Davis v. Alaska

If persons under the age of 18 are to enjoy the same rights as adults, is it fair that they should have privileges denied to adults, included anonymity for juvenile offenders? Australia, which like the United States has a legal system based in part on English common law, appears to think not: in 1996 the government of New South Wales began considering removal of the time-honored juvenile right to anonymity as a means of curbing crime among youths.

The Australian measure is in keeping with rising concerns among Americans regarding kids and crime. As the newspapers are filled with stories of juvenile murderers, numerous jurisdictions in the United States have adopted measures to treat underage killers as adults.

Is this an appropriate response? Many would say that if a child can commit the crime of an adult, he should serve the time of an adult. Others emphasize the fact that youths possess a lesser degree of judgment than adults, and may not know as clearly what they are doing when they commit a crime--even murder. Still others say that an increase in juvenile crime is a sign of deep societal problems that cannot be dealt with simply by a change of laws.