Rethinking juvenile justice: Should kids face harsher penalties for crimes?

Kalé Carey, Straight Arrow News •

How far should society go in punishing young criminals? Recent cases have reignited the discussion over treating juveniles as adults and giving them harsher penalties for serious crimes. For decades, juvenile justice reform has been a pendulum. 

The pendulum swing: tough laws vs. reform

Three decades ago, society began viewing teens who committed violent crimes as a “new breed” of offenders. Media outlets and officials played a significant role in popularizing this narrative, with phrases like “super-predators” capturing public attention.

In the 1990s, as the Clinton administration sought to project a “tough-on-crime” stance, then-First Lady Hillary Clinton was on TV telling Americans, “They are often the kinds of kids that are called super predators, no conscience, no empathy.” 

This language and accompanying efforts from President Bill Clinton’s administration resulted in laws that sent more juveniles to adult courtrooms. 

Then came a shift in perspective. Reform advocates, concerned about the consequences of harsh punishment, pushed for a more rehabilitative approach, arguing that prison could act as a “college for criminals.” Instead, these advocates argued, the focus should be on helping troubled youth, not just incarcerating them.

In recent years, the pendulum appears to be swinging back toward the idea of harsher consequences. 

READ THE FULL STORY

About the Expert

Marsha Levick co-founded Juvenile Law Center in 1975. Throughout her legal career, Levick has been an advocate for children’s and women's rights and is a nationally recognized expert in juvenile law.