Youth Sentencing in the Criminal Justice System: Overview

Introduction

The United States criminal justice system has evolved considerably over the decades, including in its approach to young people who have committed crimes, and remains subject to much debate. One of the most contentious issues is whether youths, especially older teens, should be tried as adults for the most serious violations of the law. Each state is responsible for making its own laws regarding juvenile sentencing, subject to minimum constitutional guidelines, but there are common themes that inform the debate.

There are conflicting viewpoints regarding the primary aim of the criminal justice system. From one perspective, the ultimate goal is to rehabilitate individuals so that they can become functioning, productive, and law-abiding members of society. Rehabilitation is often viewed as especially important where young people are concerned. Punishment—and severe punishment in particular—is considered by many to be the least effective means of bringing about rehabilitation and may, in fact, be detrimental. Rewarding good behavior rather than punishing bad behavior is, in this view, more effective.

However, others view punishment as a central aspect of the criminal justice system's mission of protecting society from those who break the law. In this perspective, punishment is given out according to the crime committed, and serves to both discipline the individual and deter others from committing crimes. Some argue that rehabilitation can be unrealistic for many of those who commit the most serious offenses, and that if the criminal justice system is too lenient it could lead to an increase in crime.

Both of these perspectives merge into the debate over the handling of young people who have committed crimes. Supporters of rehabilitation tend to argue that young people should be treated differently than adults in order to foster an environment of restorative justice. Supporters of a punishment-based approach often argue that in some cases young people can and should be tried as adults. Most of the controversy over youth sentencing occurs at the level of felonies—especially violent or repeated felonies. Issues in the debate include the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs, the impact of adult prison sentences imposed on young people, and the best means to address the underlying causes of juvenile crime.

Understanding the Discussion

Blending laws: A form of youth sentencing in which laws pertaining to young people and adults may be blended.

Felony: A serious crime for which, generally, the minimum sentence under US law exceeds one year of imprisonment.

Juvenile: A term often used in criminal justice contexts to refer to people between the ages of seven and seventeen years old. Those below the age of seven have recourse to the defense of infancy, meaning that they are too young to be liable for their violation of the law.

Recidivism: In criminal justice contexts, the return to criminal behavior by one previously convicted of a crime.

Transfer laws: Laws that detail the terms under which young people can be prosecuted as adults.

History

In the first centuries of US history, young people who committed crimes were generally treated as adults in the justice system. They were typically not kept apart from adults in prison populations and had no special rights on account of their age. In the nineteenth century, social reformers began arguing that juveniles differ from adults in both their needs and mental capacity and should have a separate system to evaluate their offenses. There was an increasing belief that for young people rehabilitation would benefit both the individual and society, while harsh sentences and mingling with hardened adult prisoners often proved contrary to this goal.

Enlightenment thinking, which emphasized the ability of individuals to change their circumstances through the application of reason, helped entrench ideas about the importance of education. During the nineteenth century, the public education system was established. Nonetheless, it was not uncommon for young people caught up in the criminal justice system to miss out on such benefits because they lacked adequate family and economic support. The educational system, moreover, was not prepared to cope with troubled youth.

Education, with an emphasis on imparting practical, technical skills, was considered the key to correcting juvenile misbehavior. Young people who committed crimes, in short, were viewed as susceptible to reform, and the state began taking greater responsibility for them, especially where the family had failed to do so. Often, the state’s role as a caretaker lasted until juveniles legally became adults.

Various criminal justice institutions for young people were created, including reformatories and less harsh industrial schools. The first such institution in the US, the New York House of Refuge, was established in 1824. It was an anomaly for the period, however, and only around the turn of the twentieth century did such institutions become widespread. The conditions in these institutions were often poor, and successful rehabilitation was rare. Social reformers, drawing connections between young people’s environment and the initial offense, and between reformatory environments and recidivism, campaigned for improved conditions in both courts and institutions.

Following World War II, reformers tackled the issue of young people and their relative lack of constitutional rights. Over the next several decades, major reforms were carried out by the correctional system as well as by the United States Supreme Court. There was a reluctance to make juvenile court cases resemble criminal court proceedings, where punishing crimes was the central focus. The need to offer young people constitutional rights such as due process and the presence of a jury, however, was ultimately viewed as more important for their welfare.

The Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act, passed by Congress in 1968, aimed to address some of the root causes of delinquency among young people. It was superseded by the more comprehensive Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974. To qualify for federal funding to help with juvenile offenders, correctional facilities had to meet certain requirements that included the separation of adults and juveniles and the deinstitutionalization of young people who were already within the prison system. The act also created offices charged with discouraging juvenile delinquency and gaining a better understanding of the problems typically faced by at-risk youth, including unstable or non-existent homes.

In the 1980s and 1990s there was a spike in the youth crime rate, including violent crime by young people. In response, a movement to deal more aggressively with young people who committed crimes gathered force. The 1974 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act was amended to allow juveniles to be tried as adults, depending on the nature of the offense. Violent crimes and weapons violations were two offenses that could lead to adult sentencing. Minimum periods of detention were also promoted as part of the solution, and some states put them into effect. The increasing severity of juvenile sentencing laws once again became less distinct from adult sentencing laws, and punishment was emphasized over rehabilitation in the most serious cases. Still, only a fraction of young people convicted of crimes were given adult sentences.

Today

The handling of young people in the criminal justice system continues to be subject to considerable debate well into the twenty-first century. The variety of approaches is illustrated by the range of laws in different societies and jurisdictions. While young people who are convicted of crimes have few special rights in some countries, in others the laws deciding their course of rehabilitation and punishment are more lenient. In Europe, for example, the age of criminal responsibility is generally higher than in the US, and the trend has been toward decriminalizing juvenile offenses and using detention as a last resort and, if necessary, for the least amount of time possible.

In the US, state and federal funds continue to support educational programs as a key means toward juvenile rehabilitation. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, based on a 1975 act, has been amended several times, including substantially in 2004. The act affirms the educational rights of a broad range of juveniles, including those in correctional facilities, and continues to promote education as a key to rehabilitation. Prevention of juvenile delinquency also remains a major emphasis. Statistics suggest that identifying the root causes of delinquency and implementing programs for at-risk youths discourages delinquency and is more cost-effective than correctional institutions.

In 2005, in the case Roper v. Simmons, the US Supreme Court banned capital punishment for juvenile offenders on the basis that it is cruel and unusual. In Roper, the court distinguished between juveniles and adults, noting young people’s particular capacity for reform. The decision did implicitly indicate, however, that it would not violate the Constitution to sentence a juvenile to a prison term of life without the possibility of release, and many state courts similarly concluded that a sentence of life without the possibility of parole is not unconstitutional for young people. However, in 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in Graham v. Florida that life without parole for juvenile, nonhomicide offenses was unconstitutional. Then, in the 2012 case Miller v. Alabama, the Supreme Court found mandatory life without parole sentences for juvenile offenders to violate the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment clause, marking a distinct shift toward an anti-mandatory sentences stance.

Each US state continues to evolve its judicial response to juvenile sentencing, and case-to-case variance is not unusual. The right to transfer juveniles to adult court is shared by all the states, though not all of their criminal justice systems avail themselves of it. Many states also use blending laws. Except for the most serious offenses, however, the dominant outlook in the early twenty-first century favored giving juvenile offenders the opportunity to reintegrate into society. This contributed to a notable reduction in the number of young people involved in the criminal justice system from the late 1990s to the late 2010s.

Nevertheless, advocacy groups noted that by the 2020s hundreds of thousands of children were still arrested each year in the US, and at any given time hundreds of children were incarcerated in adult facilities. Statistics also showed that children of color were more likely than their White peers to enter the juvenile criminal justice system and to be transferred into the adult system. According to Children's Defense Fund in 2023, children of color were significantly more likely than White young people to receive an adult prison sentence for the same or even lesser offences.

These essays and any opinions, information or representations contained therein are the creation of the particular author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of EBSCO Information Services.

Bibliography

Adelman, Stanley E. “Supreme Court Bans Death Penalty for Under-18 Offenders.” Corrections Today, vol. 67, no. 5, 2005, pp. 58–61. US Department of Justice, www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/supreme-court-bans-death-penalty-under-18-offenders. Accessed 10 Dec. 2006.

Benekos, Peter J., Alida V. Merlo, and Charles M. Puzzanchera. “In Defence of Children and Youth: Reforming Juvenile Justice Policies.” International Journal of Police Science & Management, vol. 15, no. 2, 2013, pp. 125–43.

Bernard, Thomas J. Serious Delinquency: An Anthology. Roxbury, 2006.

Carmichael, Jason, and Giovani Burgos. “Sentencing Juvenile Offenders to Life in Prison: The Political Sociology of Juvenile Punishment.” American Journal of Criminal Justice, vol. 37, no. 4, 2012, pp. 602–29.

Fiorillo, Sara E. “Mitigating after Miller: Legislative Considerations and Remedies for the Future of Juvenile Sentencing.” Boston University Law Review, vol. 93, no. 6, 2013, pp. 2095–129.

Griffin, Patrick. Trying and Sentencing Juveniles as Adults: An Analysis of State Transfer and Blended Sentencing Laws. National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2003.

Guggenheim, Martin. “Graham v. Florida and a Juvenile’s Right to Age-Appropriate Sentencing.” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, vol. 47, no. 2, 2012, pp. 457–500.

Levy, Jonathan. “The Case of the Missing Argument: The Mysterious Disappearance of International Law from Juvenile Sentencing in Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012).” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, vol. 36, no. 1, 2013, pp. 355–74.

Lowry, Rebecca. “The Constitutionality of Lengthy Term-of-Years Sentences for Juvenile Non-Homicide Offenders.” St. John’s Law Review, vol. 88, no. 3, 2014, pp. 881–915.

Myers, David L. Boys among Men: Trying and Sentencing Juveniles as Adults. Praeger, 2005.

"The State of America's Children 2023: Youth Justice." Children's Defense Fund, www.childrensdefense.org/tools-and-resources/the-state-of-americas-children/soac-youth-justice/. Accessed 22 Nov. 2022.

"What Is Juvenile Justice?" The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 8 Apr. 2024, www.aecf.org/blog/what-is-juvenile-justice. Accessed 10 May 2024.

"Youth In the Justice System: An Overview." Juvenile Law Center, jlc.org/youth-justice-system-overview. Accessed 10 May 2024.