Restorative, teen-administered juvenile justice past and present

While 261,200 children are estimated to be in detention globally, child-specific justice legislation, child-friendly courts and specialised procedures continue to divert children away from the criminal justice system and contribute to a decrease in the number of children in prison in many countries. In this blog, Milana Carse examines teen courts in the US as a model of diversion for teenagers run by other teenagers.

I’ve been struck by the upside-down priorities of the [United States] juvenile justice system. We are willing to spend the least amount of money to keep a kid at home, more to put him in foster home and the most to institutionalize him.

–Marian Wright Edelman, Founder and President of the Children’s Defense Fund

Modifying the juvenile justice system from penalty to restoration is an important step in realizing the potential of our future generations. It is especially important to apply such policies to young people in the justice system. Over the past several years, as I have pursued an interest in restorative justice, it has led to my involvement with a diversionary program for teenagers in my community called a teen court, a feature of the juvenile justice system in many US communities. I believe the teen court model bears examination by other jurisdictions, both in the US and elsewhere, as there is much to recommend it compared to other approaches.

US Crime and Punishment

Since the establishment of the first juvenile court in the nation near my home in Chicago in 1899, US states have recognized that those who commit crimes under the age of 18 are different from adults and require a specialized response. Over the intervening decades, medical science has confirmed that teenagers’ brains are not fully developed, making them impulsive, and less able to manage emotions and understand the long-term effects of their actions.

The vast majority of children who commit crimes, even those who commit serious crimes, grow out of antisocial activity as they transition to adulthood. Most childhood offending is, in fact, limited to adolescence. Research suggests that the process of maturing out of crime is linked to the process of maturing more generally, including the development of impulse control and future orientation.

This also means that teens are more easily reformed: as they reach adulthood and their brains mature, the likelihood young people will offend again reduces significantly. This means that well-designed diversion and rehabilitation programs can greatly reduce long-term costs to both teens in the juvenile justice system and to society.

The US has similar national crime rates as those in many other high-income countries, but the US has one of the highest imprisonment rates in the world: up to 10 times as high as that of Western European countries. Incarceration rates among children are similarly high, as US under-18s are imprisoned more than twice as often as any other nation. Disturbingly, two-thirds of teen incarcerations in the US are for non-violent offenses.

the US system relies far too heavily on failed policies of deterrence and retribution instead of on restoration and rehabilitation

Imprisonment is a severe punishment, and in the US juvenile justice system, rehabilitation is often less important than punishment and deterrence of future offenses. For example, in Texas, juvenile incarceration facilities routinely lock teens in cells for all but 30 minutes a day, and nearly half are on suicide watch. However, there is growing evidence that incarcerating teenagers fails as a deterrent or means of rehabilitation, as 70% to 80% of incarcerated youth in the US are rearrested within two to three years of being released. Indeed, several studies indicate that youth incarceration may make the problem worse by actually increasing recidivism, as imprisonment often leads to reduced job prospects, entrenched poverty, and additional criminality. Youth incarceration is estimated to cost the US $8 billion to $21 billion annually in lost future contributions to society. Finally, in addition to these enormous future social costs, imprisoning a single young person itself often costs more than $100,000 per year.

Beyond the practical and economic questions involved, there are also persuasive moral and developmental reasons to divert as many young people as possible from incarceration. Coupled with other punitive forms of punishment like fines and assignments to a disciplinary school, the US system relies far too heavily on failed policies of deterrence and retribution instead of on restoration and rehabilitation.

Teen Courts: A Diversionary Option

For the past three years, I have served on a peer jury, a type of “teen court”. Teen courts are diversionary programs for teenagers run by other teenagers. Those appearing before a teen court can avoid a trial by working with a group of peers to examine their acts, and pursuing restitution and punishment outside of the penal system. There are several models of teen courts: Adult Judge, Youth Judge, Tribunal, or Peer Jury.

• Adult Judge: youth volunteers serve in roles such as prosecuting and defense attorneys, jurors, clerks, and bailiffs. An adult volunteer serves in the role of youth court judge.
• Youth Judge: youth volunteers serve in roles such as prosecuting and defense attorneys, jurors, clerks, bailiffs, and judges.
• Tribunal: volunteer youths serve as prosecuting and defense attorneys and present the case to a panel of youth volunteer judges. The youth judge panel presides over the hearing and makes a sentencing determination.
• Peer Jury: a panel of youth volunteer jurors directly question the respondent and make the sentencing determination.

Teen courts often hear cases where the offenses are non-violent, but the one that I volunteer for also handles assaults, as long as weapons are not involved. In order to qualify for teen court in my community, participants must first admit to their offense. They are then invited to describe the incident to the peer jury, a group of 3 to 5 volunteer teens. The peer jury questions the participant about their behavior, and how the problem that led to their offending acts should have been solved productively. The participant then leaves and the peer jury discusses what we have heard: if we believe the participant’s account and introspection are honest, and they show true remorse, we often assign restorative steps such as community service, statements of apology to their victims, and/or written assignments on how a conviction would change their lives. Participants return at a future date to present their work to the peer jury for approval, and if the jury believes they are genuine, their charges are often suspended and/or dismissed.

there are now over 1,400 teen courts across the US, managing more than 100,000 cases a year

Since beginning about fifty years ago, there are now over 1,400 teen courts across the US, managing more than 100,000 cases a year: in 2015 it was estimated 25% of teens in the US juvenile justice system went through a teen court instead of the normal juvenile criminal process. In addition to benefiting the participant, teen courts offer a number of community benefits, as well. Teen courts can adjudicate cases with much less time and expense than the traditional court system, freeing up precious and scarce law enforcement and judicial resources. The involvement of volunteer teens in the peer-run process also increases civic engagement in the justice system, and provides opportunities for community service. The peer-to-peer nature of the teen court is also thought to increase accountability among participants. Although evaluations of teen courts’ effectiveness are ongoing and mixed, several studies have found that teenagers in the juvenile justice system who participate in teen courts have much lower recidivism rates than those who do not.

Conclusion

The teen courts’ requirement that participants examine their own actions to a group of peers instead of to adults helps teens break down the resistance to accepting responsibility for their offenses. Receiving judgements from their peers rather than adults is a powerful influence on teenagers, especially when they are given respect and are able to apologize or otherwise come to a deeper understanding of their actions. This combination of acceptance of their responsibility, an honest look at their behavior, and a chance at undoing the harm they caused makes a powerful impression on young people. Peer juries’ advantages in promoting these restorative, rehabilitative steps make them a compelling option for juvenile justice systems to consider all over the world.