Consequences of Juvenile Sentencing
The way a society treats its children says a lot about its values. In the United States, the juvenile system was originally built on the belief that young people are capable of growth and change. Over time, however, that belief was replaced(due to excessive fear) with policies that treat children as if they were fully grown adults. New juvenile sentencing laws that impose adult-level punishments are now present. Looking at history, Supreme Court decisions, and science, one thing is clear: Sentencing children as adults is ineffective and unfair.
The first juvenile court was created in Cook County, Illinois, in 1899. Its original purpose was rehabilitation rather than punishment. Lawmakers and judges of the past recognized that children did not intentionally make these mistakes as a fully grown adult would. They understood that children were different from adults. Young people are known to be more impulsive than thoughtful. However, they also have the incredible ability to change who they are. Many of these early courts focused their efforts on this change.
This approach was common for much of the twentieth century. I was supported by American and English law, which treated minors as less dangerous because of their lack of judgment and growth. The idea that children should be punished differently was widely accepted. This changed in the 1980s and 1990s. Rising crime rates and over-dramatic media spread rumors about youth violence and created an epidemic of fear among the people. During this period, disgust of the youth gained popularity. Politicians and scholars claimed that the new generation was violent and chaotic. They fought for harsh punishment of youth. Even though this stereotype was false, it had a great impact on future American policy in the juvenile court.
States across the country passed laws that made it easier to judge juveniles as adults and impose severe sentences. Between 1992 and 1997, nearly every state adopted harsher juvenile sentencing laws. As a result, children were sent to adult prisons and given sentences that went well into their adulthood. These policies were driven by fear, rather than evidence.
The consequences of those times are still present today. Crime rates did decline later on, but not because of the newly polished juvenile sentencing laws. Many of the people who had supported past stereotypes about the youth admitted they were wrong. Yet, thousands of people are still held in jail due to mistakes they made as children during this time period. This shows how difficult it is to undo the past.
Despite the past, the Supreme Court has tried to address the extreme juvenile sentencing laws. In Roper v. Simmons (2002), the Court ruled that the death penalty for juveniles violated the Eighth Amendment. This decision emphasized that most youth lack the correct amount of judgment and morals and are often vulnerable to pressure from others. The court showed that juveniles have the potential for change.
This same reasoning continued in Graham v. Florida(2010), where the Court ruled that sentencing juveniles to life without parole for non-homicide offences was unconstitutional. The court explained that such sentences deny young people the chance to move on from their mistakes. In Miller v. Alabama(2012), the Court went further, deciding that mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles, even in cases of homicide, were unconstitutional. This reveals how the court is moving forward, rather than backward.
These decisions don’t excuse crimes. Instead, they give courts the chance to change the children who are the future of the world. Children are different, and the law has to recognize that.
Modern neuroscience supports this idea. Research shows that the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain that is responsible for decision-making, is not fully developed until the mid-twenties. This strongly supports the idea that children should not be judged on their present mistakes.
Extreme juvenile sentencing is often seen as necessary, but history suggests otherwise. Studies have consistently shown that juveniles who were sentenced are more likely to commit another crime, as compared with juveniles who weren’t. Adult prisons expose youth to violence and trauma, making their lives worse.
Morals are an issue, too. Sentencing a child to die in prison sends a message that growth is impossible and mistakes are permanent. History shows that society regrets policies that harm young people. Practicals like child labor and segregated schooling are examples of this. They were once widely accepted, but are quite obviously failures of the legal system.
Juvenile sentencing laws shaped by fear have left everlasting harm. History, science, and the Constitution all understand that children should not be treated like adults. A fair justice system should hold young people accountable while also allowing them to work on themselves. If the law is meant to serve justice, then the youth must also reflect this.
Bibliography
Graham v. Florida. 560 U.S. 48. Supreme Court of the United States, 2010.
Miller v. Alabama. 567 U.S. 460. Supreme Court of the United States, 2012.
Roper v. Simmons. 543 U.S. 551. Supreme Court of the United States, 2005.
Steinberg, Laurence. “A Social Neuroscience Perspective on Adolescent Risk-Taking.” Developmental Review, vol. 28, no. 1, 2008, pp. 78–106.
Scott, Elizabeth S., and Laurence Steinberg. Rethinking Juvenile Justice. Harvard UP, 2008.
Zimring, Franklin E. American Juvenile Justice. Oxford UP, 2005.
Human Rights Watch. The Rest of Their Lives: Life without Parole for Child Offenders in the United States. Human Rights Watch, 2005.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: National Report. U.S. Department of Justice, 2014.