JUVENILE DELINQUENCY: AN ARGUMENT FOR INCREASED REHABILITATIVE SENTENCING
Author: Alexander Antonopoulos, Senior Editor
Introduction
When the average person thinks about the criminal justice system, a variety of concepts might come to mind. One could think of a petty thief caught by a superstore’s asset protection agent. Instead, maybe a hardened ex-felon facing trial for murder comes to mind. More optimistically, the vision might consist of an individual who made a series of bad decisions with consequences involving a rehabilitation program rather than imprisonment. All of these preconceived notions are equally valid visualizations of criminal justice. However, an often-overlooked aspect of our country’s justice system exists which constitutes a significant portion of total criminal cases and requires substantial resources to address: juvenile delinquency.
Juvenile delinquency is legally defined as “the participation by a minor child, usually between the ages of 10 and 17, in illegal behavior or activities.”[i] Essentially, the term refers to the same criminal statutory violations typically viewed as perpetrated by adults but as applied to minors instead.[ii] Just as criminal laws prohibit adults from committing certain acts and prescribe punishment accordingly, those same criminalized acts are enforced against individuals under 18 in much the same manner. However, while punishments for the same crime may vary widely when applied to different offenders due to vastly different factual circumstances and individual criminal histories, determining appropriate consequences for the same crime when committed by a minor arguably presents a greater challenge because “juvenile offenses may be punishable by special laws not applicable to adults.”[iii]
Science vs. Sentencing
According to a 2021 report published by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, around 424,000 total juveniles were arrested nationally by law enforcement in 2020.[iv] Fortunately, that number represented a marked decrease in total juvenile arrests as compared to the previous year when an average of roughly 2,000 juveniles were arrested daily for a yearly total approaching 700,000.[v] Although these statistics may indicate a shockingly high number of juvenile arrests, these numbers actually represent a significant decline over the preceding decade, with overall juvenile arrests decreasing 71% since 2011.[vi]
While a notable decline in juvenile arrests is undoubtedly a positive trend, determining adequate punishments for juvenile offenders constitutes a serious legal issue with potentially grave consequences for the affected youth.[vii] Generally, the same array of approaches to punishment exist as they do in the adult criminal world: imprisonment, fines, or other forms of penalties.[viii] However, pursuant to the sensitive nature of adjudicating juvenile offenders, courts are far from uniform in their sentencing decisions. “States have given their juvenile courts extremely broad discretion in juvenile delinquent confinement decisions. This discretion, although limited in some respects by legislation, causes unpredictability in the system…”[ix] Accordingly, some states place enormous weight on the severity of the crime committed, while others consider severity merely one of many factors to consider.[x]
Yet, as research has repeatedly demonstrated, juveniles inherently face a special risk from imprisonment not seen with adult offenders because juvenile delinquents experience the justice system during their formative years.[xi] As neuroscience has consistently indicated, human brains continue to develop until the mid-20s, well beyond the upper juvenile age limit of 18 typically acknowledged in the criminal justice system.[xii] This science should, and often does, have an impact on adjudicatory decisions by juvenile court systems. “Incarceration does not support the growth and development of our children…while incarcerated, children are often provided with inadequate education instruction, health care, and counseling services and they are at greater risk of maltreatment…abuse, sexual assault, and suicide.”[xiii] Eliminating such undesirable experiences for offenders, thereby diminishing the rate of trauma and violent tendencies among the affected youth, would create safer communities and provide a more nurturing environment for such individuals to thrive in.[xiv]
In addition to the benefits of eliminating such negative factors in juvenile delinquency cases, many legal systems have recognized that juveniles are fundamentally more likely to respond to rehabilitation than adults.[xv] As the U.S. Supreme Court noted in 2005, “a greater possibility exists that a minor’s character deficiencies will be reformed” compared to adult offenders.[xvi] In other words, courts may unfortunately be unable to rehabilitate certain adults predisposed to criminal activity which would necessitate incarceration of adult offenders, whereas juvenile courts in identical circumstances could take a rehabilitative approach yet succeed in beneficially altering the lives of the juveniles offenders. As evidence of the merits of this approach, a majority of states have already identified rehabilitation as the objective of their juvenile justice systems.[xvii] Many have even acknowledged that punishments, when unavoidable for juvenile offenders, should strive to incorporate a “therapeutic” element rather than impose pure retribution.[xviii] Simply put, “the case for retribution is not as strong with a minor as with an adult.”[xix]
Conclusion
Juvenile delinquency will undoubtedly continue to plague the country’s justice system and imprisonment of minors will certainly be unavoidable under severe circumstances. However, pursuant to the numerous statistics and reports on juvenile delinquency, juvenile courts across the country should seek to rehabilitate young offenders, when possible, as an alternative to imprisonment.[xx] As one former juvenile corrections director has stated, “youth in trouble need guidance, education, and support, not incarceration in harmful and ineffective youth prisons.”[xxi]
[i] Legal Dictionary, https://legaldictionary.net/juvenile-delinquency/ (last visited Sept. 8, 2022).
[ii] See id.
[iii] Juvenile Delinquent, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).
[iv] Estimated number of juvenile arrests, 2020, Off. of Juv. Just. & Delinq. Prevention, https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/qa05101.asp#:~:text=A%3A,number%20of%20arrests%20in%202011 (last visited Sept. 8, 2022).
[v] The State of America’s Children 2021, Children’s Defense Fund, https://www.childrensdefense.org/state-of-americas-children/soac-2021-youth-justice/ (last visited Sept. 8, 2022).
[vi] Off. of Juv. Just. & Delinq. Prevention, supra note iv.
[vii] See, e.g., Adam Schaffer, Youth justice study finds prison counterproductive, The Harvard Gazette (Oct. 21, 2016), https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/10/youth-justice-study-finds-prison-counterproductive/.
[viii] Sentencing and Sanctions, Nat’l. Inst. of Just., https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/courts/sentencing-and-sanctions (last visited Sept. 8, 2022).
[ix] John D. Elliott & Anna M. Limoges, Deserts, Determinacy, and Adolescent Development in the Juvenile Court, 62 S.D. L. Rev. 750, 759 (2017).
[x] Id. at 755.
[xi] See Children’s Defense Fund, supra note v.
[xii] Brain Maturity Extends Well Beyond Teen Years, NPR, https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141164708 (Oct. 10, 2011, 12:00 PM).
[xiii] See Children’s Defense Fund, supra note v.
[xiv] See id.
[xv] Graham v. Fla., 560 U.S. 48, 69 (2010).
[xvi] Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 571 (2005).
[xvii] Joy Radice, The Juvenile Record Myth, 106 Geo. L. J. 365, 392-393 (2018).
[xviii] Id.
[xix] Graham v. Fla., 560 U.S. 48, 71 (2010) (citing Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 571 (2005)).
[xx] Maltreatment of Youth in U.S. Juvenile Corrections Facilities, The Annie E. Casey Found., https://www.aecf.org/resources/maltreatment-of-youth-in-us-juvenile-corrections-facilities#findings-and-stats (last visited Sept. 8, 2022).
[xxi] Schaffer, supra note vii.