The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:

Document Title: Bulletin 5: Young Offenders and an Effective 

Response in the Juvenile and Adult Justice 

Systems: What Happens, What Should Happen, 

and What We Need to Know (Study Group on 

the Transitions between Juvenile Delinquency 

and Adult Crime)

Author(s): James C. Howell, Barry C. Feld, Daniel P. Mears, 

David P. Farrington, Rolf Loeber, David 

Petechuk

Document No.: 242935

Date Received: July 2013

Award Number: 2008-IJ-CX-K402

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. 

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant report available electronically. 

 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those 

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect 

the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
Series: Study Group on the Transitions between Juvenile Delinquency 

and Adult Crime

Award #2008-IJ-CX-K402

Rolf Loeber

David Farrington

This project was supported by Award No. #2008-IJ-CX-K402 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of 

Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations 

expressed in this publication/program/exhibition are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the 

Department of Justice. NIJ defines publications as any planned, written, visual or sound material substantively based 

on the project, formally prepared by the grant recipient for dissemination to the public.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
1 

1 

Series: Study Group on the Transitions Between Juvenile Delinquency and Adult 

Crime 

BULLETIN 5: YOUNG OFFENDERS AND AN EFFECTIVE RESPONSE IN THE 

JUVENILE AND ADULT JUSTICE SYSTEMS:

WHAT HAPPENS, WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN, AND WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW

James C. Howell, Barry C. Feld, Daniel P. Mears, David P. Farrington, Rolf Loeber and 

David Petechuk

This bulletin examines juvenile and criminal justice policies and practices with respect to young 

offenders who cross over from the juvenile to the criminal justice system. It focuses on the age 

period between mid adolescence and early adulthood (roughly ages 15 to 29), with a particular 

focus on (1) older juvenile delinquents ages 15-17 who are candidates for transitioning into the 

criminal justice system and (2) young adult offenders ages 18-24. 

The juvenile and criminal justice systems in the United States have experienced a 

tumultuous period over the past half century. Beginning in the 1960s, the national crime rate 

sharply increased, prompting some criminologists to join with political forces to reject the 

rehabilitative ideal in favor of a “justice model” that limited correctional officials’ discretion 

with offenders and instituted determinate sentencing. A pessimistic 1974 review of program 

evaluations in juvenile and criminal justice systems buttressed the pendulum swing from 

treatment to punishment. Some analysts warned of a coming generation of juvenile 

“superpredators.” 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2 

2 

Although this dire prediction never materialized, the more punitive philosophy of the 

criminal justice system filtered down to the juvenile justice system and ushered in significant 

changes in policies and procedures for handling juvenile offenders. Large numbers of juvenile 

offenders were removed from the juvenile justice system and placed in the criminal justice 

system. Blended sentence provisions were enacted into law along with offense-based criteria and 

mandatory minimum sentences. Punitive measures were used more widely. New laws designated 

more juveniles as serious offenders, brought more minor offenders into the system, and extended 

periods of confinement in juvenile correctional facilities. 

The period of overreaction to juvenile crime appears to be ending. Both the juvenile and 

criminal justice systems are returning to an emphasis on rehabilitation and evidence-based 

practices. Moreover, there is considerable optimism that juveniles can be held accountable, while 

managing with services and sanctions the risks they pose to others, and provide them with “room 

to reform” without extinguishing their lives. The sense of urgency surrounding the need to 

reform juvenile and criminal justice policies and practices with respect to the transitioning young 

offender group cannot be overstated. In some instances, this transition can have life or death 

implications. 

JUSTICE SYSTEM RESPONSES

The Shift from Rehabilitative to Punitive Justice Policies

During most of the 20th century, state sentencing policies were primarily offenderoriented and based on a rehabilitative model of individualized sentencing (Tonry, 2009; Warren, 

2007). Beginning in the 1960s, the national crime rate sharply increased. At the same time, 

evaluations of correctional interventions during the rehabilitative period claimed that “nothing 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
3 

3 

works” (Lipton, Martinson, & Wilks, 1975; Martinson, 1974) and cast a negative shadow over 

therapeutic criminal and juvenile justice policy and practice (Tonry, 2004; Garland, 2001) and a 

new “just deserts” philosophy emerged. These developments led the federal government and 

many states to turn to offense-based sentencing policies and to embrace more punitive measures. 

The pendulum swing from treatment to punishment also filtered down to the juvenile 

justice system (Feld, 1988; Howell, 2003b). Two compelling images in the 1990s helped foster 

policies to enhance punishment of juvenile offenders. First, a political scientist warned of a 

coming generation of juvenile “superpredators” (DiIulio, 1995a) who would become a “new 

breed” of cold-blooded murderers (DiIulio, 1995b). Second, DiIulio and Wilson predicted that a 

new “wave” of juvenile violence would occur approximately between 1995 and 2010 based on a 

projected increase in the under-18 population (DiIulio, 1996; Wilson, 1995). 

The sharp increase in adolescent and young adult homicides in the late 1980s and early 

1990s (Cook & Laub, 1998) was tied to the presumed new wave of juvenile “superpredators”

(Blumstein, 1995; DiIulio, 1995a; Fox, 1996). The subsequent promotion of punitive policies 

rested on three assumptions: that the relative proportion of serious and violent offenders among 

all juvenile delinquents was growing; that juvenile offenders were becoming younger and 

younger; and that juveniles were committing more and more violent crimes. With hindsight, 

none of these assumptions has proved correct.

 Several researchers have debunked the superpredator myth and doomsday projections 

(Howell, 2003b; Males, 1996; Snyder & Sickmund, 2000; Zimring, 1998). A new wave of 

minority superpredators did not develop, nor did a general wave of juvenile violence occur. To 

be sure, rates of violent juvenile behavior increased in some cities in the 1980s and early 1990s, 

including Pittsburgh (Loeber, Farrington, Stouthamer-Loeber et al., 2008) and Denver (Huizinga, 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
4 

4 

Weiher, Espiritu, & Esbensen, 2003). However, analyses of national self-report and victimization 

data showed that the claimed increase in juvenile violence was exaggerated (Howell, 2003b; 

Snyder & Sickmund, 2000). Even at the height of the juvenile crime increase (1993), “only 

about 6% of all juvenile arrests were for violent crimes and less than one-tenth of one percent of 

their arrests were for homicides” (McCord, Widom, & Crowell, 2001, p. 33). 

 By the end of the 1990s, all states had enacted laws to make their juvenile justice systems 

more punitive or to ease transfer of more juveniles to the criminal justice system and adult 

prisons. Juvenile legal codes designated larger proportions of juveniles as serious and violent 

offenders and courts incarcerated more juveniles in detention centers and juvenile reformatories 

(Roush & McMillen, 2000). States abandoned rehabilitative programs and used “Scared 

Straight” programs and boot camps that featured military-style regimented discipline. 

Accountability became a euphemism for deserved punishment (i.e., just deserts). But much of 

this posturing was part of an effort by prosecutors and other politicians to shift public policy 

toward harsher, more repressive solutions to youth crime (Beckett & Sasson, 2004).

The absence of a clear or consistent emphasis on rehabilitation or on evidence-based 

practices has led some scholars to observe that “what is done in corrections would be grounds for 

malpractice in medicine” (Latessa, Cullen, & Gendreau, 2002). Since 2000, 20 investigations 

associated with the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (42 U.S.C. § 1997a et seq.) have 

been conducted involving 23 juvenile justice facilities in more than a dozen states (U.S. 

Department of Justice, 2007). Research consistently shows lower recidivism rates in the juvenile 

justice system than in the criminal justice system, but the likelihood of released youth or adults 

going on to lead crime-free lives is not high. Although it is very scant, data on recidivism rates 

among offenders released from state juvenile correctional facilities, gathered by the Virginia 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
5 

5 

Department of Juvenile Justice (2005) from 33 states, revealed average recidivism rates as 

follows: rearrests (57%), reconvictions (33%), and reincarceration (20%). 

 Nevertheless, some observers (Scott & Steinberg, 2008) erroneously declared that the 

rehabilitative mission of juvenile courts had “collapsed.” Although many state legislatures 

rewrote their juvenile codes to endorse punitive objectives in the 1990s, virtually all of the codes 

maintained some allegiance to the juvenile courts’ traditional rehabilitative mission (Bishop, 

2006; Tanenhaus, 2002, 2004). Bishop’s review of laws enacted during 2003–05 observed that 

“efforts are underway to mitigate or even abandon punitive features [of juvenile laws enacted in 

the past decade] and to address the treatment needs of most juvenile offenders” (p. 660; see also 

Butts & Mears, 2001). Indeed, scholars who used advanced analytical tools to examine the 

evidence to date found that well-implemented rehabilitative programs could substantially reduce 

recidivism (Cullen, 2005; Lipsey, 2009; Lipsey & Cullen, 2007), even for serious and violent 

offenders (Lipsey & Wilson, 1998). 

A recent study (Mulvey, Steinberg, Piquero et al., 2010) of more than one thousand 

adolescents adjudicated for serious offenses in Philadelphia (Philadelphia County) and in 

Phoenix (Maricopa County) found that juvenile justice system services and supervision reduced 

their level of involvement in antisocial activities. Almost 6 out of 10 members of this of this 

sample evidenced very low levels of involvement in antisocial activities during the entire 3-year 

follow-up period, and less than 9% of the sample consistently reported high levels of offending. 

Juvenile court-based services were more effective than confinement (Loughran, Mulvey, 

Schubert et al., 2009). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
6 

6 

Ideal versus Actual Responses to Young Offenders

As a result of changes over the past 30 years, young people today face a bewildering and 

inconsistent array of juvenile and adult justice system responses. There are many inconsistencies 

in juvenile and criminal justice processing: whether or not youths receive treatment depends on 

which system handles them, which create a substantial disjuncture between ideal and actual 

responses to young offenders in terms of processing and sentencing decisions and policies. 

Arrests. Criminologists have long assumed that arrests contribute to desistance during 

and after the juvenile years (Blumstein, Cohen, Roth et al., 1986). The arrest decision point 

precedes any sentencing decision, but nonetheless is critical for young people. Ideally, arrest 

alone should have a deterrent value for juveniles. However, at least in some areas of the country, 

arrest may exacerbate a youth’s future justice system involvement and inadvertently contribute to 

recidivism (Bernburg & Krohn, 2003; Bernburg, Krohn, & Rivera, 2006; Huizinga & Henry, 

2008). However, if a juvenile justice system were doing its job in protecting public safety, 

higher-risk offenders would penetrate the system more deeply and evidence higher recidivism 

rates in the absence of effective programs. 

Effects of Prosecution Practices on Different Ethnic Minorities. A voluminous amount of 

literature exists about impacts on racial and ethnic minorities of court and correctional decisionmaking (Hawkins & Kempf-Leonard, 2005; Howell, 2006, 2009). The literature on front-end 

decision-making finds that “minority youths are more likely than whites to be arrested, referred 

to court, and detained by police” (Bishop, 2005, p. 45). Bishop’s (2005) review found that 

“relatively few studies have explored the influence of race/ethnicity on prosecutorial decisions to 

file formal charges” (p. 52). By and large, however, except for the discrepant outcomes, we 

know little about how race and ethnicity affect formal charging practices and plea negotiations.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
7 

7 

The Impact of Targeted Prosecution on Conviction of Offenders Ages 15-29. Targeted 

prosecution involves selective identification and prosecution of serious, chronic, or violent 

offenders, sometimes coupled with efforts to enhance treatment or intervention. Little research 

has directly examined prosecutorial practices and their impact on juveniles’ transition into early 

adulthood. One study suggests that selective prosecution—for example, assigning an experienced 

prosecutor to handle juveniles’ cases from charging through disposition (Backstrom & Walker, 

2006)—can achieve improved outcomes, including more rapid court processing, more 

convictions, more placements in secure confinement, and less plea bargaining. However, it has 

not been demonstrated that these process outcomes lead to lower recidivism rates. To be sure, we 

know little about the gap between ideal and actual practice, much less how the quality of 

implementation of prosecution policies impacts recidivism.

Transfer Methods. Every U.S. state uses one or more statutory approaches to prosecute 

some juveniles as adults (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006; Griffin, 2012). Although the details of 

states’ transfer laws differ, all rely on variations of three general strategies—judicial waiver, 

legislative offense exclusion, and prosecutorial direct-file—to prosecute children in criminal 

courts (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006; Griffin, 2012). Transfer has served as a central focus of 

juvenile justice reforms in recent decades and vividly illustrates the “get tough” trend in juvenile 

justice.

Judicial waiver statutes represent the most prevalent transfer mechanism used in 45 states 

(Griffin, 2012), although these statutes account for the fewest number of youths tried in adult 

criminal courts. Judicial waiver laws allow a juvenile court judge to waive jurisdiction after a 

hearing to determine whether a youth is “amenable to treatment” or poses a danger to public 

safety. Reflecting the individualized sentencing discretion characteristic of juvenile courts, these 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
8 

8 

assessments consider clinical evidence and a youth’s social background, as well as the offense 

and criminal history (Feld, 1999, 2000). Although 14 is the minimum age for transfer in most 

jurisdictions, some states permit waiver of youths as young as 10 years or specify no minimum 

age and others require adult prosecution of children as young as 13 for certain offenses (Snyder 

& Sickmund, 2006; Griffin, 2012).

The number of delinquency cases judicially waived to criminal court peaked at 13,200 in 

1994 (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). By 2001, waived cases were down to 6,300 and were below 

the 1985 level. We attribute the overall decline in judicially waived youths since the mid-1990s 

to states’ adoption of offense exclusion and prosecutorial direct filing laws. These laws shifted 

discretion from the judicial branch to the executive branch in which prosecutors were making 

offense charging decisions that determined jurisdiction. These changes eliminated the need for 

judicial hearings and increased the number of youths transferred to criminal courts by other 

methods (Feld, 2008; Griffin, 2012).

 Although 45 states have judicial waiver statutes, statutory exclusion and prosecutorial 

direct-file laws account for most of the juveniles tried as adults (Feld, 2008; Griffin, 2012). 

Analysts estimate that states annually try more than 200,000 juveniles as adults simply because 

juvenile court jurisdiction ends at 15 or 16 years of age rather than at 17 (Butts & Mitchell, 2000; 

Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). “If only half of these cases actually went forward for criminal court 

processing, they would still far exceed the number of juveniles ending up in adult court by all 

other methods combined” (Butts & Mitchell, 2000, p. 186). Analysts also estimate that states use 

transfer mechanisms to try an additional 55,000 youths a year in criminal courts who were within 

the age jurisdiction of juvenile courts (Human Rights Watch, 2005; Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
9 

9 

Legislative offense exclusion frequently supplements judicial waiver provisions (Griffin, 

2012). This approach emphasizes the seriousness of the offense, rather than characteristics of the 

offender, and reflects the retributive values of the criminal law. Because legislatures create 

juvenile courts, they may define their jurisdiction simply to exclude youths charged with serious 

offenses from their jurisdiction without any hearing. For example, several states exclude from 

juvenile court jurisdiction youths 16 or older who are charged with first-degree murder (Griffin, 

2012).

 In 15 states, juvenile and criminal courts share concurrent jurisdiction over certain ages 

and offenses, typically older youths and serious crimes (Griffin, 2012). Prosecutors can directfile or charge youths in either the juvenile or criminal justice systems without any judicial review 

of their charging or court decisions (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006; Griffin, 2008). Analysts estimate 

that prosecutors determine the adult status of 85% of all youths tried as adults (Juszkiewicz, 

2000). 

Sentencing of the Most Serious Juvenile Offenders. No standard sentencing approach 

governs states’ criminal justice systems (Mears, 2003; Tonry, 1999). Thirty years ago, 

indeterminate sentencing was the prevailing model, but this has given way to a wide variety of 

sentencing options, including determinate and mandatory minimum sentences, three-strikes laws 

(designed to increase prison terms for repeat offenders), and “truth in sentencing” laws (which 

require offenders to serve some specified proportion of their sentences). The result is “a national 

crazy quilt made up of piecemeal sentencing reforms—without a public rationale that would 

explain the relationship between imprisonment and release” (Travis & Petersilia, 2001, p. 296). 

New state laws generally increased eligibility for criminal court processing and adult 

correctional sanctioning and reduced confidentiality protections for some juvenile offenders. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
10

10

Various laws increased sentences for a broader range of juvenile offenses and transferred more 

juveniles to criminal courts for sentencing as adults, especially those charged with violent and 

drug offenses (Torbet & Szymanski, 1998). In essence, prosecutors were given far more 

charging authority and gained an additional tool for seeking tougher sentences that would extend 

beyond the age limits of the juvenile justice system. Loughran, Mulvey, Schubert et al. (2009) 

found that longer sentences in juvenile correctional facilities did not produce lower recidivism 

rates. However, the evidence-based quality of services was not examined in this study. 

 In sum, the disjuncture between intended and actual system responses—arrest, 

prosecution, transfer, and sentencing—and our limited knowledge about the nature or magnitude 

of the gap poses enormous problems for policymakers. Responses to juvenile offenders, 

governed by juvenile and criminal codes, are highly variable and inconsistently applied. 

The Effectiveness of Transfer and New Approaches to Sanctioning Young Offenders

Transfer Laws and their Effectiveness. Earlier reviews of transfer studies reported that 

transferred youths were more likely to reoffend, reoffended more quickly and at higher rates, and 

committed more serious offenses following release from prison than did juveniles retained in the 

juvenile justice system (Bishop & Frazer, 2000; Howell, 1996; Howell & Howell, 2007). A more 

recent and systematic review of transfer studies conducted by the Task Force on Community 

Preventive Services (2007) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (Hahn, 

McGowan, Liberman et al., 2007; McGowan, Hahn, Liberman et al., 2007) found that 

transferring juveniles to the adult justice system generally increased, rather than decreased, rates 

of violence (Tonry, 2007). This systematic review found that transferred juveniles were 34% 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
11

11

more likely to be rearrested for violent or other crimes than were juveniles retained in the 

juvenile justice system (McGowan et al., 2007, p. S14). 

 Other studies buttress the CDC’s findings. Prior research indicates that changes in 

transfer laws or practices do not produce a specific or a general deterrent effect (Bishop & 

Frazier, 2000; Steiner & Wright, 2006). Collateral consequences of criminal convictions (Mauer 

& Meda, 2003) appear to include an elevated risk of violent victimization in adult jails and 

prisons (Bishop & Frazier, 2000; Forst, Fagan, & Vivona, 1989). In addition, transfer of youth 

may be developmentally disruptive because it interferes with acquisition of crucial educational, 

vocational, and social skills (Scott & Steinberg, 2008). All transfer studies are not in agreement 

on this important matter of deterrence. The majority show that recidivism rates are higher for 

transferred youth, particularly for violent offenses, in the most comprehensive and systematic 

CDC review.

____________________________________________________________________________ 

SIDE BAR 

SCHOOLS FOR CRIME

Transfer laws, if implemented as intended, should result in youth being processed in adult court 

and sentenced to adult prisons. Prior theory and research suggests that such exposure is likely to 

increase offending. Prison environments can serve as “schools for crime” (Irwin, 1980; Nagin, 

Cullen, & Jonson, 2009). Indeed, Bishop and Frazier (2000) found that “youths were more likely 

to learn social rules and norms that legitimated domination, exploitation, and retaliation. They 

routinely observed both staff and inmate models who exhibited these behaviors, and they 

observed these illegitimated norms being reinforced” (pp. 263-4.). Once in adult prison, Florida 

facilities provided fewer than 10% with any type of counseling or treatment program. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
12

12

Furthermore, youths reflecting on their experiences reported “feeling threatened by correctional 

staff, both physically and emotionally” (p. 266). Nationwide, two-thirds (67%) of released 

prisoners are rearrested within 3 years, and more than half of released inmates are returned to 

prison (Langan & Levin, 2002).

 

 The Efficacy of Criminal, Juvenile, and Blended Sentencing on Future Offending. Many 

new sentencing laws have “criminalized” juvenile courts and changed their procedures to operate 

more like adult criminal courts. Changes have included expanding adversarial procedures, 

increasing the role of prosecutors, formalizing due process, eliminating confidentiality, routinely 

gathering fingerprints, using “blended sentencing,” and emphasizing offense-based sanctions 

rather than rehabilitative dispositions in juvenile courts (Fagan & Zimring, 2000; Redding & 

Howell, 2000). The increased criminalization of juvenile courts has proceeded without any 

evidence that it effectively reduces crime or recidivism, and the policy runs counter to the 

traditional mission of these courts (Butts & Mitchell, 2000; Mears, 2000, 2001). To illustrate, 15 

states, including Texas (Mears, 2000; Mears & Field, 2000), Florida (Bishop & Frazier, 1996), 

and Minnesota (Podkopacz & Feld, 1995, 1996, 2001), have introduced blended sentencing laws 

without any obvious improvement in offending outcomes or enhanced ability of either the 

juvenile or adult justice systems to better manage youth. 

In blended sentencing systems, youths are entitled to receive all adult criminal procedural 

safeguards including the right to a jury trial. Following conviction, judges may combine a 

sentence in the juvenile system with an adult criminal sentence which is stayed pending 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
13

13

successful completion of the juvenile disposition. If a youth violates conditions of probation or 

reoffends, then a judge may revoke the juvenile’s probation and execute the criminal sentence. 

 Zimring (2000) has described the “Byzantine complexity” of blended sentencing laws. In 

Kansas, judges can impose a blended sentence on a youth as young as 10 years of age for any 

offense, and several states specify no or a very low minimum age (e.g. 12 or 13 years) for a 

blended sentence (see state-by-state discussion of blended sentencing provisions in Griffin, 

2012). Many youths who receive blended sentences fail on their juvenile probation, which then 

leads the courts to execute the adult criminal sentences. This process can result in “net widening” 

and, in particular, criminal sentences for youths convicted of nonserious offenses. Net widening 

occurs when a new sanction intended to serve as an alternative to a given level of system 

processing inadvertently brings more youths into the system’s net. 

Specialized Courts. Juxtaposed against a clear “get tough” trend in juvenile justice stands 

a countervailing trend toward embracing sanctioning options that include both punishment and 

rehabilitation as central guiding tenets (Butts & Mears, 2001; Mears, 2002). Specialized courts 

including youth courts are operating in both the juvenile and adult justice systems. However, as 

with the “get tough” trends, little is known about the implementation or impacts of these courts. 

Butts, Buck, and Coggeshall (2002) evaluated four youth courts and found that recidivism rates 

among teen court youth were lower than those of youth in the regular juvenile justice system. 

Systematic steps were taken to ensure a “good” to “high” degree of comparability in the absence 

of random assignment. A recent meta-analysis suggests that drug offenders processed in a drug 

court are less likely to reoffend than similar offenders sentenced to traditional correctional 

options (Mitchell, Wilson, & Mackenzie, 2012). This research along with another study 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
14

14

indicates that drug courts are less effective with juvenile offenders than with older offenders

(Shaffer, Hartman, Listwan et al., 2011). 

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR JUVENILES

Culpability 

Culpability focuses on an actor’s blameworthiness and degree of deserved punishment. 

Youths’ diminished responsibility requires mitigated sanctions to avoid damaging penalties and 

provide room for reform. Compared with adults, youths’ immature judgment reflects differences 

in appreciation of risk, appraisal of short- and long-term consequences, self-control, and 

susceptibility to negative peer influences (Scott & Steinberg, 2008). The Supreme Court’s 2005 

decision in Roper v. Simmons (543 U.S. 551) to abolish executions of juvenile offenders in the 

United States provides the backdrop for the discussion of adolescents’ reduced criminal 

responsibility. 

In Roper v. Simmons, the Supreme Court conducted a proportionality analysis (defined as

“the punishment fits the crime”) of adolescents’ culpability to determine whether the death 

penalty could ever be an appropriate punishment for some juveniles. The majority of judges 

offered three reasons why states should not punish juveniles as severely as adults (Roper, 2005). 

First, juveniles’ immature judgment and lesser self-control causes them to act impulsively and 

without full appreciation of consequences and reduces their culpability. Second, juveniles are 

more susceptible than adults to negative peer influence, which further diminishes their criminal 

responsibility. Third, juveniles’ personalities are more transitory and less well formed than those 

of adults, and their crimes provide less reliable evidence of “depraved character.” The Court’s

Roper decision (2005, p. 569) also attributed youths’ diminished culpability to a “lack of 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
15

15

maturity and . . . underdeveloped sense of responsibility . . . [that] often result in impetuous and 

ill considered actions and decisions.” In sum, the Supreme Court concluded that juveniles’ 

reduced culpability warranted a categorical prohibition of execution (Feld, 2008). 

 Although the Supreme Court’s capital punishment jurisprudence insisted that “death is 

different” (Eddings 1982; Harmelin 1991; Graham 2010), youths’ criminal responsibility is just 

as diminished when states impose life without parole (LWOP) or other lengthy sentences 

(Logan, 1998; Feld, 2008; Human Rights Watch, 2005). The same developmental 

psychological characteristics and penal considerations that reduce youths’ criminal responsibility 

for purposes of execution also reduce their culpability and warrant mitigated sentences (Zimring, 

1998). Despite youths’ diminished responsibility, 42 states permit judges to impose an LWOP 

sentence on any offender – adult or juvenile – convicted of serious offenses such as murder or 

rape; and 27 states require mandatory sentences for offenders convicted of those crimes. Judges 

may also impose very lengthy or consecutive terms that create the functional equivalent of life 

sentences.

 Mandatory LWOP sentences preclude consideration of youthfulness as a mitigating 

factor. Several states used their legislative authority to abolish the common-law infancy defense 

for very young children and removed the only substantive criminal law protections for youth 

(Carter, 2006). Appellate courts regularly uphold LWOP sentences and long terms of 

imprisonment imposed on youths as young as 12 years of age and reject juveniles’ pleas to 

consider youthfulness as a mitigating factor (Feld, 2008; Human Rights Watch, 2005). About 

one in every six juveniles who received an LWOP sentence was 15 of age or younger when they 

committed their crimes (Human Rights Watch, 2005). Although the Court’s death penalty 

jurisprudence treats youthfulness as a mitigating factor, trial courts perversely treat it as an 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
16

16

aggravating factor and sentence juveniles more severely than their adult counterparts (Kurlychek 

& Johnson, 2004, 2010). Youths are more likely than adults convicted of murder to enter prison 

with LWOP sentences (Human Rights Watch, 2005). 

In Graham v. Florida (2010), the Supreme Court applied Roper’s diminished 

responsibility rationale to cases in which judges sentenced youths convicted of non-homicide 

crimes to life without parole. Historically, the Court’s Eighth Amendment proportionality 

analyses distinguished between capital sentences and long terms of imprisonment and deferred 

to legislative decisions about deserved punishments. However, Graham (2010) concluded that 

offenders who did not kill were “categorically less deserving of the most serious forms of 

punishment than are murderers.” Graham emphasized youths’ immature judgment and reduced 

self-control, susceptibility to negative peer influences, and transitory character development. 

Graham also asserted that subsequent research in developmental psychology and neuroscience 

bolstered Roper’s conclusion that adolescents’ reduced culpability required somewhat mitigated 

sentences. In Miller v. Alabama, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that that states may no longer 

mandate life without parole sentences for juveniles convicted of homicide offenses, and 

mandates that punishment be appropriately tailored to account for the unique attributes of 

juvenile offenders, while still advancing the moral imperatives of the criminal law and promoting 

“just deserts” (Rosado, 2012). 

The Science of Child and Adolescent Development

For many years, developmental psychologists focused on logical reasoning capacity as 

the linchpin of maturity. Yet “trying to understand why risk taking is more common during 

adolescence has challenged psychologists for decades” (Steinberg, 2007, p. 55). Steinberg, a 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
17

17

leading scientist in this research, promotes a new perspective on adolescent risk taking that 

begins with the premise that risk taking in everyday life is the product of both logical reasoning 

and psychosocial factors. “However, unlike logical-reasoning abilities, which appear to be more 

or less fully developed by age 15 psychosocial capacities that improve decision making and 

regulate risk taking—such as impulse control, emotion regulation, delay of gratification, and 

resistance to peer influence—continue to mature well into young adulthood” (Steinberg, 2007, p. 

56; see Figure 1). 

[Put Figure 1. The Reasoning-Maturity Gap about here]

Many of the differences between adolescents’ and adults’ thinking and behaving reflect 

developmental differences in the human brain, which is not fully mature until early adulthood. 

Researchers at the Harvard Medical School, the National Institute of Mental Health, the UCLA 

School of Medicine, and others have collaborated to map the development of the brain from 

childhood to adulthood and to examine the implications of this development. Their research used 

magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to measure brain development. Until recently, most 

neuroscientists believed that the essential ‘wiring’ of the brain was completed very early—

perhaps by age 6—and that the brain matured fully in childhood and certainly by early 

adolescence. However, neuroscientists discovered a second spurt in brain development, one that 

occurs during the adolescent years. In other words, the teen brain is not a finished product but a 

work in progress, with maturation continuing well into the 20s (Giedd, Blumenthal, Jeffries et 

al., 1999; Paus, Zijdenbos, Worsley et al., 1999; Sowell, Thompson, Jernigan, & Toga, 1999; 

Sowell, Thompson, Tessner, & Toga, 2001). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
18

18

 The prefrontal cortex (PFC) of the frontal lobe of the brain operates as the “chief 

executive officer” to control advanced cerebral activities including reasoning, abstract thinking, 

planning, anticipating consequences, and impulse control (Gruber & Yurgelun-Todd, 2006; 

Sowell et al., 1999; Sowell et al., 2001; Aronson, 2007). During adolescence and into the early 

20s, increased maturation of the PFC improves cognitive functioning and reasoning ability (Paus 

et al, 1999; Sowell et al., 2001). Hence adolescents and young adults simply do not have the 

physiological capacity of adults over age 25 to exercise judgment or control impulses (Gruber & 

Yurgelun-Todd, 2006). 

Decision Making and Judgment

Established in 1997, the MacArthur Foundation’s research network on Adolescent 

Development and Juvenile Justice (ADJJ) has studied juveniles’ decision-making and judgment, 

adjudicative competence, and criminal culpability (Feld, 2008; Scott & Steinberg, 2008). The 

ADJJ research reports a disjunction between youths’ cognitive abilities and their maturity of 

judgment. Even though adolescents may exhibit intellectual and cognitive abilities comparable to

adults, they do not develop the psychosocial maturity, ability to exercise self-control, and 

competence to make adult-quality decisions until their early 20s (Scott & Steinberg, 2003). The 

“immaturity gap” represents the disjuncture between cognitive maturity—the ability to 

distinguish right from wrong—which reaches near-adult levels by age 15 or 16, and adolescents’ 

psychosocial maturity of judgment, risk assessment, and self-control, which may not emerge 

fully for nearly another decade. 

The ADJJ researchers also studied juveniles’ ability to evaluate risks and to delay 

gratification (Feld, 2008). This research suggests that adolescents’ risk perception actually 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
19

19

declines during mid-adolescence and then gradually increases into adulthood. As a result, 16- to

17-year old youths perceive fewer risks than do either younger or older research subjects. Youths 

engage in risky behavior because it provides heightened sensations, excitement, and an 

“adrenaline rush” (Spear, 2000; Steinberg, 2004). The widest divergence between the perception 

of and the preference for risk occurs during mid-adolescence when youths’ criminal activity also 

increases. 

Adjudicative Competence 

 Competence is the constitutional prerequisite to the exercise of other procedural rights. 

To be competent to stand trial, a criminal defendant must have sufficient ability to consult with 

his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rationale understanding, have a full understanding of the 

proceedings against him/her, and have the capacity to assist in preparing his/her defense (Bonnie 

& Grisso, 2000; Grisso, Steinberg, Woolard et al., 2003). Adjudicative competence involves a 

defendant’s ability to communicate with lawyers or aid in his/her defense, to make legal 

decisions and understand and participate in such legal procedures, to waive Miranda rights, to 

waive or assist counsel, to stand trial, and to exercise other constitutional protections. 

Developmental psychologists strongly question whether juveniles possess the cognitive 

ability, psychosocial maturity, and judgment necessary to exercise legal rights (Grisso et al., 

2003; Kruh & Grisso, 2009). They argue that immaturity per se produces the same deficits of 

understanding, impairment of judgment, and inability to assist counsel as does severe mental 

illness and, as a result, it renders many juveniles legally incompetent. For adolescents, generic 

developmental limitations adversely affect their ability to understand legal proceedings; to 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
20

20

receive information from, communicate with, and assist counsel; and to make rational decisions 

(Scott & Grisso, 2005; Redding & Fuller, 2004). 

Despite clear developmental differences between adolescents and adults, the Court and 

most state laws do not provide youths with additional procedural safeguards to protect them from 

their own immaturity and vulnerability. About half the states address juveniles’ competency to 

stand trial in statutes, court rules of procedure, or case law and conclude that delinquents have a 

fundamental right not to be tried while incompetent (Scott & Grisso, 2005; Feld, 2009). 

However, states use adult legal standards to gauge juvenile competence. Developmental 

psychologists contend that all children and adolescents younger than 16 years of age should 

receive automatic competency assessments and express serious reservations about the 

competency of 16-17-year-olds (Scott & Steinberg, 2003). 

A critical challenge to assessing competency is the fact that many jurisdictions do not 

provide adequate or appropriate competency assessments of youth (Grisso, 2004). The 

MacArthur Competency Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA; Hoge, Bonnie, 

Poythress et al., 1999) was developed to assess an individual's competency to stand trial. 

MacCAT-CA consists of three scales, Understanding, Reasoning, and Appreciation, along with 

several other variables (age, IQ, achievement level, experience with the juvenile justice system, 

and a screen for psychopathology) that may be related to competence to stand trial. Results of a 

validation study suggest that performance on the MacCAT-CA varied with age, with younger 

participants performing significantly worse than older juveniles (Ficke, Hart, & Deardorff, 

2006). 

Reentry Challenges and Contexts Unique to Young People

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
21

21

An estimated 200,000 juveniles and young adults ages 24 and younger leave secure 

juvenile correctional facilities or state and federal prisons and return home each year (Mears & 

Travis, 2004). Most reentry research has focused on adults, and little is known about the reentry 

of young people. It would be risky to assume that the challenges young offenders face upon 

returning to society is the same as those for adults; substantial differences exist. For example, 

young people, and adults alike, who are released from secure confinement, confront several 

barriers: 

• School systems may not be receptive to working with them and may warehouse them in 

special classrooms or alternative schools.

• Developmental disabilities may have gone undiagnosed, untreated, or mistreated.

• Violence and drug dealing may occur in family settings.

• Peer networks may foster criminality, a particular concern because of the greater 

importance of peer influences among adolescents.

• Youth may be unemployable because they typically will not have graduated from high 

school, and have a limited, if any, employment history. Only one-third (68%) of state 

prison inmates received a high school diploma (Harlow, 2003). 

• Young people released from confinement may have little experience in positive prosocial 

experiences involving friends, prosocial recreation, intimate emotional relationships, the 

self-discipline needed for employment, etc.

Civil disqualifications remain a major obstacle to successful offender reentry into society, 

but few studies have systematically compared these needs and experiences among youth 

populations. A systematic review of prisoner reentry programs (Seiter & Kadela, 2003) for adults 

indicated generally positive outcomes for several programs, including vocational training and/or 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
22

22

work release, drug rehabilitation, education programs (to some extent), halfway house programs, 

pre-release programs, and promising results for sex- and violent offender programs. Such 

programs as these need to be tested for young adult offenders. 

SIDE BAR

International Law and Practice

The U.S. is the only developed nation that tries its youngest offenders in its regular criminal 

courts without modified procedures.1 Until Roper v. Simmons (2005) banned executions of 

persons who commit capital murder before they reach age 18, the U.S was the only country in 

the world that gave official sanction to the juvenile death penalty. The U.N. Convention on the 

Rights of the Child (CRC) codified the basic human rights of children and was adopted by the 

United Nations General Assembly in 1989. The U.S. and Somalia are the only countries that 

have not ratified this convention. Other international covenants provide special protections to 

juvenile offenders around the world. These include Articles VII (right to special protection), 

XXV (right to due process), and XXVI (right to protection against cruel, infamous, or unusual 

punishment) of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. By way of contrast, 

in Scandinavian countries juveniles below the age of criminal responsibility (age 14 in Denmark) 

are regarded as children and cannot be punished regardless of the seriousness and other 

circumstances related to their crimes. Offenders aged 18 to 20 years are treated more leniently 

than older adults not only in Scandinavia, but also in 18 other European countries.

 

1 Sweden, Norway, and Denmark do not have juvenile courts, but try youths 15 or older in the adult criminal justice 

system, albeit with modified procedures and social welfare alternative sentencing options to adult sentences (Tonry, 

2004).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
23

23

Race and Ethnicity

The over-representation of racial and ethnic minorities in the juvenile and adult criminal justice 

systems poses issues of justice, fairness, and equity. Most research reports that minority youth 

are over-represented at all stages of juvenile and criminal justice processing from arrests to 

confinement (Feld, 1999; Howell, 2003b; Liebman, Fagan, &West, 2000; Snyder & Sickmund, 

2006; Tonry, 1994, 2009). In particular, black youths are disproportionately arrested and 

processed in the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems for drug offenses in comparison with 

white offenders, even though their drug use rates are no higher than those of white youngsters 

(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2006). Latino youth are also overrepresented in the 

U.S. juvenile and adult criminal justice systems and receive harsher treatment than white youth

(Arya, Villarruel, Villanueva et al., 2009; Villarruel & Walker, 2002). 

Gender

It is accepted in criminology “that official female criminality, as well as self-reported 

delinquency, is less serious, begins later in adolescence, and is less persistent than male 

criminality and delinquency [and that] the gap is largest for serious offenses” (Cernkovich, 

Lanctôt, & Giordano, 2008, p. 4; see also Steffensmeier, Schwartz, Zhong et al., 2005). Although 

relatively more girls are present in the juvenile justice system than in previous years, the system 

is not currently flooded with them (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). However, between 1985 and 

2005, the number of girls on probation nationwide nearly doubled, and girls’ placement in 

detention rose by 98% (Pasko & Chesney-Lind, 2010). Similarly, more women are now present 

in the adult criminal justice system, particularly for “violent assault”. However, the greater 

presence of girls and women in court appears to be a policy change rather than an actual rate 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
24

24

increase in violence, that is, it is attributable to more policing of females fights, physical attacks, 

and threats of marginal seriousness (Steffensmeier et al., 2006). 

Justice systems should assess all offenders’ risk for continued offending, treatment needs 

and so on, regardless of sex, while ensuring that these instruments have been validated for 

females.

Considerable evidence suggests that generic treatment services are about equally 

effective with females ages 12-21 in comparison with males (Lipsey, 2009). 

RECOMMENDATIONS

The evidence, especially from developmental neuroscience, suggests that, in many 

respects, young adult offenders aged 18-24 are more similar to juveniles than to adults. 

Therefore, we make the following policy recommendations (some of which are alternatives): 

1. The effects of raising the minimum age for adult court to age 21 or 24 should be considered. 

We recommend cost-benefit analyses to quantify the benefits of legally raising the maximum

age of juvenile jurisdiction to age 20 or 243. Such cost-benefit analyses have been executed 

abroad (in the U.K.). 

2. A promising forward-looking model for older serious and violent adolescent offenders is the 

British T2A initiative. The Barrow Cadbury Trust has established three pilot projects (in 

London, Worcestershire, and Birmingham). Each of these new approaches to the supervision 

of and specialized support for young adult offenders differs slightly but all include a maturity 

assessment (see http://www.t2a.org.uk; Barrow Cadbury Trust and International Center for 

Prison Studies, 2011; Helyar-Caldwell, 2009, 2010). We think that the preliminary research 

findings could constitute a template for developing an American model for supervision of 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
25

25

and support for young adult offenders. Therefore, we recommend that similar pilots should 

be implemented and tested in the U.S. as a mechanism and program for bridging the gap 

between the juvenile justice and adult criminal justice systems. 

Three sets of reasons support creating such an initiative: (i) excessive punishment of 

youth who land in the adult justice system; (ii) immaturity as a mitigating factor; and (iii) the 

developmental needs of young people. The focus could be on rehabilitation rather than 

retribution (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2009). Because juveniles who are transferred to adult U.S.

courts tend to receive more severe sentences and tend to have higher recidivism rates than 

those in juvenile courts, we expect that these special courts could cause a decrease in 

recidivism and a decrease in incarceration, and consequently they could save money. In a 

national study (Brown & Langan, 1998), transferred juveniles convicted of felonies were 

given longer prison sentences than adults for the same types of offenses. Transferred 

juveniles were sentenced to prison for a maximum of 9 years on average, compared with 7 

years for under-18 adults (as defined by state statutes) and 5 years for adults 18 and older. 

There could be special correctional facilities for young adult offenders, within which 

tailored services should be provided including cognitive-behavioral therapy, drug treatment, 

mentoring, education and vocational training, and work release. Special facilities for young 

adults already exist in some states (e.g., the Pine Grove institution in Pennsylvania). Along 

these lines, several European countries (e.g., Sweden, Germany and Austria) have long had 

separate young adult sentencing options and separate institutions for 18-20 year olds. Most 

research shows that there is no evidence that either longer sentences or lengthening the 

period of incarceration provides practical benefits in terms of reducing the recidivism rates of 

serious offenders. Since juveniles sent to adult correctional facilities have higher recidivism 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
26

26

rates than those in juvenile facilities, we expect that the special facilities could cause a 

decrease in recidivism and consequently could save money (even taking account of the 

additional cost of the programs). 

3. There could be a “youth discount” or “immaturity discount” for young adult offenders: a 

decrease in the severity of penalties to take account of their juvenile-like lesser culpability 

and diminished responsibility. Because of these factors, death sentences and life without 

parole sentences should be abolished for young adult offenders. 

4. There should be risk/needs assessments and screening of young adult offenders to guide the 

selection of appropriate disposals and interventions. This screening should assess the topics 

listed in (a)-(j) in Box 1, in addition to risk factors such as low intelligence. Young adult 

offenders with substance use problems should be diverted to drug courts, and those with 

mental health problems should receive mental health services or be diverted to mental health 

courts. 

5. There should be evidence-based programs for young adult offenders in the community and 

after release, including multisystemic therapy, family therapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy, 

drug treatment, mental health treatment, mentoring, and educational and vocational training 

programs. Also, employment and relationship programs should be mounted to encourage 

desistance, and other programs should aim to reduce disorderly transitions such as not 

graduating from high school and teenage parenthood. 

6. Other useful programs are those aiming to reduce opportunities for offending, such as hot 

spots policing and situational crime prevention, and programs aiming to reduce gang 

membership and drug dealing, especially targeted on high crime neighborhoods. In addition, 

in light of the long-term effects of early nurse home visiting, parent training, and familyThis document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
27

27

based programs, these also should be implemented and followed up to assess their effects on 

young adult offending. 

State legislators, judges and policy makers should consider implementing the following actions. 

Youth or Immaturity Discounts

 Given the evidence to date, policymakers should revisit waiver laws and policies with an 

eye towards limiting the option of transferring youth from the juvenile court system. Waiver 

constitutes a less-than-ideal option that should be used only in the most serious cases and for 

older youth, who, on average, would be more culpable and who would spend less time 

incarcerated in juvenile justice facilities than in adult facilities. In some instances, waiver may 

be appropriate for youth who have extensive records of recidivism or unsuccessful treatment.2 It 

bears emphasizing, however, that repeated recidivism may stem from poor treatment. As a result, 

when considering waiver in such cases, a careful assessment of prior treatment quality is 

important. Waiver criteria should identify those combinations of factors that deserve “real time” 

sentences substantially longer than those available in juvenile court. These factors include 

serious current offenses, offense histories, offender culpability, criminal participation, clinical 

evaluations, and other aggravating and mitigating factors. 

 Because a youth or immaturity discount should substantially reduce the length of adult 

sentences, only extraordinarily serious cases should warrant consideration for transfer. An 

adversarial waiver hearing at which both the state and defense can present evidence about the 

offense, culpability, and clinical responsiveness will produce more accurate and fairer transfer 

decisions than prosecutors can make in their offices without access to clinical information and 

 

2 The authors are not in full agreement with transfer policy (for an explanation see Howell et al., 2012).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
28

28

devoid of political considerations (e.g., Feld, 2003; Zimring, 2000; Bishop, 2005; Kupchik, 

2006). Finally, in cases where waiver occurs, youth sent to adult facilities should be housed 

primarily with younger offenders and offered similar services and treatment to what they would 

receive in the juvenile justice system. The separate housing and greater emphasis on treatment 

reflects an evidence-based approach to sanctioning young offenders (Lipsey, 2009; Lipsey &

Cullen, 2007) and accords with the tenets of the juvenile court and with public opinion (Mears, 

2001; Cullen, 2007).

When sentencing youth, judges should apply a youth or immaturity discount to the 

sentence that he or she would impose on an adult offender. A categorical youth or immaturity 

discount would provide adolescents who are sentenced as adults with fractional reductions in 

sentence-lengths and would achieve this using age as a proxy for culpability (Feld, 2008; Scott & 

Steinberg, 2008; Tanenhaus & Drizin, 2002). In addition to recognizing youths’ diminished 

responsibility, a youth or immaturity discount provides a corrective that addresses the fact that 

same-length sentences often exact a greater “penal bite” from younger offenders than older ones 

(Von Hirsch, 2001). The youth discount includes a sliding scale of diminished responsibility and 

gives the largest sentence reductions to the youngest, least mature offenders (Scott & Steinberg, 

2003; Tanenhaus & Drizin, 2002). The deeper discounts for younger offenders correspond with 

their greater (on average) developmental differences in maturity of judgment and self-control. 

Hence, careful screening with validated instruments is all the more important for very young 

offenders.

Categorical Rule of Youthfulness 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
29

29

A categorical rule of youthfulness as a mitigating factor in sentencing is preferable to 

individualized discretion. The Roper court opted to treat adolescents’ diminished responsibility 

categorically rather than individually. It adopted a categorical prohibition because “[t]he 

differences between juvenile and adult offenders are too well marked and well understood to risk 

allowing a youthful person to receive the death penalty despite insufficient culpability” (Roper, 

2004, pp. 572–573). Roper concluded that neither clinicians nor jurors could accurately 

distinguish between the vast majority of immature juveniles, who deserve leniency, and the rare 

youth who might possess adult-like culpability. Despite individual variability, the Court reasoned 

that a rule that occasionally “under-punishes the rare, fully-culpable adolescent still will produce 

less aggregate injustice than a discretionary system that improperly, harshly sentences many 

more undeserving youths” (Roper, 2004, p. 573).

Culpability and Competence

Adolescents’ reduced culpability should be incorporated in sentencing decisions. This 

recommendation is supported by two observations. The first is the inability to either define or 

identify what constitutes adult-like culpability among offending youths. Despite adolescents’ 

developmental differences, clinicians lack the tools with which to assess youths’ impulsivity, 

foresight, or preference for risks in ways that relate to maturity of judgment and criminal 

responsibility (Roper, 2005; Zimring, 1998). The development and validation of such tools is a 

top priority. The second reason to treat youthfulness categorically is the inability of judges or 

juries to fairly weigh an abstract consideration of youthfulness as a mitigating factor against the 

aggravating reality of a horrific crime.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
30

30

Tools and Protocols for Assessing Adjudicative Competence 

Tools and protocols should be developed to assess adjudicative competence. Many 

youths in the juvenile and criminal justice systems lack adjudicative competence because of 

developmental immaturity (Grisso et al., 2003). Moreover, the prevalence of mental illness 

among young offenders heightens concerns about their ability to understand and participate in 

legal proceedings or to assist counsel (Grisso, 2004). In some young offenders, reasoned 

judgments may be impaired by incomplete brain maturation. The combination of generic 

developmental immaturity and mental illness requires the development of protocols to assess 

adolescents’ competence. Depending on whether states try youths in juvenile or criminal courts, 

clarification of the operative legal standard is needed, whether an adult standard or a juvenile 

standard. It requires training of judges and lawyers to recognize the developmental limitations of 

younger offenders (Grisso, 2004).

Community Programs 

Expenditures saved from lower custody rates should be reinvested in evidence-based 

community programs that address the specific needs of young adults and the causes of their 

offending. Community-based programs are far more cost-effective than correctional institutions. 

Moreover, the earlier that successful intervention occurs in offender careers, the greater are the 

cost savings (Cohen, & Piquero, 2007).

Forward-Looking Administrative Models 

Both the juvenile and criminal justice systems in every state should be developing forwardlooking organizational models that are organized around risk management, using offender 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
31

31

management tools that increase the capacity of state justice systems to more effectively control 

and rehabilitate transition offenders. The Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and 

Chronic Juvenile Offenders (Howell, 2003a, 2003b, 2009; Wilson & Howell, 1993) is a userfriendly forward-looking administrative framework that promotes system-wide management of 

juvenile offenders, services, and resources. Early intervention is paramount (Loeber & 

Farrington, 1998). The necessary tools are available to make system-wide improvements and to 

perform statewide evaluations of all service programs against research-based guidelines. The 

best practice tools include validated risk and needs assessment instruments, a disposition matrix 

that guides placements in a manner that protects the public, and implements protocols for 

developing comprehensive treatment plans that improve the matching of effective services with 

offender treatment needs (Lipsey, Howell, et al., 2010), and a Standardized Program Evaluation 

Protocol (Howell & Lipsey, 2012). This tool (called the SPEP, for short) can be used to evaluate 

juvenile justice programs statewide, and because it identifies the areas with the greatest 

discrepancies between the program’s practices and the research-based best practice guidelines, 

the SPEP gives programs a blueprint for improvement. If service providers and juvenile justice 

managers can collaborate, they should be able to make collective improvements and achieve 

recidivism reductions statewide across multiple types of programs, and thus lower offender 

trajectories and promote desistance (Lipsey & Howell, 2012). 

Use of this framework for targeting the most serious, violent, and chronic offenders 

should increase the capacity of state juvenile justice systems to more effectively control and 

rehabilitate adolescents on the verge of becoming transition offenders—or at high risk thereof. 

Validated risk screening instruments can differentiate between different developmental 

trajectories of offending during the transition between adolescence and adulthood (Hoge, 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
32

32

Vincent, & Guy, 2012). Several states are presently implementing the Comprehensive Strategy 

coupled with Lipsey’s evidence-based program evaluation tool (Howell & Lipsey, 2012). A 

demonstration project should be established to test the overall model for transitioning youth. 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

This bulletin addresses what happens with older adolescents who transition into the criminal 

justice system, what should happen, and what we need to know. It emphasizes that neither the 

juvenile nor criminal justice systems handles this offender group well. Studies have not found 

that the wide diversity of measures in use are effective, and little research has accompanied 

them. The States are left with dysfunctional—and sometimes contradictory—policies and 

practices that would be very challenging to isolate and evaluate, if not impossible in some 

instances. As a result, a systematic adoption of research-based policies is needed, and a major 

investment in evaluation of the experimental policies and practices is necessary to determine to 

what extent they have the desired effects. A forward-looking administrative framework 

organized around risk management that promotes a statewide continuum of graduated sanctions 

and services that parallel offender careers holds the most promise for equitable and effective 

administration of justice for juvenile offenders. Objectively and clinically assessed high-risk 

offenders can be controlled with graduated sanctions and confinement in juvenile correctional 

facilities, and most of them can be rehabilitated with evidence-based services (Howell & Lipsey, 

2012; Lipsey & Howell, 2012). This framework can be extended into the criminal justice system 

to handle transitioning adolescent offenders. The prospect of lowering the age-crime curve in 

statewide juvenile and criminal justice systems is within reach provided that a continuum of 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
33

33

evidence-based programs are matched to offenders’ individual treatment needs (Loeber, 

Farrington, Howell, & Hoeve, 2012). 

References 

Aronson, J. D. (2007). Brain imagining, culpability and the juvenile death penalty. Psychology, Public 

Policy and Law 13, p.115 - 142. 

Arya, N., Villarruel, F., Villanueva, C., & Augarten, I. (2009). America’s invisible children: Latino 

youth and the failure of justice: Policy brief, race and ethnicity series. Washington, DC: 

Campaign for Youth Justice and National Council of La Raza. 

Backstrom, J.C., & G. L. Walker. (2006). The role of the prosecutor in juvenile justice: Advocacy in the 

courtroom and leadership in the community. William Mitchell Law Review, 32, 963-988. 

Barrow Cadbury Trust and International Center for Prison Studies. (2011). Young adults and criminal 

justice: International norms and practices. London, UK: Barrow Cadbury Trust. 

Beckett, K., & Sasson, T. (2004). The politics of injustice: Crime and punishment in America (2nd ed.). 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. 

Bernburg, J. G., & Krohn, M. D. (2003). Labeling, life chances, and adult crime: The direct and indirect 

effects of official intervention in adolescence on crime in early adulthood. Criminology, 41, 

1287-1318. 

Bernburg, J. G., Krohn, M. D., & Rivera, C. J. (2006). Official labeling, criminal embeddedness, and 

subsequent delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43, 67-88. 

Bishop, D. M. (2005). The role of race and ethnicity in juvenile justice processing. In D. F. Hawkins &

K. Kempf-Leonard (Eds.), Our Children, their children (pp. 23-82). Chicago: University of 

Chicago Press.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
34

34

Bishop, D. M. (2006). Public opinion and juvenile justice policy: Myths and misconceptions. 

Criminology and Public Policy, 5, 653-664. 

Bishop, D. M., & Frazier, C. E. (1996). Race effects in juvenile justice decision-making: Findings of a 

statewide analysis. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86, 392-413. 

Bishop, D. M., & C.E. Frazier. (2000). Consequences of transfer. In J. E. Fagan & F. E. Zimring (Eds.), 

The changing borders of juvenile justice: Transfer of adolescents to the criminal court (pp. 227-

276). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 

Blumstein, A. (1995). Youth violence, guns, and the illicit-drug industry. Journal of Criminal Law and 

Criminology, 86, 10-36. 

Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Roth, J. A., & Visher, C. A. (Eds.). (1986). Criminal careers and career 

criminals .Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

Bonnie, R. J., & Grisso, T. (2000). Adjudicative competence and youthful offenders. In T. Grisso & R. 

G. Schwartz (Eds.), Youth on trial: A developmental perspective on juvenile justice (pp. 70-103). 

Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Brown, J., & Langan, P. (1998). State court sentencing of convicted felons, 1994. Bulletin. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Butts, J., Buck, J., & Coggeshall, M. (2002). The impact of teen court on young offenders. Washington, 

DC: The Urban Institute. 

Butts, J. A. & Mears, D. P. (2001). Reviving juvenile justice in a get-tough era. Youth and Society, 33,

169-198. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
35

35

Butts, J. A., & Mitchell, O. (2000). Brick by brick: Dismantling the border between juvenile and adult 

justice. In C.M. Friel (Ed.), Criminal justice 2000: Boundary changes in criminal justice (Vol. 2, 

pp. 167-213). Washington, D.C: National Institute of Justice. 

Carter, A. M. (2006). Age matters: The case for a constitutionalized infancy defense. Kansas Law 

Review, 54, 687-692. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2006). Youth risk behavior surveillance: United States, 

2005. Prevention morbidity and mortality weekly report, 55(SS-5), 1–108. 

Cernkovich, S. A., Lanctôt, N., & Giordano, P. C. (2008). Predicting adolescent and adult antisocial 

behavior among adjudicated delinquent females. Crime & Delinquency, 54, 3-33. 

Cohen, M. A., & Piquero, A. R. (2007). New evidence on the monetary value of saving a high risk youth. 

Vanderbilt Law and Economics Research Paper No. 08-07. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt 

University. 

Cook, P. J., & Laub, J. H. (1998). The unprecedented epidemic of youth violence. In M. Tonry & M.H. 

Moore (Eds.), Youth violence (pp. 27-64). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Cullen, F. T. (2005). The twelve people who saved rehabilitation: How the science of criminology made 

a difference. Criminology, 43, 1-42. 

Cullen, F. T. (2007). Make rehabilitation corrections’ guiding paradigm. Criminology and Public Policy, 

6, 717-728. 

DiIulio, J. J. (1995a). The coming of the super-predators. Weekly Standard, November 27, 23. 

DiIulio, J. J. (1995b). Arresting ideas. Policy Review, 74, 12-16. 

DiIulio, J. J. (1996). They’re coming: Florida’s youth crime bomb. Impact, (Spring), 25-27. 

Fagan, J., & Zimring, F. E. (2000). The changing borders of juvenile justice. Chicago, IL: University of 

Chicago Press.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
36

36

Feld, B.C. (1988). The juvenile court meets the principle of offense: Punishment, treatment and the 

difference it makes. Boston University Law Review, 68, 821 – 915. 

Feld, B. C. (1999). Bad kids: Race and the transformation of the juvenile court. New York, NY: Oxford 

University Press.

Feld, B.C. (2000). Legislative exclusion of offenses from juvenile court jurisdiction: A history and 

critique. In J.E. Fagan & F.E. Zimring (Eds.), Changing borders of juvenile justice: Transfer of 

adolescents to the criminal court (pp. 83-144). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. 

Feld, B.C. (2003). The politics of race and juvenile justice: The ‘due process revolution’ and the 

conservative reaction. Justice Quarterly, 20, 765–800. 

Feld, B.C. (2008). A slower form of death: Implications of Roper v. Simmons for juveniles sentenced to 

life without parole. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, and Public Policy, 22, 9-65. 

Feld, B.C. (2009). Cases and materials on juvenile justice administration, 3rd edition. St. Paul, MN: 

West.

Ficke, S. L., Hart, K. J., & Deardorff, P. A. (2006). The performance of incarcerated juveniles on the 

MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA). Journal of the 

American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 34, 360-373. 

Forst, M., Fagan, J., & Vivona, T. S. (1989). Youth in prisons and state training schools. Juvenile and 

Family Court Journal, 39, 1-14. 

Fox, J. A. (1996). Trends in juvenile violence: A report to the United States Attorney General on current 

and future rates of juvenile offending. Boston, MA: Northeastern University. 

Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Chicago: 

University of Chicago Press. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
37

37

Giedd, J. N., Blumenthal, J., Jeffries, N. O., Castellanos, F. X., Liu, H., Zijdenbos, A., Paus, T., Evans, 

A. C., & Rapoport, J. L. (1999). Brain development during childhood and adolescence: A 

longitudinal MRI study. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 861-863. 

Griffin, P. (2008). Different from adults: An updated analysis of juvenile transfer and blended 

sentencing laws, with recommendations for reform. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile 

Justice and John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. 

Griffin, P. (2012). Legal boundaries between the juvenile and criminal justice systems in the United 

States. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), From juvenile delinquency to adult crime: 

Criminal careers, justice policy and prevention. New York: Oxford University Press. 

Grisso, T. (2004). Double jeopardy: Adolescent offenders with mental disorders. Chicago: University of 

Chicago Press.

Grisso, T., Steinberg, L., Woolard, J., Cauffman, E., Scott, E., Graham, S., Lexcen, F., Reppucci, N. D., 

& Schwartz, R. (2003). Juveniles’ competence to stand trial: A comparison of adolescents’ and 

adults’ capacities as trial defendants. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 333-363. 

Gruber, S. A., & Yurgelun-Todd, D. A. (2006). Neurobiology and the law: A role in juvenile justice. 

Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 3, 321 – 340. 

Hahn, R. A., McGowan, A., Liberman, A., Crosby, A., Fullilove, M., Johnson, R., Moscicki, E., Price, 

L., Snyder, S., Farris T., Lowy, J., Briss, P., Cory, S., & Stone, G. (2007). Effects on violence of 

laws and policies facilitating the transfer of youth from the juvenile to the adult justice system. 

Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control.

Harlow, C. W. (2003). Education and correctional populations. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
38

38

Hawkins, D. F., & Kempf-Leonard, K. (2005). Our children, their children: Confronting racial and 

ethnic differences in American juvenile justice. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. 

Helyar-Cardwell, V. (2009). A new start: Young adults in the criminal justice system. London, UK: 

Barrow Cadbury Trust. 

Helyar-Caldwell, V. (2010). Young adult manifesto. London, UK: Barrow Cadbury Trust.

Hoge, R. D., Vincent, G. M., & Guy, L. S. (2012). Prediction and risk/needs assessments. In R. Loeber 

& D. P. Farrington (Eds.), From juvenile delinquency to adult crime: Criminal careers, justice 

policy, and prevention (pp. 150-183). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Hoge, S. K., Bonnie, R. J., Poythress, N., & Monahan, J. (1999). MacArthur Competence 

Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment 

Resources.

Howell, J. C. (1996). Juvenile transfers to the criminal justice system: State-of-the-art. Law and Policy, 

18, 17-60. 

Howell, J. C. (2003a). Diffusing research into practice using the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, 

Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 1, 219-245. 

Howell, J. C. (2003b). Preventing and reducing juvenile delinquency: A comprehensive framework. 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Howell, J. C. (2006). Review of: Our children, their children: Confronting racial and ethnic differences 

in American juvenile justice, Hawkins & Kempf-Leonard, 2005. Social Service Review, 80, 750-

753. 

Howell, J. C. (2009). Preventing and reducing juvenile delinquency: A comprehensive framework (2nd 

Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
39

39

Howell, J. C., Feld, B. C., & Mears, D. P. (2012). Young offenders and an effective justice system 

response: What happens, what should happen, and what we need to know. In R. Loeber & D. P. 

Farrington (Eds.), From juvenile delinquency to adult crime: Criminal careers, justice policy and 

prevention. New York: Oxford University Press. 

Howell, J. C., & Howell, M. Q. (2007). Violent juvenile delinquency: Changes, consequences, and 

implications. In D. Flannery, A. Vazonsyi, & I. Waldman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of 

violent behavior (pp. 501-518). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. 

Howell, J. C., & Lipsey, M. W. (2012). Research-based guidelines for juvenile justice programs. Justice 

Research and Policy, August, xxx. 

Huizinga, D., & Henry, K. L. (2008). The effect of arrest and justice system sanctions on subsequent 

behavior: Findings from longitudinal and other studies. In A. M. Liberman (Ed.), The long view 

of crime: A synthesis of longitudinal research (pp. 220-254). New York: Springer. 

Huizinga, D., Weiher, A. W., Espiritu, R., & Esbensen, F. (2003). Delinquency and crime: Some 

highlights from the Denver Youth Survey. In T.P. Thornberry & M.D. Krohn (Eds.), Taking 

stock of delinquency: An overview of findings from contemporary longitudinal studies (pp. 47-

91). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Human Rights Watch. (2005). The rest of their lives: Children life without parole for child offenders in 

the United States. New York, NY: Human Rights Watch/Amnesty International. 

Irwin, J. (1980). Prisons in turmoil. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company. 

Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2009). Effectiveness of interventions with adult male offenders. 

Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention. 

Kupchik, A. (2006). Judging juveniles: Prosecuting adolescents in adult and juvenile courts. New York, 

NY: New York University Press.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
40

40

Kruh, I., & Grisso, T. (2009). Evaluation of juveniles’ competence to stand trial. New York: Oxford 

University Press.

Kurlychek, M. C., & Johnson, B. D. (2004). The juvenile penalty: A comparison of juvenile and young 

adult sentencing outcomes in criminal court. Criminology, 42, 485-517. 

Kurlychek, M. C., & Johnson, B. D. (2010). Juvenility and punishment: Sentencing juveniles in adult 

criminal court. Criminology, 48, 725-758. 

Juszkiewicz, J. (2000). Youth crime/adult time. Is justice served? Washington, DC: Building Blocks for 

Youth, Justice Policy Institute. 

Langan, P. A., & Levin, D. J. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Latessa, E. J., Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2002). Beyond correctional quackery: Professionalism and 

the possibility of effective treatment. Federal Probation, (September), 43-49. 

Liebman, J. S., Fagan, J., & West, V. (2000). A broken system: Error rates in capital cases, 1973-1995. 

New York, NY: School of Law, Columbia University. 

Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile 

offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims and Offenders, 4, 124-147. 

Lipsey, M. W., & Cullen, F. T. (2007). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review of 

systematic reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3, 297-320. 

Lipsey, M. W., & Howell, J. C. (2012). A broader view of evidence-based programs reveals more 

options for state juvenile justice systems. Criminology and Public Policy, 11, xxx. 

Lipsey, M. W., Howell, J. C., Kelly, M. R., Chapman, G., & Carver, D. (2010). Improving the 

effectiveness of juvenile justice programs: A new perspective on evidence-based practice. 

Washington, DC: Georgetown University, Center for Juvenile Justice Reform. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
41

41

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1998). Effective intervention for serious juvenile offenders: A 

synthesis of research. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile 

offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 313-345). Thousand Oaks, CA. 

Lipton, D., Martinson, R., & Wilks, J. (1975). The effectiveness of correctional treatment: A survey of 

treatment evaluation studies. New York, NY: Praeger.

Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (1998). Never too early, never too late: Risk factors and successful 

interventions with serious and violent juvenile offenders. Studies on Crime and Crime 

Prevention, 7, 7-30. 

Loeber, R., Farrington, D. P., Howell, J. C., & Hoeve, M. Conclusions. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington 

(Eds.) Transition between Juvenile Delinquency and Adult Crime . New York: Oxford University 

Press. 

Loeber, R., Farrington, D. P., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., White, H. R., & Wei, E. (2008). Violence and 

serious theft: Development and prediction from childhood to adulthood. New York: Routledge. 

Logan, W. A. (1998). Proportionality and punishment: Imposing the life without parole on juveniles. 

Wake Forest Law Review, 33, 681-725. 

Loughran, T. A., Mulvey, E. P., Schubert, C. A., Fagan, J., Piquero, A. R., & Losoya, S. H. (2009). 

Estimating a dose-response relationship between length of stay and future recidivism in serious 

juvenile offenders. Criminology, 47, 699-740. 

Males, M. A. (1996). The scapegoat generation: America’s war on adolescents. Monroe, ME: Common 

Courage Press.

Martinson, R. (1974). What Works? Questions and answers about prison reform. Public Interest, 35, 22-

54. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
42

42

Mauer, M., & Meda, C. E. (2003). Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass 

imprisonment. New York, NY: The New Press.

McCord, J., Widom, C. S., & Crowell, N. A. (2001). Juvenile crime, juvenile justice. Washington, DC.: 

National Academy Press.

McGowan, A., Hahn, R., Liberman, A., Crosby, A., Fullilove, M., Johnson, R., Moscicki, E., & et al. 

(2007). Effects on violence of laws and policies facilitating the transfer of juveniles from the 

juvenile justice system to the adult justice system: A systematic review. American Journal of 

Preventive Medicine, 32, 7-28. 

Mears, D. P. (2000). Assessing the effectiveness of juvenile justice reforms: A closer look at the criteria 

and the impacts on various stakeholders. Law and Policy, 22, 175-202. 

Mears, D. P. (2001). Getting tough with juvenile offenders: Explaining support for sanctioning youths as 

adults. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 206-226. 

Mears, D. P. (2002). Sentencing guidelines and the transformation of juvenile justice in the twenty-first 

century. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 18, 6-19. 

Mears, D. P. (2003). Sentencing guidelines and the transformation of juvenile justice in the 21st century. 

In A. R. Roberts (Ed.), Critical issues in criminal justice (pp. 235-243). Thousand Oaks, CA: 

Sage.

Mears, D. P., & Field, S. H. (2000). Theorizing sanctioning in a criminalized juvenile court. 

Criminology, 38, 983-1019. 

Mears, D. P., & Travis, J. (2004). Youth development and reentry. Youth violence and juvenile justice, 

2, 3-20. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
43

43

Mitchell, O., Wilson, D. B., Eggers, A., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2012). Assessing the effectiveness of drug 

courts on recidivism: A meta-analytic review of traditional and non-traditional drug courts. 

Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 60-71. 

Mulvey, E. P., Steinberg, L., Piquero, A. R., Besana, M., Fagan, J., Schubert, C., & Cauffman, E. 

(2010). Trajectories of desistance and continuity in antisocial behavior following court 

adjudication among serious adolescent offenders. Developmental Psychopathology, 22, 453-475. 

Nagin, D. S., Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2009). Imprisonment and reoffending. Crime and Justice, 

38, 115-200. 

Pasko, L., & Chesney-Lind, M. (2010). Under lock and key: Trauma, marginalization, and girls’ 

juvenile justice involvement. Justice Research and Policy, 12, 25-49. 

Pasko, L., & Chesney-Lind, M. (2010). Under lock and key: Trauma, marginalization, and girls’ 

juvenile justice involvement. Justice Research and Policy, 12, 25-49. 

Paus, T., Zijdenbos, A., Worsley, K., Collins, D.L., Blumenthal, J., Giedd, J. N., Rapoport, J.L., & 

Evans A.C. (1999). Structural maturation of neural pathways in children and adolescents: In vivo 

study. Science, 283, 1908-1911. 

Podkopacz, M. R., & Feld, B. C. (1995). Judicial waiver policy and practice: Persistence, seriousness 

and race. Law and Inequality, 14, 101-207. 

Podkopacz, M. R., & Feld, B. C. (1996). The end of the line: An empirical study of judicial waiver. 

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86, 449-492. 

Podkopacz, M. R., & Feld, B. C. (2001). The back-door to prison: Waiver reform, “blending 

sentencing,” and the law of unintended consequences. Journal of Criminal Law and 

Criminology, 91, 997-1071. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
44

44

Redding, R.E. & Fuller, E.J. (2004). What do juvenile offenders know about being tried as adults?: 

Implications for deterrence. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 35–45. 

Redding, R. E., & Howell, J. C. (2000). Blended sentencing in American juvenile courts. In J. A. Fagan 

& F. E. Zimring (Eds.). The changing borders of juvenile justice: Transfer of adolescents to the 

criminal court (pp. 145-179). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 

Rosado, L. (2012). Juvenile Law Center Testimony on JLWOP before the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

Testimony presented at the Pennsylvania General Assembly, Harrisburg, PA, July 12. 

Roush, D., & McMillen, M. (2000). Construction, operations, and staff training for juvenile confinement 

facilities. Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants Program Bulletin. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Scott, E. S., & Grisso, T. (2005). Developmental incompetence, due process, and juvenile justice policy. 

North Carolina Law Review, 83, 793-845. 

Scott, E. S., & Steinberg, L. (2003). Blaming youth. Texas Law Review, 81, 799-840. 

Scott, E. S., & Steinberg, L. (2008). Rethinking juvenile justice. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Seiter, R. P., & Kadela, K. R. (2003). Prisoner reentry: What works, what does not, and what is 

promising. Crime and Delinquency, 49, 360-388. 

Shaffer, D. K., Hartman, J. L., Listwan, S. J., Howell, T., & Latessa, E. J. (2011). Outcomes among drug 

court participants: Does drug of choice matter? International Journal of Offender Therapy and 

Comparative Criminology, 55, 155-174. 

Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2000). Challenging the myths. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
45

45

Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 national report. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention. 

Sowell, E. R., Thompson, H. C. J., Jernigan, T. L., & Toga, A. W. (1999). In vivo evidence for postadolescent brain maturation in frontal and striatal regions. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 859-861. 

Sowell, E. R., Thompson, P. M., Tessner, K. D., & Toga, A. W. (2001). Mapping continued brain 

growth and gray matter density reduction in dorsal frontal cortex: Inverse relationships during 

postadolescent brain maturation. Journal of Neuroscience, 21, 8819-8829. 

Spear, P. (2000). The adolescent brain and age-related behavioral manifestations. Neuroscience and 

Biobehavioral Reviews, 24, 417-463. 

Steffensmeier, D., Schwartz, J., Zhong, H., & Ackerman, J. (2005). An assessment of recent trends in 

girls’ violence using diverse longitudinal sources: Is the gender gap closing? Criminology, 43, 

355-405. 

Steffensmeier, D., Zhong, H., Ackerman, J., Schwartz, J., & Agha, S. (2006). Gender gap trends for 

violent crimes, 1980 to 2003: A UCR-NCVS comparison. Feminist Criminology, 1, 72-98. 

Steinberg, L. (2004). Risk-taking in adolescence: What changes, and why? Annals of the New York 

Academy of Sciences, 1021, 51–58. 

Steinberg, L. (2007). Risk taking in adolescence: New perspectives from brain and behavioral science. 

Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 55-59. 

Steiner, B., & Wright, E. (2006). Assessing the relative effects of state direct file waiver laws on violent 

juvenile crime: Deterrence or irrelevance? Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 96, 1451-

1477. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
46

46

Tanenhaus, D. S. (2002). The evolution of juvenile courts in the early twentieth century: Beyond the 

myth of immaculate construction. In M. K. Rosenheim, F. E. Zimring, & D. S. Tanenhaus (Eds.) 

A Century of juvenile justice (pp. 42-73). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 

Tanenhaus, D. S. (2004). Juvenile justice in the making. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 

Tanenhaus, D. S., & Drizen, S. A. (2002). Owing to the extreme youth of the accused: The changing 

legal response to juvenile homicide. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 92, 641-706. 

Task Force on Community Preventive Services. (2007). Recommendation against policies facilitating 

the transfer of juveniles from juvenile to adult justice systems for the purpose of reducing 

violence. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32, 5–6. 

Tonry, M. (1994). Racial politics, racial disparities, and the war on crime. Crime and Delinquency, 40,

475-494. 

Tonry, M. (1999). Parochialism in U.S. sentencing policy. Crime and Delinquency, 45, 48-65. 

Tonry, M. (2004). Thinking about crime: Sense and sensibility in American penal culture. NY: Oxford 

University Press.

Tonry, M. (2007). Treating Juveniles as Adult Criminals: An Iatrogenic Violence Prevention Strategy if 

Ever There Was One. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32, 3-4. 

Tonry, M. (2009). Explanations of American punishment policies: A national history. Punishment and 

Society, 11, 377-394. 

Torbet, P., & Szymanski, L. (1998). State legislative responses to violent juvenile crime: 1996-1997 

update. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Travis, J., & Petersilia, J. (2001). Reentry reconsidered: A new look at an old question. Crime & 

Delinquency, 47, 291-313. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
47

47

U.S. Department of Justice. (2007). Department of Justice activities under the civil rights of 

institutionalized persons Act: Fiscal year 2006. Washington, DC: Office of the Attorney 

General, U.S. Department of Justice.

Villarruel, F. A., & Walker, N. E. (2002). Donde esta la justicia? A call to action on behalf of Latino 

and Latina youth in the U.S. justice system. Washington, DC: Building Blocks for Youth. 

Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice. (2005). Juvenile recidivism in Virginia. DJJ Research 

Quarterly, 3, 1-12. 

Von Hirsch, A. (2001). Proportionate sentences for juveniles: How different than for adults? Punishment 

& Society, 3, 221-236. 

Warren, R. (2007). Evidence-based practice to reduce recidivism: Implications for state judiciaries. 

Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, National Institute of Corrections. 

Wilson, D. B., Mitchell, O., & Mackenzie, D. L. (2006). A systematic review of drug court effects on 

recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 459-487. 

Wilson, J. J., & Howell, J. C. (1993). A Comprehensive strategy for serious, violent and chronic juvenile 

offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention. 

Wilson, J. Q. (1995). Crime and public policy. In J.Q. Wilson & J. Petersilia (Eds.) Crime (pp. 489-507). 

San Francisco, CA: ICS Press.

Zimring, F. E. (1998). Toward a jurisprudence of youth violence. In M. Tonry & M. H. Moore (Eds.), 

Youth violence (pp. 477-501). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Zimring, F. E. (2000). The punitive necessity of waiver. J. Fagan & F. E. Zimring (Eds.), The changing 

borders of juvenile justice: Transfer to criminal court (pp. 207-226). Chicago, IL: University of 

Chicago Press. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
48

48

Box 1: Some features of juveniles which are relevant for justice processing:

1. Less mature judgment.

2. Poorer decision making in offending opportunities. 

3. Poorer executive functioning, reasoning, abstract thinking, planning. 

4. More influenced by immediate desirable consequences than longer-term possible 

undesirable consequences. 

5. Poorer impulse control, more likely to take risks and commit crimes for excitement rather 

than according to a rational choice.

6. Less set in their offending habits, more changeable, more redeemable.

7. Less culpable or blameworthy, diminished responsibility, less deserving of punishment. 

8. Poorer emotion regulation and self-regulation. 

9. Less avoidance of self-harm.

10. Lower adjudicative competence to communicate with lawyers, make legal decisions, 

understand and participate in legal procedures, stand trial. 

11. More susceptible to peer influences.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
49

49

Figure 7.1. The Reasoning-Maturity Gap

Source: Steinberg, 2007, p. 56 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.