Dangerous to try children as adults

MARLON BASCOMBE

“IF WE TREAT children as criminal risks, we will raise a generation that thinks in terms of punishment – not promise.”

That phrase may sound stark. Yet, it feels alarmingly close to the sentiments emerging from recent statements by Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander. He publicly suggested that some child offenders might need to be tried as adults in court, “because of their actions.”

This is not just a rhetorical shift – it has deep implications for justice, child rights, and our social future. In response, critics including criminologists warn that such a policy would expose minors to adult criminal environments, hamper rehabilitation, and violate both domestic and international child protection norms.

Meanwhile, a recent High Court decision starkly illustrated the harm: two siblings, charged as minors but detained in adult prisons, were awarded more than $3 million in compensation for violations of their rights – including inhumane conditions, denial of educational services, and psychological harm.

We have to take a clear stand: trying children as adults is a catastrophe in the making. Instead, we must fortify the Student Support Services Division (SSSD) of the Ministry of Education, invest in mental health, rehabilitation, prevention programmes (be it the police youth clubs or otherwise), and truly protective child justice practices.

Case against trying minors as adults

1. Exposure to adult prisons harms more than it “deters”

Criminologist Darius Figuera warned (Newsday, Oct 6) that placing minors in adult facilities exposes them to hardened criminals, sexual abuse, and violent criminal culture – effectively turning them into more dangerous offenders rather than rehabilitating them.

Studies globally confirm this: minors in adult prisons have higher recidivism, more psychological trauma, and worse outcomes than those in juvenile systems.

2. Violates the rights of the child and domestic law context

TT’s Children Act (2012) defines a “child” as anyone under 18 and provides for special protection, rehabilitation, and procedural safeguards.

The state has constitutional obligations under section 4(b) to provide protection of the law to minors – meaning they cannot be treated as though they were adults without serious legal safeguards. The courts have already recognised these limits: in the case of those two siblings, the High Court condemned the state for using adult imprisonment for minors.

Passing children into adult courts would almost certainly violate domestic legislation and international commitments (including the Convention on the Rights of the Child).

3. It doesn’t solve the underlying problem

Alexander has argued that harsher treatment may deter youth crime. But deterrence via punishment rarely works for children; the root causes – trauma, poverty, lack of opportunity, social alienation – require investment in support. Not to mention that as a minister of government, with apparently now responsibility for prisons, he should make much more coherent policy statements, based in law, which also builds on his past experience as a police officer.

As critics note, criminalisation often compounds the problem – raising hardened offenders, deepening cycles of crime.

Where state should redirect resources

Firstly, SSSD is the institutional mechanism for addressing students’ psycho-social, behavioural, and educational support needs in schools. But its current capacity is far from adequate; and is seemingly getting worse as contracts are currently not being renewed.

By adequately resourcing SSSD – staffing counsellors, social workers, behavioural specialists – we can intervene early, reduce escalation, and prevent criminalisation in the first place.

Secondly, rehabilitative models that include therapy, alternative measures, restorative justice, family support, mentorship, and community engagement are proven to reduce youth offending far better than punitive ones. So let's place much more efforts there. What about supporting the child guidance clinics (which are also under significant strain)? What about supporting NGOs that work with youth and parents in a truly meaningful way? Families in Action and the Roots Foundation spring to mind.

Thirdly, where is the accountability for the mistakes being made? The High Court’s compensation for the referenced case is a sharp reminder: the state must be held responsible for past and ongoing violations of child rights.

If the policy of trying children as adults is adopted, the state could be opening itself to numerous lawsuits, human rights scrutiny, and moral condemnation.

A call to action – centring protection over punishment

In case I was not clear, I strongly reject the minister's statements. Therefore, I believe that we must:

• Reject legislative or policy changes that enable automatic trial of minors as adults.

• Call on Parliament and the National Security Ministry to commit to resourcing SSSD across all schools, especially in areas with high risk. And the Health Ministry to pay attention to the child guidance clinics. Among other key areas of focus.

• Mobilise civil society, children’s rights groups, families, teachers to voice opposition – in media, Parliament, public forums.

• Educate the public on how punitive approaches to children backfire, while investment in prevention saves lives.

• Ensure judicial discretion remains strong: if serious crimes occur, judges, psychologists, and child welfare experts must decide options – not blanket adult trials.

Child offenders are not less human because of error – they are more vulnerable. If we treat them as criminals first, we lose the chance to redeem, protect, and heal. Let us refuse this dangerous path, and instead invest in youth, justice, dignity, and promise.

Marlon Bascombe is the founding director and principal consultant at Caribbean Associates for Life Skills, Mediation and Management