Over a century ago, the U.S. Department of Justice implemented a separate system to handle the administration of justice to juveniles. This movement was guided by the belief that young people, while still responsible for their crimes, are more impressionable and less deserving of the same censure as adult offenders. Even further, studies found that juveniles possess a greater potential for change and rehabilitation. Lewis Powell, a former Supreme Court justice, recognized this potential when he stated in Eddings v. Oklahoma (1982): “’Youth’ is more than a chronological fact. It is a time and condition of life when a person may be most susceptible to influence and to psychological damage…a greater possibility exists that a minor’s character deficiencies will be reformed.”

The juvenile justice system exists to hold juvenile offenders accountable for their actions while providing treatment and rehabilitation in hopes of averting further offenses. The best way to achieve this is often a topic of debate, however, and many disagree on the best way to carry out justice for the youth of America.

Today’s juvenile justice system is a product of many deep and controversial shifts that have taken place within the last few decades. The questions that shape American thought on juvenile justice largely concern fairness in trial and sentencing. Should teens who commit violent or serious crimes be tried and sentenced as juveniles or as adults? How should the justice system address disproportionate minority confinement? What is the balance between protecting the public and rehabilitating young people?

These questions and others continue to be debated as officials seek the most appropriate methods of administering justice to the younger generations. Three of the primary topics encompassing these debates are discussed below.

Sentencing Juveniles as Adults

Beginning in the 1990s, the tough-on-crime movement sparked a nationwide trend to permit states to try and sentence juvenile offenders as adults. While judges traditionally used case-by-case discretion to determine whether to process a juvenile through the adult system, now the adult criminal justice system tries over 200,000 youths each year.[i] However, the attitude of the ’90s has since dissipated and in its place a reactive trend is slowly sweeping across the nation.

The latest studies in juvenile development support reform efforts to keep juvenile offenders within the juvenile justice system. Recent behavioral and psychological research on the development of the adolescent brain indicates a significant developmental difference between juveniles and adults. In fact, studies show that developmental fluidity is greatest between the ages of 16 and 17. Teenagers often lack the elements of mature psychosocial development including the capacity for autonomous choice, self-management, risk perception, and the calculation for future consequences.[ii] With research revealing fundamental psychological differences between teens and adults, the juvenile justice system should hesitate to arbitrarily assign juveniles to the adult system.[iii]

Consequently, legislators in some states are reestablishing trial by juvenile courts, as is the case in Connecticut. Until recently, Connecticut automatically tried offenders 16 years and older as adults. Now the Connecticut State Senate approved SB1196 (May 2007), a bill that will guarantee 16 and 17 year olds trials in juvenile courts. We can only hope that other states will soon follow suit.

Current research shows that juveniles react negatively to adult sentencing for a variety of reasons. First, adult facilities neither prevent further crime nor rehabilitate their young offenders. Adult facilities rarely provide in-prison training and lack the educational and rehabilitative programming needed to redirect juvenile offenders. Consequently, over 80% of minors processed as adults will re-offend and those imprisoned in adult facilities are twice as likely to be re-arrested for a violent crime within six years of release. Yet if provided with proper mentoring and treatment, studies show that delinquent juveniles can be guided in the right direction.

Second, adult prison environments are often overcrowded with abusive and aggressive inmates who initiate violence, especially against younger victims new to the prison environment. This violence eventually spills over into neighborhoods when teens find themselves on the streets once again.

Lastly, the adult criminal record that trails juvenile offenders severely limits future educational and career opportunities even if a youth seeks to become a productive member of society.

Thankfully, many juvenile justice authorities are working not only to implement juvenile courts but to incorporate additional mentoring and treatment methods into the justice process. The above mentioned 2007 Connecticut bill provides for counseling, education, and re-entry, reflecting the growing understanding that these youth can be redeemed from a life of crime rather than simply punished for breaking laws.

Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC)

The effectiveness of the juvenile justice system is, however, contingent upon more than just the issue of sentencing juveniles as adults. A successful system should also ensure equal and fair treatment for every young person regardless of gender and race, but recently the system’s ability to do so has been called into question.

Awareness of this issue began as early as 1988 when Congress first mandated that states address what was termed, disproportionate minority contact (DMC). Basically understood, DMC exists when the proportion of minority juvenile offenders exceed their groups’ proportions in the general population. States must now “address juvenile delinquency prevention efforts and system improvement efforts designed to reduce, without establishing or requiring numerical standards or quotas, the disproportionate number of juvenile members of minority groups, who come into contact with the juvenile justice system” (See reauthorized Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002, section 223(a)(22)).

Yet, all efforts to reduce identified disproportionality ought to center on the root causes of juvenile crime. Some of the complex factors that influence minority over-representation include the family, socioeconomic status, U.S. educational system, and the juvenile justice system. With this knowledge, states across the nation address DMC through avenues of direct prevention and diversion services, news articles and studies, education and training, and policy and procedural change. They continue the search to identify the origins of DMC and to discover the most effective way to reduce racial disparities within the juvenile justice system.

The Balance between Restitution and Restoration

An effective juvenile justice system also accomplishes the twin goals of holding youth responsible for their delinquent acts while providing them with opportunities for restoration. The concept of restorative justice plays a pivotal role in both of these goals. (For more information on the principles of restorative justice, click here).

The application of restorative justice requires both a focus on the injured victim as well as the broken law. Restorative principles seek to bring healing to those injured, while restoring the right order to the community as opposed to the traditional view of justice, which seeks only retribution against the offender. Instead, victims are involved in every stage of the restorative justice process. Youth offenders are held accountable for harm done to their victims and the community by providing restitution, participating in victim-offender mediation, work programs and community punishment. With the long term positive effects on youth offenders, a juvenile justice system based on restorative justice effectively addresses the root causes of crime, stops the cycle of recidivism for youth offenders, and repairs injuries to all involved.

[iii] Redlich, Allison D., and Goodman, Gail S. Taking Responsibility for an Act Not Committed: The Influence of Age and Susceptibility. Journal of Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 27, No. 2 (April 2003).