Abstract
The juvenile justice system is currently under attack on two broad fronts. First, legal experts and commentators are providing stinging critiques of the system’s failure to protect the liberty and due process interests of juveniles. Second, legislators throughout the country are supporting more and more legislation designed to “get tough” on juvenile crime. In combination, these criticisms and reforms advance the “recriminalization” of juvenile offenders. Juvenile offenders are increasingly subject to adult standards of culpability and punishment. Most of this change in the way we think about and officially respond to juvenile crime has proceeded without a discussion of the empirical effects of imposing adult status on juveniles. The purpose of this article is to introduce that missing element and to consider the wisdom of current policy trends in light of relevant research and theory.
Part II of this article considers challenges to the juvenile justice system and the nature of recent reforms, especially those that attribute adult status to juveniles. The reforms and their historical development are examined in order to appreciate more fully the dynamics of the reform movement. Part III discusses studies that compare the benefits of processing youth as adults in the criminal justice system with traditional juvenile justice processing, concluding that the research does not support the pace and the direction of current reforms. Part IV employs Braithwaite’s theoretical framework to interpret these findings and to consider why juveniles may fare better under juvenile as opposed to adult court jurisdictions. Part V concludes that a moratorium on the criminalization of juvenile offenders is needed in order to develop a more informed policy.
Recommended Citation
Donna M. Bishop, Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, and Charles E. Frazier,
Juvenile Justice under Attack: An Analysis of the Causes and Impact of Recent Reforms,
10 U. Fla. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y
(1998).
Available at: https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/jlpp/vol10/iss1/7