This brief reexamines the topic of juvenile justice reform, examining the evolution of youth treatment under the criminal justice system.

I. Executive Summary

Most trials and sentences follow a set of procedures contingent on the age of the individual in question. As children(recognized as those under 18) are still seen as developmentally growing and without the same responsibilities of adults, their sentences are typically less harsh. In the US, however, serious crimes committed by minors can be tried in an adult court, bringing the result of these minors being treated as adults under the law. This aspect of the justice system holds serious implications for the notions of recidivism, second chances, and brain development research, as well as significantly impacting those who live with these extended or more harsh sentences.

II. Overview

 The National Institute for Justice finds that youth who serve time in adult prisons are 34% more likely to reoffend compared to those who remain in the juvenile justice system. Furthermore, The Campaign for Youth Justice discovered that juveniles placed in adult facilities face significantly higher risks of physical and sexual violence, as well as long term psychological harm due to solitary confinement. Proper rehabilitation for juvenile offenders has become increasingly relevant as research continues to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of punitive measures. The treatment and rehabilitative programs currently available to juveniles in the justice system are either insufficient or entirely absent. The prison Policy Initiative cites that while 81% of juvenile facilities claim to offer some form of treatment, only 10% of incarcerated youth receive clinical rehabilitation services. This suggests that most programs are self-help or peer based, making them significantly less effective in addressing the root causes of criminal behavior. Additionally, according to The National Library of Medicine, fewer than half of all juvenile detention centers provide substance abuse treatment, despite the strong correlation between juvenile delinquency and substance abuse disorders.
   This data highlights a crucial perspective, the fact that the current approach to juvenile justice fails to prioritize rehabilitation, thereby perpetuating cycles of crime and incarceration. If reform is not implemented, the rate of juveniles reoffending will continue to rise. Changes must be made to juvenile sentencing and rehabilitation programs to ensure that young offenders are provided with opportunities for rehabilitation, rather than being subjected to punitive measures that increase their likelihood of future incarceration.

III. History

 Current Stances

The juvenile justice system has drastically evolved since 1899. The lack of formal process and constitutional due process of juvenile court operations came to light in the US Supreme Court decision In re Gault. In this case, fifteen year old Gerald Gault was taken into custody for allegedly making a lewd phone call without noticing his parents. They argued that Gault was afforded no significant legal protection and deprived of his liberty. The court held that this was not a constitutionally legitimate procedure, ruling that juvenile criminal defendants are entitled to the same Due Process protection as adults under the Fourteenth Amendment. These included elements such as the timely adequate notice of charges and notification of right to counsel.

 However, following these reforms, an increase in juvenile crime rates throughout the early 1990s led to the adoption of “tough on crime” policies. States enacted mechanisms to allow the transfer of certain youth into the adult system, passing legislation to send even more juveniles into adult courts for a growing array of charges with fewer protections. States especially cracked down on drug charges. From 1989 to 1992, drug offense cases were more likely to be judicially waived to adult courts than any other category. Although juvenile crime rates have steadily decreased, the severe impacts of these state laws remain. These policies, including transfer laws, have been shown to increase violent recidivism among individuals convicted in adult courts, initiating a move toward reform.

Tried Policy 

Established in 1974, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) creates a nationwide juvenile justice planning and advisory system with federal funding for state programs. It also provides for the operation of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, dedicated to training, technical, assistance, research and evaluation, and support for state and local efforts. Since then, it has undergone multiple modifications; most recently in November 2002, Congress reauthorized the JJDP act to streamline Office operations.

 The age boundaries of the juvenile justice system have also continually changed over time as legislators become informed by emerging research on adolescent development. Studies have found that ages from as young as 10 to as old as 24 correspond more closely to an age range of adolescence, based on the process of maturation of neurocognitive functions. Resultantly, many states have increased the maximum age parameter of their juvenile justice system to better serve young offenders, ensuring that they do not face the adult justice system. A smaller number have modified the lower age boundary marking a minimum age of contact with the juvenile justice system, noting that children younger than 12 are often not mature enough to understand competence under the legal system or benefit from treatment programs designed for older juveniles.

IV. Policy Problem

Stakeholders

The decision to try juveniles in adult courts extends far beyond the courtroom, shaping lives and communities in ways that cannot be ignored. First and foremost, juvenile defendants face severe and lifelong consequences when prosecuted as adults, from harsher sentencing to increased exposure to violence in adult correctional facilities. Instead of offering a chance to rebuild their lives, the system pushes them into environments that often reinforce criminal behavior. Research shows that youth who serve time in adult prisons are more likely to reoffend compared to those who remain in the juvenile system (Loughran et al., 2010).

 Victims and public safety advocates play a key role in shaping policy, often supporting tougher sentencing under the belief that it deters crime. However, the data tells a different story—juveniles tried as adults are actually more likely to commit future offenses (Mulvey & Schubert, 2012). This raises a crucial question: does treating children as adults in the justice system make communities safer, or does it contribute to further cycles of crime?

 Beyond those deeply involved, the legal system itself is also affected. Judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys must balance legal decisions with a growing body of research advocating for reform. Meanwhile, correctional facilities are left struggling with the juveniles in adult prisons. Because they are more vulnerable than adult inmates, young offenders often end up in solitary confinement for their "protection," leading to devastating psychological effects (Human Rights Watch, 2012).

 Taxpayers and policymakers also face the financial impact of these decisions. Incarcerating juveniles in adult facilities is significantly more expensive than rehabilitative alternatives, yet it delivers worse results. States spend millions of dollars on a system that ultimately increases recidivism instead of reducing it (National Institute of Justice, 2016).

Risks of Indifference

  Ignoring the consequences of prosecuting juveniles in adult courts poses a risk to public safety in addition to being a policy failure. Increased recidivism is one of the most pressing risks. Young criminals are frequently more likely to commit crimes again after being exposed to the adult system, rather than being deterred. It is more difficult for juvenile offenders to escape a life of crime after doing time in adult jails since they return to society with fewer chances and more criminal contacts (Redding, 2010).

  The dangers go beyond potential illegal activity. Because of the harsh conditions in adult jails, juvenile inmates are far more likely to experience physical and sexual abuse, and many of them suffer serious mental health problems. Young prisoners are frequently placed in solitary confinement, which has been related to long-term psychological harm and makes reintegration into society even more challenging (Campaign for Youth Justice, 2020).

  Racial inequities in the legal system are also closely related to this problem. Research indicates that when compared to their white counterparts accused of the same acts, Black and Latino juveniles are disproportionately sent to adult court (Puzzanchera & Hockenberry, 2021). This discrepancy deepens the cycles of incarceration and missed opportunities for vulnerable populations, exacerbating already-existing disparities.

  Another urgent issue is the financial burden. From hefty incarceration spending to the economic repercussions of unemployed, criminalized kids, states that continue to prosecute juveniles as adults confront increasing costs. In addition to saving money, a system that places more emphasis on rehabilitation than punishment will benefit communities and individuals in the long run (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2018).

Nonpartisan Reasoning

 Juvenile justice reform should not be seen as a partisan issue—it’s a matter of smart policy. The cost and ineffectiveness of trying minors as adults are becoming increasingly acknowledged across the political spectrum. Because of the financial inefficiency of punitive measures and their recognition that rehabilitation-focused programs are more economical and result in improved public safety, conservatives have been supporting reforms more and more. The moral and social justice consequences, especially the necessity of addressing racial inequities and ensuring age-appropriate sentencing, are emphasized by progressives.

  Bipartisan support for programs like the Raise the Age legislation, which has already shown success in several states, is a result of this common understanding. For instance, juvenile recidivism rates decreased in North Carolina and Connecticut when they increased the age at which juvenile offenders might face adult trials (Sickmund & Puzzanchera, 2022). An increasing consensus that accountability shouldn't come at the expense of rehabilitation is reflected in these initiatives.

V. Policy Options

 The main goal of policymakers should be to prioritize the rehabilitative opportunities offered by the juvenile court rather than automatically transferring youth offenders to adult court. Under the status quo, many states waive juveniles to adult court without requiring a complete judicial investigation, failing to meet the rehabilitative goals laid out by the juvenile court. To prevent this occurrence, states could eliminate all waiver of jurisdiction over juveniles to adult court, always trying them in the juvenile court instead. Additionally, states could grant judges with the discretion to sentence a juvenile as either an adult or as a juvenile, expanding the scope of their authority. These judges may propose a sentence blending the juvenile treatment program with a potential adult sentence, offering a mix of both rehabilitation and punishment known as an “inclusive blend.”

  If the practice of juvenile waivers does continue, there are still many avenues for reform. States could increase the maximum age of juvenile court jurisdiction to account for a broader range of youths. For instance, Illinois raised the age from 17 to 18 for misdemeanor offenses in 2010. Other states, including Michigan, New York, and Vermont, have followed suit. Another measure states could take is passing “reverse waiver” laws that allow criminal courts to send juveniles waived to adult court back to juvenile court for trial. This process is known as decertification, and allows for a more comprehensive review based on each individual juvenile case.

  Guaranteeing support for families of juvenile offenders as they navigate the justice system is another solution. Investing in peer mentoring services that guide families through the process is a potential route of reducing youth recidivism.

  To prevent this, states could eliminate all waiver of jurisdiction over juveniles to adult court, always trying them in the juvenile court instead. Beyond judicial discretion, policymakers should also consider addressing the underlying factors that contribute to youth crime, such as poverty, lack of access to education, and exposure to violence. Expanding diversion programs that focus on counseling, education, and restorative justice practices can prevent juveniles from entering the system in the first place. Additionally, increased funding for community based interventions, such as mental health services and mentorship programs can provide at-risk or previously detained youth with the support they need to avoid criminal behavior. By investing in preventative measures, states can reduce youth crime rates while promoting rehabilitation over punishment.

VI. Conclusions

  The sentencing of minors as adults is undoubtedly an important issue and topic of discussion in the modern world. There are consequences of these sentences—from higher recidivism rates, to risk of violence, to relative lack of treatment options. The stakeholders are more than just those affected, however. The legal system, taxpayers, and the communities these individuals return to are all significantly impacted by this unique aspect of the American justice system. To address this issue, various policy options have been proposed. Focusing on rehabilitation, enacting “Raise the Age” policies, and guaranteeing support for those put into adult prisons are all proposed and disparately adopted forms of policy on the matter. Overall, the US practice of trying minors as adults merits significant thought and discourse in search of a more just world.

Acknowledgment

The Institute for Youth in Policy wishes to acknowledge Anagha Nagesh, Anoushka Swaminathan, and other contributors for developing and maintaining the Policy Department within the Institute.