Tony Throop recently voiced his opinion in these pages that a 14-year-old child is not an adult and should not be tried in adult court (March 9, "Discarded souls"). One could say he wrote as an expert — he himself has firsthand knowledge of the grievous crimes that a juvenile can commit, as well as the result of applying adult sanctions to juvenile offenders. He was the first juvenile from our county, and perhaps in the state, to be sentenced to die in prison — the most severe adult sentence, short of execution.

His letter was remarkable not for the propositions argued, but for the articulate voice with which he wrote. His views, surprisingly perhaps, were similar to those that most readers share. He decried "movies, gangsta rap' and video games, which all diminish the value of life and promote malevolence." He argued what we all must know from our personal experience: "Kids do not fear consequences they cannot comprehend." He cited examples of the effectiveness of the juvenile system in helping even severe juvenile offenders in eventually rejoining society as productive citizens — including his own partner in crime. He alluded to scientific developments that have demonstrated just how different the adolescent brain is from that of an adult. (The inescapable conclusion of these advances is something parents know too well: Teenagers are immature and irresponsible, and subject to bad influences — thank you, science!) He voiced his concerns that throwing a juvenile into an adult prison might well constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

Cruel and unusual punishment

The Supreme Court recently displayed the same concern when it ruled that sentencing a juvenile to death was, in fact, cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by our Constitution. Mr. Throop also wrote of his concern that a local 14-year-old boy would be subjected to the same fate he suffered. His letter makes it clear that, as he states, he "is no longer the same reckless teenager from high school."

As mainstream and well-founded as these views are, they must be threatening to some. Mr. Throop was deemed by prosecutors as evil, worthless, caring for no one but himself and unredeemable — an animal beyond hope. Yet, years later, as a mature person, he wrote such a well-spoken letter, displaying compassion, education and common sense — for no benefit of his own. The implication that a person can be salvaged through time and maturity strikes deep. If, as a prosecutor, you want to believe in the moral value of your judgment and work, and you want to be able to argue in the next case that, yet again, this defendant is the worst of the worst — beyond redemption, not like the rest of us, an animal beyond caring about — anything that threatens this view must be attacked.

So, I was not surprised when I learned that Pete Kossoris, who had prosecuted Mr. Throop, had written a piece denouncing him and his views (March 23, "Tony Throop deserves no sympathy"). I was not surprised when he said that Mr. Throop's crimes were "close to, if not among, the worst half-dozen crimes ever committed" and about how "aggravated his crimes, character and conduct were." Mr. Kossoris argues that the premeditated nature of Mr. Throop's actions, the immense loss to the victims' families and Mr. Throop's apparent lack of concern for others justify the most extreme punishment allowed for adults.

We know the truth

These arguments are powerful, but they miss the point. The point, using the words of the Supreme Court from its recent decision prohibiting the death penalty for juveniles, is this:

"From a moral standpoint, it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor's character deficiencies will be reformed."

When justice is sought, it is immoral to knowingly allow the result to rest on a lie. Like a bitter root added to a stew, a falsehood that underlies a criminal judgment taints the result and renders it unacceptable, no matter the other ingredients.

When prosecutors argue that we can tell by a child's crime that he is beyond hope and he should bear responsibility for his crime in the exact same fashion as if he were an adult, such arguments are "misguided" for the simple reason that they rest on falsehood.

We know, and have always known, that children are subject to poor choices, bad influences and bad judgment, but they usually grow up. Law and society have recognized this in innumerable ways in age-related restrictions on driving, marrying, contracting, having sex, owning a gun, drinking, voting, fighting in a war and virtually any other activity with serious consequences.

We even have laws that increase the punishment when a defendant involves a minor in a crime. Why? Because we know the truth that minors are subject to undue influence and don't have an adult capacity to appreciate the consequences of their conduct. We recognize the truth that children are different from adults in every other context, so why must prosecutors ignore this truth? Would you give your child a gun, alcohol and keys to a car and think that it would be safe because you told him to "act responsibly"?

Ventura County prosecutors recently decided to treat a child three weeks into his 14th year as an adult, to be judged as if he were an adult, as if he were not a child. Envision your child (or any child) on his 14th birthday, in junior high school. One need not be an expert to know that this child has a lot of growing up to do. Do we really want a legal system where prosecutors are free to ignore this fundamental truth?

There is a tendency for people to defer to the "experts." Prosecutors sometimes clothe themselves in this "expert" guise and ask citizens, unfamiliar with the law and the facts, to assume they are doing the "right thing." After all, prosecutors are supposed to represent the "people."

I suppose that I could clothe myself with a similar claim of expertise. I have worked in the criminal justice system for about 25 years. I have defended many young offenders and know firsthand the thoughtlessness that is connected with youthful crime. I even wrote some motions long ago in the Throop case, arguing — prior to the recent Supreme Court opinion — that sentencing a minor to die in prison without any hope of parole is cruel and unusual punishment.

I'm aware of the international covenants restricting sentences such as Mr. Throop received, and which the 14-year-old who shot Lawrence King on Feb. 12 in Oxnard would be eligible for. (Information on the numerous rationales against severe sentences for juvenile offenders can be found in a report by the Equal Justice Initiative, available at http://www.eji.org/eji/reports/cruelandunusual.)

But to cast this question as one to be debated and resolved by experts is fundamentally wrong. We do not defer to experts for our moral reasoning. Any parent is sufficiently expert to know that children are not adults.

It's just that simple

Sometimes it is just that simple. We have two parallel criminal justice systems — one for adults, the other for children. To say that a 14-year-old deserves to be in the adult system is to put the bitter root of a falsehood into the mix at the very beginning. No palatable justice can come of it.

— Neil B. Quinn is a former Ventura County chief deputy public defender, now retired and in private practice.