Juvenile and Adult Justice Systems
Overview: Punitive (Adult) vs Rehabilitation (Juvenile) Systems
The adult justice system is described as punitive, extending to extreme punishments like the death penalty, life imprisonment, loss of voting rights, and ineligibility for public housing. It aims to deter crime and manage reintegration pressures by harsh penalties.
The juvenile justice system emphasizes rehabilitation, grounded in the idea that juveniles have ongoing brain development and can potentially correct behavior before adulthood.
Consequences for juveniles under punishment can be substantial, but the emphasis tends to be on corrective measures rather than punishment alone; the system argues for considering developmental factors when shaping approaches to wrongdoing.
If the focus is punishment, there is an argument for providing more procedural rights to contest punishment (e.g., in court, detention, or other sanctions). If the focus is rehabilitation, the sense is that fewer rights may be needed because the aim is to fix behavior rather than simply punish.
The discussion connects this to critiques of whether juveniles are fundamentally different from adults in brain function and impulse control, and whether this warrants different standards for punishment (e.g., death penalty) or different outcomes in the judicial process.
Foundational Concepts
Rehabilitation vs punishment: Juvenile systems prioritize rehabilitation; adult systems are more punishment-centric.
Brain development and culpability: The podcast and readings emphasize that juveniles may have less mature impulse control, affecting judgments about punishment severity.
Rights vs rehabilitation trade-off: The more punitive the system, the more the state may justify protecting due process rights; the more rehabilitative the system, the more emphasis on factors other than punishment.
Parens patriae: The state may act as guardian to protect juveniles and guide them toward healthier outcomes.
Therapeutic vs legalistic approaches:
Therapeutic: drug treatment, mental health treatment, family/community supports to reduce recidivism.
Legalistic: strict enforcement of the law, deterrence, and punishment.
Deterrence vs prevention: The adult system leans on deterrence through punishment; the juvenile system emphasizes prevention by addressing risk factors.
Social context and crime: Public policy shifts toward urbanization, school stabilization, family support, and protective factors to reduce juvenile delinquency; the system seeks to intervene early and divert youth from confinement when possible.
Resource allocation: There is a noted discrepancy in the U.S. between policing resources and treatment resources (approx. 90\% on policing vs 10\% on treatment); other countries may allocate differently.
JJDPA (Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act) of 1974: Aimed to reduce confinement of juveniles and promote separation of juveniles from adults in custody; encouraged alternatives such as foster care and group homes to minimize confinement.
Key Court Cases and Legal Principles
In re Gault (1967): Juvenile due process rights were recognized in delinquency proceedings, including right to counsel and to confront witnesses, and protections against self-incrimination in certain contexts.
McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971): The constitutional right to a jury trial is not guaranteed for juveniles; states may, but are not required to, provide jury trials in juvenile cases.
Kent v. United States (1966): Waiver/transfer to the adult system is permissible in some circumstances; some states allow juveniles as young as about age 15–16 to be treated as adults depending on procedures and standards.
In re Winship (1970): The standard of proof for harsh or serious outcomes in juvenile cases is the beyond a reasonable doubt standard (the adult standard of proof).
Roper v. Simmons (2005): The death penalty is unconstitutional for juveniles; juveniles cannot be punished with the most severe capital punishment due to evolving standards of decency and developmental considerations.
Miller v. Alabama (2012): Mandatory life without parole for juveniles is unconstitutional; juveniles must be given consideration of youth and potential for rehabilitation when determining punishment.
Double jeopardy and juvenile processing: There is ongoing discussion about whether a juvenile can be tried in both juvenile and adult courts for the same offense and how due process rights apply when transfers occur; the transcript notes that this is a contested area and context-dependent.
1967 case on confrontation and counsel: The Gault framework established that juveniles could be afforded certain due process protections, including the right to counsel and to confront witnesses; this reflects the tension between juvenile treatment and adult-like due process expectations.
Prevention, Diversion, and Restorative Justice in the Juvenile System
Prevention focus: The juvenile system emphasizes preventing crime by addressing risk factors in social institutions (schools, families, communities).
Risk factors for juveniles include: dropping out of school, unstable family life, teen pregnancy (which correlates with dropout risk), drugs and alcohol, LGBTQ status-related family instability, mental health issues, suicidal risk.
Protective factors include: stable family life, higher socioeconomic status, safe and supportive neighborhoods, access to resources.
Diversion and alternatives to formal court processing:
Diversion: redirecting youth away from formal processing and punishment when appropriate.
Station house adjustment: police, juvenile, and family work with the youth to resolve the issue without formal charges; for example, a first offense may be addressed through a community remedy rather than detention.
Preliminary conference: a meeting with the juvenile, parents/guardians, victim, and probation officer to determine an appropriate remedy (e.g., repainting a building and performing community service).
Restorative justice: a framework that seeks to repair harm to victims and the community while also considering the offender’s rehabilitation. This approach is used in both juvenile and, to some extent, adult systems.
School and community-based interventions: Many issues can be resolved at school or with community organizations to avoid police involvement (e.g., addressing threats, nonviolent offenses, or disputes).
Status offenses (juvenile-specific offenses): Examples include vaping, underage drinking, running away, and curfew violations; these offenses are typically not offenses for adults and are more likely to be dealt with in the juvenile system by diversion or school-based interventions.
Law enforcement structure: Juvenile units and status offense policing are more prevalent; the fourth and fifth amendments still apply but may be interpreted differently for juveniles.
Intakes and disposition: Intake determines whether formal proceedings will occur; many juveniles do not proceed to formal court due to diversion programs and early interventions.
Separation from adults: The trend has been toward keeping juveniles separate from adults to prevent exposure to more serious criminal activity and protect youths from potential abuse.
Deterrence, Therapeutic vs Legalistic Approaches in Practice
Deterrence in the adult system: Aims to deter crime by imposing penalties that make committing the crime seem too risky (e.g., the death penalty, lengthy prison terms).
Limitations of deterrence: Deterrence is less effective for expressive, violent, or impulsive crimes (e.g., murder, rape, domestic violence) where emotions or situational factors drive behavior.
Therapeutic emphasis in juvenile system: Emphasizes addressing underlying causes (substance use, mental health, family issues) and using treatments to reduce future risk.
Resource realities: The system is often under-resourced for treatment and rehabilitation; there is a common critique that the U.S. allocates far more resources to policing than to treatment, with real-world consequences for option availability (e.g., bed availability for treatment).
Ethico-practical implications: The balance between protecting society and ensuring a juvenile’s path to healthy development raises questions about justice, rehabilitation success, and the rights of youths.
Procedural Rights, Waivers, and Miranda Considerations for Juveniles
Waiver/totality of the circumstances: Juvenile interrogations consider age, competency, mental disability, education, and whether the juvenile can understand the proceedings; access to a parent or attorney during questioning is important and varies by jurisdiction.
Miranda rights and juveniles: The right to remain silent and to counsel remains, but the applicability and execution may differ for juveniles based on age, vulnerability, and understanding; courts assess the total circumstances to determine whether a juvenile can waive rights.
Access to counsel or parent: Juveniles should have access to an attorney or a parent/guardian who can understand and advocate for their interests during interrogation or questioning.
Bail and confinement considerations: In juvenile cases, bail can be granted or denied based on factors like the severity of the offense, flight risk, and danger to self or others; confinement decisions often involve detention hearings to assess risk.
Intake and custody considerations: Intake is the process of booking into the system; many juveniles are diverted before formal proceedings; historical practice included detaining juveniles with adults, which is now discouraged in favor of separation and safer handling.
The parens patriae principle in practice: The state acts as guardian to ensure the juvenile’s welfare, which justifies certain interventions but also requires safeguards to minimize harm and unnecessary detention.
The Juvenile Justice System: Procedures, Confinement, and Reforms
Intakes and delinquency terminology:
Juveniles are commonly described as delinquents rather than criminals in the formal sense, though there is overlap with adult criminal conduct.
Dependency and neglect considerations (not having a stable guardian) can also bring youths into the system.
Detention and confinement:
Historically, juveniles could be detained with adults; reforms separated youths from adult prisoners to reduce abuse and negative transfer of criminal behavior.
Detention hearings consider risk to self or others and need for protection; bail decisions for juveniles follow similar principles to adults but with developmental considerations.
Diversion mechanisms and examples:
Station house adjustment: First-offense agreements between police, juvenile, and parents to resolve issues outside formal court processes.
Preliminary conference: Involves victim, juvenile, parents, and a probation officer to determine remediation (e.g., repainting property, community service).
Restorative justice: Emphasis on repairing harms to victims and communities and balancing offender accountability with rehabilitation.
Status offenses and juvenile-specific enforcement:
Offenses like underage drinking, vaping, running away, and certain curfews drive juvenile-specific interventions rather than adult-style punishment.
Community and school-based interventions:
Emphasize prevention, early identification of risk factors, and support to keep youths in school and in stable home environments.
Real-World Trends and Context
Urbanization and juvenile crime: Between 1974 and the present, there has been a trend toward urban areas; this correlates with policy focus and program development in cities.
After-school risk windows: The highest juvenile police interactions tend to occur in the after-school hours (roughly 3:00–6:00 pm), when youth have more unsupervised time and opportunities for minor offenses such as vandalism or theft.
Public policy and reform trajectories:
The JJDPA (1974) helped move away from confinement toward community-based options and the separation of juveniles from adults in custody.
The system increasingly considers social determinants of delinquency (e.g., school stability, family structure, community resources) in prevention and intervention strategies.
Population and capacity challenges: Organizations across states report shortages in treatment beds and resources, impacting the ability to provide mental health or addiction treatment for youths and adults alike, especially in the wake of opioid and fentanyl crises.
Ethical and practical implications:
Balancing public safety with youths’ developmental potential requires careful use of risk-based detention, appropriate use of diversion, and investment in preventive services.
The debate over whether juveniles should be treated more like adults in certain contexts (e.g., severe violent offenses) continues to shape state policies and court rulings.
Illustrative Example from the Transcript
Preliminary conference example: James spray-paints a local business; through the preliminary conference, the officer, James, and his parents, along with the victim/business owner, decide that James will repaint the building and complete 30 hours of community service. This shows how diversion and restorative outcomes can mitigate harmful effects without formal court adjudication for a first offense.
Reflective and Ethical Considerations
Are juveniles fundamentally different from adults in a way that justifies different rights and punishments across all offense types, or should some standard apply uniformly? How do the cases discussed shape your view?
Given resource constraints, what is the ethically preferable balance between rehabilitation services and punitive measures?
How can restorative justice and community-based interventions be expanded to reduce confinement and improve long-term outcomes for youths?
What are the practical implications of developmental science for juvenile policy, especially in high-stakes cases involving violent crime or repeated offenses?
90\% of adult cases end in a guilty plea, signaling the prevalence of plea bargaining in the adult system and contrasting with the higher likelihood of formal trials or diversions in juvenile proceedings where rehabilitation is prioritized.
Summary Takeaways
The juvenile justice system historically emphasizes rehabilitation, guided by developmental science and social determinants of delinquency, with tools like diversion and restorative justice to minimize confinement.
The adult system emphasizes deterrence and punishment, with rights and procedures designed to support a criminal justice outcome; however, certain cases historically constrain how juveniles are treated when transferred to the adult system.
Key cases establish a framework for juvenile rights (Gault), standards of proof (Winship), jury trial considerations (McKeiver), and developmental considerations for punishment (Roper, Miller).
Prevention and early intervention, including school-based supports and family stability, are central to reducing juvenile crime, while policy reforms since 1974 have reduced confinement and expanded guardianship protections for youths.