In Woody Allen’s “Bananas,” one of those comedies that struck me as hilarious when it came out and now seems obvious and juvenile (though the courtroom scene is still inspired), the new dictator of the banana republic of “San Marcos” decrees that all citizens under the age of 16 are 16. I thought of that moment when I read that the GOP House voted Tuesday to allow 14-year-olds to be tried as adults for serious crimes in the District of Columbia.
This is one of several bills to follow-up on President Donald Trump’s (overdue) crime crackdown in D.C., in which he declared an emergency and asserted control over D.C. police while sending in armed National Guard troops to make the message beyond ignoring.
Th emergency expired last week as House Republicans advanced the 14 bills, since Congress can pass or overturn D.C. laws because it has constitutional authority over the city. The bill treating 14-year-old as adults resonates because D.C. teens have accounted for more than half of robberies and carjackings so far in 2025.
The legislation passed by the House yesterday would allow 14-year-olds to be charged as adults for murder and armed robbery without a judicial hearing. Currently that authority only applies for offenders for ages 16 and up.
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day:
Is prosecuting young teens as adults ethical?
In other words, is it fair? Does it address the real problems involved, or is it just a “Do something!” measure? Given the wide variation in maturity levels among teens, does the bill even make sense? There are 14-year-olds who are shaving and are bigger than their fathers, and other who appear to be 10. Does one size fit all?
Ethics Alarms 
not ethical.
it isn’t what it is.
the juvenile justice system is meant to reform youth to keep them out of the adult system.
while I do not like it when the legislative branch intrudes upon the judgment of judges, stiff penalties and rigorous routines are better. If a 14 year old faces 4-7 years in detention with strict oversight and compulsory education, they may turn themselves around (or forcibly turned around)
-Jut
Rep. Tlaib—whom I usually ignore—Julie Principle—called the measure “fascism.” And that was only the second stupidest thing she said: she also said that people talking about DC crime ignore the “really beautiful” parts of the city. As long as its pretty, the fact that you get mugged, robbed or killed shouldn’t bother you so much…
It is like the only crime these people care about are school shootings.
Of course, have any of them commented on the fact that no school shootings in D>C. happened since the National Guard took to the streets?
One size does not fit all.
We have juries that can determine if the government overcame the presumption of juvenile inculpability.
I have to disagree with Jut on this. Charging a 14 year old as an adult is not mandatory under the new law. It is likely that charging a kid as an adult will occur only if the juvenile has an escalating criminal record culminating in a serious violent offense.
I consider it ethical and has the potential of keeping kids from screwing up their lives. Kids know that they are untouchable. Criminal adults know the young are untouchable in most courts so they prey upon the young using them to facilitate their criminal activities.
Having spent over 5 years teaching and administering an education program in a correctional environment I have first hand experience getting to know the mindset of incarcerated adult men.
I don’t want to see kids in either a juvenile facility or an adult one.
Such a law might light a fire under some parents to provide better guidance.
I understand it is not mandatory
it should not be permitted
now, for certain. Crimes or for certain criminal records, lock them up until they are 21. It is their last time to shape up
and, if they don’t, they are then in the adult system
-Jut
The reality is that they’ll be violent when they turn 21, and most of them will never stop being violent.
A lot of them don’t care about the sentence for violent crime because they’ll be out in no time anyway – they turn 18, get out of juvie, and roll with the homies. That’s if they’re even in until they’re 18.
Lot of Alvin Braggs in the places where the youth are that violent when they’re that young.
These are not “normal” young people who make a mistake, they’re exposed to the gang culture from birth, and most of them are jumped in between 10-13. When they’re that violent that early, it’s not changing because a new law passes, they won’t care.
But it will keep them off the streets for a longer term when they do commit murder.
it’s very sad, but it’s the culture they’re raised in.
Mostly true. Check out the video of Ukrainian solder walking around while Russia pounds them with artillery. They walk around not even reacting to the explosions 10-20 meters away. I would argue this desensitization is experienced the same way with children exposed to rewarded violence at a young age. That violence is reality and they return to it because there has been reward linked to it. Merely introducing a punitive outcome does not eliminate the reward: money and solidarity. Thus the truth in the proverb, “Train up a child in the way he should go so that when he is old he will not depart from it.”
Because you can go to jail, be a part of a social group, follow the rules and then get out…. You can make money through violence and drugs when on the street and get 3 meals a day in jail rent free. There is no “real” consequence for the crimes.
To solve the problem, the culture that is causing the problem must be eliminated. Like eliminating Hamas, there will be “innocent” people harmed along the way.
What is the best way of eliminating this culture?
I am reminded of a sentence written by John McWhorter. To paraphrase…
“Cultures can and do change, but trying to change a culture is a hard and thankless task.”
charles w abbott
rochester NY
It’s not clear what the answer is with youthful offenders. Some youthful offenders grow out of it and can be steered in the right direction.
Others seem to be charging headlong for trouble, having basically chosen a particular way of life and gone “all in.”
Even the ones likely to grow out of it are capable of ruining the life of others in a moment of folly.
All my knowledge is second hand–I’ve never worked with youthful offenders.
I could share half-baked anecdotes and thoughts all day long.
= – = – = – =
the great Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld wrote, somewhere, that there is a moral conundrum in defending yourself against attacks by children.
to paraphrase…
“if you kill a 14 year old boy while defending yourself, you’re a monster. If you allow yourself to be killed by a 14 year old boy, you’re an idiot.”
The same is probably true for society as a whole. A society that fails to defend itself against children is idiotic. By taking adequate measures, we are told we are excessive.
But…”Half measures are no measures at all.”
= – = – = – =
Two 16 year old boys shot and killed a 71 year old man in suburban Rochester in 2021 during an attempted carjacking. They were 16, so they were charged as adults. The shooter got 20 years. The partner in crime got 15.
You can see their youthful faces online. Their photos are online.
The 71 year old man who died, Richard Sciascia, wasn’t doing anything wrong. He’s the victim, not the offenders, 16 year old at the time, now over 18 and facing a decade more time behind bars in adult prison.
The two kids who killed Mr. Sciascia…how much time should they have gotten if they did it while still 14? I’m tempted to say they should have gotten the same long sentences, if only for the sake of deterrence.
Carjackings and armed robberies periodically end in the victim’s death, at which point the perpetrator is cast as someone who is just misunderstood, full of potential, deserving of another chance.
The more we tolerate such nonsense, the more of it we get.
“Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.”
charles w abbott
rochester NY
All that can be done is punish the kids after the fact.
What would Singapore do?
ethical. Murder and armed robbery are not petty crimes.