J u s t i c e Re s e arc h

National Institute of Justice

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

F EBRUARY 2014 Greg Ridgeway • Acting Director, NIJ Robert L. Listenbee • Administrator, OJJDP

YOUNG OFFENDERS: WHAT HAPPENS AND WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN 

T

his bulletin examines policies that affect young offenders who cross 

over from the juvenile to the criminal justice system. It focuses on 

adolescence and early adulthood, with a particular emphasis on juvenile 

delinquents ages 15-17 who are candidates for transitioning into the criminal 

justice system and young adults ages 18-24 who are already in the criminal 

justice system. 

Beginning in the 1960s, rising crime rates in the United States prompted a 

swing from treatment to punishment. The more punitive philosophy of the 

criminal justice system filtered down to the juvenile justice system, and young 

offenders were being charged increasingly in the criminal justice system. This 

trend may now be reversing with a growing emphasis on rehabilitation in the 

juvenile justice system. 

The 20th-Century Shift to Punitive 

Policies

During most of the 20th century, state sentencing policies generally were offender-oriented and 

based on a rehabilitative model of individualized 

sentencing. However, the national crime rate began 

to increase sharply in the 1960s, and an increase in 

the number of homicides committed by adolescents 

and young adults in the late 1980s and early 1990s 

in some cities alarmed the public and policymakers 

alike. By the end of the 1990s, all states had passed 

laws to make their juvenile justice systems more 

punitive, and these new laws led to more juveniles 

being tried and sentenced as adults and then sent to 

adult prisons. The changes may have been counterproductive. Recent studies have shown that juvenile 

justice system services and supervision are more 

effective than confinement in reducing antisocial 

behavior. 

Transfers to the Criminal Justice 

System

Many studies have found that young people did not 

fare as well when their cases were transferred from 

the juvenile to the criminal justice system. Some 

This publication summarizes 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 by James Howell, Barry Feld, Daniel 

Mears, David Petechuk, David Farrington and Rolf Loeber, NCJ 242935, 

available at NCJRS.gov. Bulletin 5 is one in a series of bulletins prepared for 

Transitions From Juvenile to Adult: Papers From the Study Group on Transitions From Juvenile Delinquency to Adult Crime. The study group was led by 

David Farrington and Rolf Loeber under award number 2008-IJ-CX-K402; 

to learn more, visit NIJ.gov, keyword “Transitions to Adulthood.” This summary 

was written by Phil Bulman, a staff writer at NIJ. See full bulletin for source 

citations.
2 n J u s t i c e R e s e a r c h

studies found that transferred youth were more likely 

to reoffend, reoffend more quickly and at higher rates, 

and commit more serious offenses following release 

from prison than those who were not transferred. 

Recent studies found that transferring juveniles to 

the criminal justice system increased, rather than 

decreased, rates of violence. One review of transfer 

studies found that transferred juveniles were 34 percent more likely to be rearrested for violent or other 

crimes than those who stayed in the juvenile justice 

system.1

Special Considerations for Juveniles 

in Sentencing

In Roper v. Simmons (543 U.S. 551 (2005)), the Supreme Court found capital punishment for juveniles 

to be unconstitutional. The majority opinion offered 

three reasons not to punish juveniles as severely as 

adults:

• Their immature judgment and lesser self-control 

cause them to act impulsively and without a full 

understanding of the consequences. 

• They are more susceptible to negative peer influence. 

• Their personalities are still changing, and their 

crimes provide less reliable evidence of depraved 

character. 

In Graham v. Florida (130 S. Ct. 2011 (2010)), the 

Court applied Roper’s diminished responsibility 

rationale to cases in which youth convicted of nonhomicide crimes were sentenced to life without 

parole. 

Child and Adolescent Brain 

Development

Many differences between how adolescents and adults 

think and behave reflect developmental differences in 

the human brain, which is not fully mature until early 

adulthood. During adolescence and into the early 

20s, increased maturation of the prefrontal cortex 

improves cognitive functioning and reasoning ability. The evidence from developmental neuroscience 

suggests that young adult offenders ages 18-24 are, in 

some ways, more similar to juveniles than to adults. 

Researchers have found that youth ages 16-17 sense 

fewer risks than do either older or younger research 

subjects. This is an age when criminal activity also 

increases. 

To be competent to stand trial, a defendant must be 

able to consult with a lawyer, fully understand the 

proceedings, and be able to help in preparing a defense. Developmental psychologists strongly question 

whether juveniles have the cognitive ability, psychosocial maturity and judgment necessary to exercise 

their legal rights. 

Reentry Challenges for 

Young Offenders

About 200,000 people ages 24 and younger leave 

juvenile facilities or prisons every year. Young offenders may face an array of adjustment problems. 

For example, school systems may not be receptive 

to working with them and may warehouse them in 

special classrooms or alternative schools. Violence 

and drug dealing may occur in family settings. Peer 

networks may foster criminality. Some youth may be 

unemployable because they have not graduated from 

high school and have limited, if any, employment 

history. 

Recommendations

Policymakers should:

• Consider raising the minimum age for criminal 

court to 21 or 24.

• Consider creating special correctional facilities for 

young adult offenders, with tailored services such 

as cognitive-behavioral therapy, drug treatment, 

mentoring, educational and vocational training, 

and work release programs. Some states have special 

facilities for young adults, such as Pennsylvania’s 

Pine Grove institution. Several European countries 

also have separate institutions for 18- to 20-yearolds. Because juveniles sent to adult correctional 

facilities have higher recidivism rates than those in 

juvenile facilities, setting up special facilities could 

help decrease recidivism, thus saving money.
J u s t i c e R e s e a r c h n 3

Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily 

represent the official position or policies of NIJ, 

OJJDP, or the U.S. Department of Justice.

The National Institute of Justice and the Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

are components of the Office of Justice 

Programs, which also includes the Bureau 

of Justice Assistance; the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics; the Office for Victims of Crime; 

and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, 

Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, 

and Tracking (SMART).

NCJ 242653

• Consider implementing a “youth discount” 

for young offenders, decreasing the severity of 

penalties.

• Conduct risk and needs assessments of young 

offenders to guide interventions.

• Employ reentry services that include therapy, drug 

treatment and educational programs. 

Endnote

1. Some recent research indicates that the situation 

may be more complex. The Pathways to Desistance 

study found that youth sent to the criminal justice 

system for a serious violent felony offense (excluding 

sex offenses) had a lower subsequent arrest rate than 

those who remained in the juvenile justice system. 

However, youth who were sent to the criminal justice 

system for a property offense or another felony (excluding Uniform Crime Reports Part 1 and drug offenses) had a higher subsequent arrest rate than those 

who remained in the juvenile justice system.