result - same penalty.


    TimeRanger wrote on February 05, 2008 12:30 PM: Brendan,
    If a "child" chooses the tools of an adult to commit a crime, why shouldn't he/she face the "adult" consequences? Just because a person is "underage" and chooses to go out and get drunk, dosen't mean that they will not get a hangover...they pay the same price that adults do. If it were a "strong-arm" robbery where no weapons were used, I would agree with putting them in the juvenile system. But, they made a choice...albeit a BAD one, but THEY made it, nobody else.

    I would also like to know where the parents of these thugs-in-training were/are??


    Brendan Perez wrote on February 05, 2008 12:08 PM: "Dear Brendan"
    Interestingly enough, you don't know me and have no basis for any of the assumptions you've made about me.

    If age is the only thing that matters when it comes to allowing a person to drink a beer, vote, serve on a jury, move out, etc., then age is the only think that should matter when it comes to trying young people in court and holding them accountable for their actions.

    I'm not really in favor of allowing young people to "get off easy" for their crimes. I'm in favor of lowering the age of majority to more closely align with people's demands for accountability from young people.

    If you want 16 year olds to be held accountable like adults for their crimes (as I do), then lower the age of majority to allow other 16 year olds right and privileges like adults.

    The reasons given for denying people rights and privileges directly conflict with reasons given to try them adults for their actions.

    If a 16 year old who commits a crime with a gun can be held accountable for his actions just like an adult, what right do we have to deny him the right to possess/acquire a firearm just like an adult?


    Herb wrote on February 05, 2008 10:59 AM: By all means, try these young weapon carrying punks as adults. Put them in an adult prison and keep them there. Do not take these offenses off their records either. Do not let these young predators out on the strees, they WILL committ more crimes. They will rob and sooner or latter they will kill. I just wish there was some way we could give them retroactive abortions.


    Dear Brendan wrote on February 05, 2008 10:51 AM: I wish I could live in the fantasy world or planet you do. I'd like to see what your reaction is if one of your loved ones is a victim of some 16 year old with a gun. Its real easy to take the "high moral ground" like you have when nothing has ever happened to you. For the record - yes, it has happened to me (mother murdered by a 17 year old - who sits in prison for the rest of his life in GA). The age of 18 is arbitrary ... people were adults a lot younger than that in times past. If you're old enough to do the crime you're old enough to do the crime. Time to grow up Brendan and face the realities of THIS world.


    Brendan Perez wrote on February 05, 2008 09:49 AM: No one under 18 should be tried as an adult, for the same reasons (whatever they may be) be that no one under 18 can: serve on a jury, vote, meet at a bar to discuss the case over some beers, leave school and move on with life, etc.

    If someone under 18 is a child when it comes to their rights and privileges, we have no right to treat them as anything but a child when it comes to accountability and responsibility.

    If people under 18 had an adult level of rights and privileges, then I would be right there to call for them to have an adult level of accountability.

    The current situation was quite aptly described by Mike Males in his books "Framing Youth" and "Scapegoat Generation" as "child when it's convenient, adult when it's convenient"


    douglas wrote on February 05, 2008 08:31 AM: if the reason the criminals can't be tried is because they are below some age of reason, then just like a loose dog that bites, put the owner/parents in the docket.

    perhaps incarcerating the parents, plus restitution insofar as money can reimburse those injured, will encourage parents to assume responsibility for the bambinos they chose to make.

    don't want that responsibility for a child or dog ? don't have them. don't want the liability for an auto accident ? don't buy a car.

    the "progressives" will claim that the criminals' acts are the fault of the "village". that's a newspeak spin on "the other dude did it" rationale.


    Steve wrote on February 05, 2008 07:50 AM: IMHO, it's quite simple. Regardless of the age, if they use a weapon, they go to adult court. It doesn't matter if they were yelled at by their father when they were growing up. Their "emotional, behavioral or substance abuse "problems" should not even be considered. They did the crime; they used a weapon; they go to adult court and face adult punishment.