Holy crap.

http://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/superior-court/2011/a03011-11.html

The law is so crazy when you actually look at it. Common sense would tell you that an 11 year old should be tried as a juvenile, and indeed the juvenile court system in Pennsylvania defines a juvenile as a person under age 18. However,

The Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. 6301 et seq., is designed to effectuate the protection of the public by providing children who commit "delinquent acts" with supervision, rehabilitation, and care while promoting responsibility and the ability to become a productive member of the community.

In Jordan's case, the offense of murder and murder of an unborn child are excluded from the definition of "delinquent act" because they are deemed too heinous. The law then states that his case must be tried in adult court.

Jordan's request to transfer to juvenile court, a process called "decertification" puts a burden on him to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the transfer "best serves the public interest." Part of the definition of what serves the public interest is whether "the child is amenable to treatment, supervision, or rehabilitation" and "whether the child can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court jurisdiction."

Part of that process is, apparently, taking responsibility for the act. The prosecution called a psychiatrist as an expert witness to testify that "first steps toward rehabilitation cannot be taken unless [Jordan] would come forward and take responsibility for his actions."

Jordan argues it infringes on his 5th amendment right against self-incrimination.

That's just nuts. You'd think that anyone under 18 should be tried as a juvenile by law. But it seems the juvenile system is in fact a privileged system that benefits defendants with special features and programs pursuant to a long list of factors.