Running head: A MINOR ISSUE 1

A Minor Issue: Juvenile Justice in the United States

Evelynn M. McNamara

Legal Studies Academy

First Colonial High School

A MINOR ISSUE 2

Abstract

This paper analyzes the various aspects of the juvenile justice system, both nationally and on a

state by state basis, while highlighting the effects of its practices on child development. The

author begins by discussing different functions of the brain during adolescence, while

highlighting the main dissimilarities between a developed and developing mind. This is followed

by an overview of past and present legislation regarding juvenile justice and the rehabilitation of

youth. The paper then shifts to discuss the lasting effects of being adjudicated, recidivism rates,

the financial perspective, and the limit of resources. The author additionally discusses possible

solutions to effectively move towards a more individualized and reformed juvenile justice system

with evidence based practices.

Keywords:​ Juvenile justice, adolescent development, reform, rehabilitation, juvenile, youth

A MINOR ISSUE 3

A Minor Issue: Juvenile Justice in the United States

Across the nation, the annual investment of roughly six billion dollars are being placed

into youth correction facilities, and the United States consistently fails to see are results. Rates of

juvenile recidivism surpassing 75% annually (Drinan, 2018, p. 146). Incarcerated children in the

United States are reaching alarming rates, and it is raising concern over how the nation is

expected to tackle the issue. The recent rise of studies on adolescence brain development and

evidence-based practices are striking the attention of both scientists and juvenile justice

advocates due to their consistently positive results. But nevertheless, the punitive nature of the

juvenile justice system remains a national issue due to the lack of understanding, resources, and

finances necessary to rehabilitate our youth.

Understanding the Juvenile Mind

Taking the time to carefully map through the various neurological aspects of the brain

during its adolescence holds a multitude of advantagesto reform. From a scientific standpoint,

the implementation of evidence pulled from cortical development studies into a state's

rehabilitation system has the power to completely reshape the way that the justice system

responds to crime. A Harvard study on juvenile justice and the adolescent brain advocates that a

clear analysis of youth behavior can be used to lower the overwhelmingly high rates of juvenile

recidivism, through a more financially sensible practice. The recent studies collected on the mind

in its developing age has adequately helped to advance the understanding of behaviors among

children, which in turn holds potential to understand the behaviors of a child who offend. As

confirmed through neuroimaging and a 2010 research analysis, it was shown that, contradictory

to common belief, children are in most circumstances aware of risks and how to gauge them.
A MINOR ISSUE 4

However, the problem lies within the childs' increasing need to act on impulse, coupled with the

lack of proper mechanisms to avoid it (MGH Center for Law, Brain & Behavior, 2015). It is

important to note when analyzing structural brain development the distinction between “brain

growth” and “brain development.”.By the time a child reaches six years old, the brain's growth is

nearly complete, at ninety percent the size of an adult’s. The brain's development, on the other

hand, is still in its early developmental phase. Establishing that misconception helps to better

understand why the subject of neuroscience analysis in juvenile justice is focused on brain

development as opposed to brain growth (Colón-fuentes, 2019). In the past, legislation has

experienced many barriers in its success, and this is primarily due to the lack of accounting for

in aspects of juvenile neurological research, and adolescent brain development studies. In order

to move forward strategically, the incorporation of accurate and updated behavioral research is

vital.

Past Legislation

In 1899, The United States established its earliest version of what we call the juvenile

justice system and made its first real step at distinguishing a solid difference between how we as

a society handle adult and child offenders (FindLaw, 2019). From the creation of the juvenile

justice system, came the implementation of the juvenile court system. As a collection, the United

States agreed that the best way to handle cases involving juvenile delinquency would be to go

about it on a state by state basis. The decision to do so lies on the premise that Juveniles

criminality is largely influenced by their environment; therefore, each geographic area was best

equipped to handle the issue of discipline (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine,

2001, p. 155). For that reason exactly, juvenile justice is encouraged by federal authority to
A MINOR ISSUE 5

handle a situation as much as possible under their jurisdiction before wavering, even in situations

that file under federal law violations (Doyle, 2018).

The Different Eras

As a whole, the formation of the current juvenile justice system has undergone many

changes throughout the years. Understanding the pre-existing legislation associated with juvenile

justice is a significant role in establishing any subsequent legislation on the topic. David L.

Myers provided a clear analysis of those different approaches in his review of ​The Evolution of

the Juvenile Court: Race, Politics, and the Criminalizing of Juvenile Justice,​ by Barry C. Feld.

Myers’ analysis and review of the historically focused book put emphasis on how politics,

poverty, and race has disproportionately affected policy and procedures through the various eras

that the juvenile justice system has faced. The author goes on to explain how every era

responded to the issue and how every effort has consistently targeted minorities and stepped

further away from the overarching goal of enforcing rehabilitative measures. Myers breaks down

each era starting with the “Progressive Era,” which was aimed at addressing the problem head on

and expanding on what we knew to be a contributing factor of delinquency. This era was

intended to focus on character change from the rooted issue, but fell short in meeting the

rehabilitative goals. This lead into the “Due Process Era,” which was aimed at reforming policy

and shifting to a more criminalized juvenile justice system. In this era the author proceeds to

explain how we intentionally minimized our rehabilitative attempts and shifted to a more

punishment oriented method; however, this resulted in harsher punishment with greater

disparities among minorities. The following “Get Tough Era” was explained to be a period of

time that spanned across 10 years. This era was heavily influenced by politics and social changes
A MINOR ISSUE 6

within the 70s and 80s, and resulted in racially skewed policy with an increase in crime rates

among African American youth. The final eras discussed by Myers are the “Kid is a Criminal

Era” and the “Kids are Different Era.” The first era is based around the early twentieth century

where juvenile justice stepped away from the prior rehabilitative goals and began to introduce

the idea of adultification in large scale policy. Here policy makers denied that youth be treated

any different than adults. This was followed by the second era, in the present time, focusing on

studies about adolescent development and what affects decision making and behavior. This era

hones in on the idea of fixing past mistakes and reforming in a more open minded and nurturing

manner (Myers, 2018).

Court Cases

The most significant cases involving juvenile justice in the United States that still shape

today’s justice system are that of ​Kent v. U.S. (​ 1966), ​In re Gault​ (1967), and ​In re Winship

(1970). Each of the cases’s rulings lie heavily on the most recent scientific research in regards to

adolescent brain development of its time. (Cohen & Casey, 2014).

Kent v. U.S. (1966)

In the case of ​Kent v. U.S.​ , 16 year old Morris A. Kent Jr. was detained by police officers

and questioned on his potential involvement in a robbery and rape. Upon claiming his partial

involvement in the crime, the juvenile court waived their jurisdiction and sent Kent to be tried as

an adult do to the heinous nature of the alleged crime. It was decided by jury in district court that

Kent was guilty of the crime, and the 16 year old boy was sentenced 30-90 years in an adult

prison. However, because there was no “full investigation” conducted by the juvenile court

before jurisdiction was waived, the question of whether or not the court's waiver of jurisdiction
A MINOR ISSUE 7

was valid. In a 5-4 ruling by jury, it was decided that “the conviction be vacated if the waiver

was improper and sustained if proper” (Kent v. United States, n.d.).

In re Gault (1967)

Fifteen year old Gerald Francis Gault, was arrested for “making an obscene phone call.”

The fifteen year old’s parents were not informed of his detainment when he was arrested. Since

he had previously been on probation, the phone call was in violation and when brought about the

court Gault was sentenced to the State Industrial School until he was 21. The question brought

about the court was whether or not “the procedures used to commit Gault constitutionally

legitimate under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?” It was decided in a that

the juvenile court violated the constitution under the Fourteenth amendment. From there The

Supreme Court decided that juvenile offenders with charges facing confinement the right to

counsel (In re Gault v. United States, n.d.).

Present Legislation

Juvenile Rights

When the power shifted from a national to a state issue, it was the presiding judge’s

responsibility to rule with the child’s best interest in mind. The creation of this guideline

highlighted the fact that children don't possess the proper judgement skills, nor full scale

understanding to deem what is best for themselves. Because of this, certain rights that are

guaranteed to adults in a courtroom were determined to serve no real purpose in juvenile court.

These rights include “the right to an attorney, the right to know the charges brought against one,

the right to trial by jury, and the right to confront one's accuser” (National Research Council and

Institute of Medicine, 2001, p. 155).

A MINOR ISSUE 8

Court Cases

The 2011 United States Supreme Court case​ J.D.B. v. North Carolina​ addressed the issue

of whether or not age played a role when it came to Miranda rights or having a parent present

during questioning. It was decided that Justice Sotomayor wrote in her judicial opinion that

children "often lack the experience, perspective, and judgment to recognize and avoid choices

that could be detrimental to them," and they "are more vulnerable or susceptible to . . . outside

pressures" than adults. Bringing up the precedent case ​Haley v. Ohio,​ 332 U. S. 596, 599. “The

law has historically reflected the same assumption that children characteristically lack the

capacity to exercise mature judgment and possess only an incomplete ability to understand the

world around them” (​J. D. B. v. North Carolina,​ 2010, slip op. at p.2).

Lasting Effects Of Being Adjudicated

The Individual

In a study conducted by a psychology professor at the University of Montreal, Richard

Tremblay analyzed youth aged 10-17 who entered group housing and the lasting effects on the

child. By the end of the study, statistics suggested that juveniles who enter group housing or are

roped into the system are more likely to reoffend than individuals who were issued community

service as their penance. The study suggests that when children who have a troubled background

spend a considerable amount of time with other troubled children, they find more justification

and glorification in their wrong actions than any sort of rehabilitation or understanding

associated with the magnetism of their crime. Tremblay also found in his study the idea of

competition in crime. In this sensitive adolescent age group there is always competition among

peers, for better or worse. According to Tom Dishion, director of research at the Child and
A MINOR ISSUE 9

Family Center at the University of Oregon, children have a tendency to establish a social

hierarchy as a mechanism to gain acceptance in their surrounding groups. In most situations, the

developing mind chooses to compete in a way that is detrimental, whether it be smoking

cigarettes or stealing cars. Due to the way the juvenile mind functions, it is a child’s natural

response to aim to impress or exceed their peers (Szalavitz, 2009).

The Families

In situations where juvenile offenders are sentenced to a youth prison, the emotional toll

extends far past the criminal and into the homes of the families. In an interview conducted with

Liz Ryan, youth justice policy expert and CEO of the Youth First Initiative spoke out on the

negative effects of removing a child from their home for punishment and its correlation to high

recidivism rates. It was addressed that in many states the fate of the child’s residence doesn’t

actually fall in the hands of the Judge, it is instead up to the state's Department of Corrections or

the Department of Juvenile Justice. The whereabouts of the children rarely ever take priority, the

main deciding factors are the buildings level of security, which is dependent on the child's level

of threat to society, and where there is an open bed for the child. Due to this, there are situations

where the incarcerated individual will be placed hours away from their families, who are left

with no means to visit them for financial reasons. This leads into the topic of phone call

communication. In terms of how the system is talked about, phone calls are intended to be

allowed, but in practice this typically falls short due to the overall hassle associated with finding

an officer to monitor the call and the availability of a phone. After 20 years in her field, Ryan

feels as if efforts of communication are discouraged by the operation of the system stating,

“Contact with family is not a right, it’s a privilege, according to these systems. They view it as a
A MINOR ISSUE 10

privilege that can be taken away.” The impact of severing those communication ties takes an

equally distressing hit on the sibling(s) of the incarcerated child. The younger siblings lack of

experience or understanding with the judicial system often results in them processing their

emotions in an unhealthy way. In some situations this misunderstanding makes them feel as if

their brother or sister is choosing not to speak to them and it digs barriers between their

relationships, hitting further on the idea of isolation. To help put this issue to scale, Ryan

provides the following:

As I recently reported, there is no shortage of incarcerated youth. Currently, there are

54,000 juvenile offenders in youth-detention facilities across the nation. Of those kids, in

an average year, 17,800 have not even been sentenced. According to the Campaign for

Youth Justice, they “are just awaiting their turn in court.” What’s more, another 200,000

youth “are tried, sentenced, or incarcerated as adults” every year. That means a quarter of

a million kids are taken from their homes—while brothers and sisters watch it happen.

And as one British study noted, “Older sibling offending was related to younger sibling

offending in both brothers and sisters.” (Lantigua-Williams, 2016).

The Parents

Liane Rozzell, Senior Policy Associate at the Annie E. Casey Foundation draws attention

to this same concept when speaking on her experience as a parent with a child in the system.

Rozzell stresses what a family means to a child, especially those traumatized and in need of

rehabilitative help, declaring, “families are key to children’s ongoing health and development.

Families will be involved long after children leave the juvenile justice system.” The aspect of
A MINOR ISSUE 11

parent involvement in the incorporation plays a much bigger role than the courts are accounting

for (Children and Family Justice Center, 2018).

Recidivism Rates

Recidivism rates, a term that can be best defined as statistics regarding a relapse in

criminal activity post conviction, play a vital role in understanding the success of particular

justice programs. The Multisystemic Therapy for Juveniles, or MST Services, is a scientifically

proven intervention for at-risk youth who dedicates their cause to the widespread implementation

of evidence-based practices in the juvenile justice system. In their article, “Do We Know The

Full Extent of Juvenile Recidivism?” the organization expands on the issue of our Recidivism

rates across the nation. It was discussed that in contrast to adult recidivism rates, which are

backed by national figures, juvenile recidivism is determined by the states. Due to this

inconsistent organization within juvenile courts nationally and the lack of requirement to issue

these statistics, juvenile justice advocates experience barriers in gaining a complete scope of

juvenile recidivism in the United States. These barriers include vague measurement studies, gaps

in accessible information, and undercoverage of 1⁄5 of the states that are not accounted for due to

lack of statistics (MST Services, 2018).

MST Services highlighted two main studies: the first being a report from the Council of

State Governments (CSG Justice Center) from 2015, comparing available state statistics on

juvenile recidivism to gain data on adolescence who reoffend, and the second was a 2011 report

by The Annie E. Casey Foundation on reducing juvenile recidivism rates. The first study by CSG

Justice Center was a full analysis of all states who track and publish juvenile recidivism rates. It

was consistent with every state in the study, children who have involvement in correctional
A MINOR ISSUE 12

facilities and are released are at a higher risk of reoffending than released adults. With rates

steadily increasing over a five year period, there is a surplus of incarcerated adults and juvenile

recidivism to blame (Juvenile Court, 2015). The following report addressed by MST was the

2011 report by The Annie E. Casey Foundation on reducing juvenile recidivism rates. Addressed

in this report was a proposal to shift from the current counterproductive process and introduce a

new means of rehabilitation that doesn't involve stripping the child from their home. The study

was backed by statistics suggesting residential correctional facilities should be minimized to only

incarcerate those who pose an actual threat to society, instead of extending the facilities to all

young offenders. The report then shifts to highlight states that enacted the law and reaped the

benefits. These examples provided included California and Texas who both saw significant

declines in incarceration. The final suggestion offered by The Annie E. Casey Foundation was a

list of various non-residential programs that could be beneficial to the “moderately-serious

offenders”. This consisted of “evidence-based therapy, career preparation and vocational school,

advocate and mentoring programs, and mental health and substance abuse treatment” (Mendel,

2011)

Financial Perspective

In the United States, a main issue contributing to the downfall of juvenile rehabilitation

success lies in the financial inability of the nation to adequately provide for our youth.

Erin B. Logan addresses the issue of unattainable court fees and fines expected of

juveniles in the justice system in her article, ​Courts in Most States Charge Juveniles to Exist

Inside the Justice System. This Movement Wants to Change That. ​The article hones in on the

story of Brenda Tindal, a legal guardian, who lost her home and her job all in attempt to pay her
A MINOR ISSUE 13

daughter’s $16,000 court fees and her short lived residence at the juvenile detention system in

which she stayed. The article focuses mostly on California legislation due to the fact that

Tindal’s case took place in South California; however, Logan provided examples in areas such as

Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, and Utah to highlight the fact that this is a nationwide issue.

Overall, the article aims to criticize the systematic process in which most states fine and punish

juveniles, and highlights key issues such as the disproportionate effect on minorities, its barrier

in achieving current juvenile rehabilitative goals, and the negative impact on families in poverty

(Logan, 2018).

Looking further into California's statistics, the financial aspect of the justice system is

taking a toll on a scale much larger than individual lives. According to research conducted by

The National Center for Victims of Crime, confinement in a state-run facility now costs more

than $317,550 per year. When looking at these numbers in respect to the annual statistics on

juvenile re-arrests in a three year period, its alarming to find that 74 percent of young people are

re-arrested, 54 percent are convicted of another offense, and 37 percent return to custody (Justice

Policy Institute, 2017).

Recommendations From Experts

One of the primary barriers faced when it comes to the implementation of certain

evidence-based practices in the U.S. are issues involving the various population size and the limit

of resources when it comes to scale. However, North Dakota and Oregon, two states holding a

population ratio of nearly 1:6, have both made recent changes in their policy that resulted in
A MINOR ISSUE 14

significantly lower rates in the aspect of juvenile recidivism and promising results in terms of

rehabilitation efficiency. (World Population Review, 2019).

In a paper issued by The Council of State Governments Justice Center in 2014, authors

Seigle, Walsh, & Weber put an emphasis on North Dakota's recent shift in legislation. The policy

requires the involvement of the Department of Human Services in every case involving sensitive

age groups and children who come from a “high-risk populations” to work out an individualized

planning process. To better understand who benefited from this policy, The US National Library

of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, defines “populations at risk” as areas with an

increased population of “poor, frail, disabled, economically disadvantaged, homeless, racial and

ethnic minorities, persons with low literacy” (Chin, 2005). The planning process consisted of “an

individualized assessment, a single plan of care for youth across service systems, enhanced

vocational training, in-home support, and use of a statewide independent living skills

curriculum” (Seigle, Walsh, & Weber, 2014). Oregon, standing with a population of 4,245,901

(World Population Review, 2019), holds one of the best state models for building bridges

between juveniles and probation officers, resulting in positive overall results. The model is called

“The Central and Eastern Oregon Probation Case Management Model” and it was implemented

through the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative. The purpose

of the model was reflected off studies advocating for individualized approaches when handling

juvenile delinquency. The model used “incentives and positive reinforcements” to push ideas

like accountability. (Seigle, Walsh, & Weber, 2014).

A MINOR ISSUE 15

References

The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2011). No place for kids. ​The case for reducing juvenile

incarceration.​ Retrieved from

https://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/aecf-NoPlaceForKidsFullReport-2011.pdf

Colón-fuentes, G. (2019). Teenage brain development: Its impact on criminal activity and trial

sentencing. ​University of Puerto Rico School of Law​. Retrieved from

http://revistajuridica.uprrp.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Teenage-Brain-Development

-Its-Impact-on-Criminal-Activity-and-Trial-Sentencing.pdf

Dizikes, P. (2015, June 9). Study: Juvenile incarceration yields less schooling, more crime. ​MIT

News.​ Retrieved from

http://news.mit.edu/2015/juvenile-incarceration-less-schooling-more-crime-0610

Justice Policy Institute. (2014). Calculating the full price tag for youth incarceration. ​Sticker

Shock​. Retrieved from

http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/sticker_shock_final_v2.pd

Juvenile Court Statistics. (2015). Retrieved from

http://www.ncjj.org/pdf/jcsreports/jcs2015report.pdf

Lantigua-Williams, J. (2016, November 16). Is juvenile justice beyond repair. ​The Atlantic​.

Retrieved from
A MINOR ISSUE 16

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/is-juvenile-justice-beyond-repair/50

7815/

Logan, E. B. (2018, August 10). Courts in most states charge juveniles to exist inside the justice

system. This movement wants to change that. ​The Washington Post​. Retrieved from

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/08/10/courts-in-most-states-

charge-juveniles-to-exist-inside-the-justice-system-this-movement-wants-to-change-that/

?noredirect=on

MGH Center for Law, Brain & Behavior. (2015). Juvenile Justice & the Adolescent Brain.

Harvard Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Law, Brain and Behavior.​ Retrieved

from

http://clbb.mgh.harvard.edu/rewiring-juvenile-justice-the-intersection-of-developmental-

neuroscience-and-legal-policy/

The National Reentry Resource Center. (2014). Measuring and using juvenile recidivism.

Measuring and using Juvenile recidivism data to inform policy, practice, and resource

allocation​. Retrieved from

http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Measuring-and-Using-Juvenile-R

ecidivism-Data-to-Inform-Policy-Practice-and-Resource-Allocation.pdf

Sawyer, W. (2018). https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/youth2018.html. ​Prison Policy

Initiative​. Retrieved from https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/youth2018.html

Schweidler, C., Walters, A., & Zohrabi, A. (2015). Who pays? The true cost of incarceration on

families. ​Ella Baker Center for Human Rights​. Retrieved from

https://ellabakercenter.org/sites/default/files/downloads/who-pays.pdf
A MINOR ISSUE 17

Smart, safe, and fair: Strategies to prevent youth violence, heal victims of crime, and reduce

racial inequality​. (2017). Retrieved from

http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/Smart_Safe_and_Fair_Fac

t_Sheet_9_5_18.pdf

Sweeney, C. (2015, June 11). Juvenile detention drives up adult incarceration rates, MIT study

finds. ​Boston Magazine.​ Retrieved from

https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2015/06/11/juvenile-detention-mit-study/

Young, S. Y., Greer, B., & Church, R. (2017). Juvenile delinquency, welfare, justice and

therapeutic interventions: A global perspective. ​BJpsych Bulletin.​

https://doi.org/10.1192/pb.bp.115.052274

Aizer, A., & Doyle, J. J., Jr. (2013). ​Juvenile incarceration, human capital and future crime:

Evidence from randomly-assigned judges.​ Retrieved from NBER website:

https://www.nber.org/papers/w19102.pdf

Chin, M. (2005). ​Populations at risk.​ Retrieved from

http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1490126/

Cohen, A., & Casey, B. (2014). ​Rewiring juvenile justice: The intersection of developmental

neuroscience and legal policy.​ Retrieved from Sackler Institute, Weill Cornell Medical

College, New York, NY, USA website:

http://clbb.mgh.harvard.edu/rewiring-juvenile-justice-the-intersection-of-developmental-

neuroscience-and-legal-policy/
A MINOR ISSUE 18

Doyle, C. (2018). ​Juvenile delinquents and federal criminal law: The Federal Juvenile

Delinquency Act and related matters.​ Retrieved from Congressional Research Service

website: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30822.pdf

Drinan, C. H. (2018). ​The war on kids: How American juvenile justice lost its way.​ New York,

NY: Oxford University Press.

Feld, B. C. (2017). ​The evolution of the juvenile court: Race, politics, and the criminalizing of

juvenile justice.​ New York: New York University Press.

Kirchner, L. (2014, December 11). ​The cost of juvenile incarceration​ [Press release]. Retrieved

from http://www.justicepolicy.org/news/8570

Mendel, R. A. (2011). ​The Case for Reducing Juvenile Incarceration​. Retrieved from

https://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/aecf-NoPlaceForKidsFullReport-2011.pdf

The National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2001). ​Juvenile crime, juvenile

justice​.

Schuck, J. A. (2013). ​Reforming juvenile justice - a developmental approach​ (R. L. Johnson,

Ed.).

Seigle, E., Walsh, N., & Weber, J. (2014). ​Core principles for reducing recidivism and

improving other outcomes for youth in the juvenile justice system​ [Press release].

Retrieved from

http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Core-Principles-for-Reducing-Re

cidivism-and-Improving-Other-Outcomes-for-Youth-in-the-Juvenile-Justice-System.pdf

Social Science Research Network. (2019, October). ​Making Families Pay: The Harmful,

Unlawful, and Costly Practice of Charging Juvenile Administrative Fees in California​.

A MINOR ISSUE 19

Retrieved from UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper website:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2937534

Favale, M. (Ed.). (1997). Juvenile justice process. Retrieved 2019, from The Virginia

Department of Juvenile Justice website:

http://www.djj.virginia.gov/pages/about-djj/juvenile-justice-process.htm

FindLaw. (2019). History of the Juvenile Justice System. Retrieved from

https://criminal.findlaw.com/juvenile-justice/development-of-the-juvenile-justice-system.

html

Mckenzie, V. (2017, May 18). Most states still deny juveniles access to counsel: report.

Retrieved from The Crime Report website:

https://thecrimereport.org/2017/05/18/most-states-still-deny-juveniles-access-to-counsel-

50-years-after-gault-ruling-report-finds/

MST Services. (2018, November 1). Do we know the full extent of juvenile recidivism? [Blog

post]. Retrieved from MST Services website:

http://info.mstservices.com/blog/juvenile-recidivism-rates

Myers, D. L. (2018, October). [Review of the book ​The Evolution of the Juvenile Court: Race,

Politics, and the Criminalizing of Juvenile Justice.​]. Retrieved November 15, 2019, from

http://transformativestudies.org/wp-content/uploads/10.3798tia.1937-0237.1829.pdf

Szalavitz, M. (2009, August 7). Why juvenile detention makes teens worse. Retrieved from

http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1914837,00.html
A MINOR ISSUE 20

World Population Review. (2019). US states ranked by population 2019. Retrieved from

http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/

In re Gault. (n.d.). ​Oyez​. Retrieved December 20, 2019, from

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/116

In re Winship. (n.d.). ​Oyez.​ Retrieved December 20, 2019, from

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1969/778

J. D. B. v. North Carolina, No. 09–11121. (Oct., 2010). Retrieved from

https://njdc.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/JDB-Slip-Opinion.pdf

Kent v. United States. (n.d.). ​Oyez​. Retrieved December 20, 2019, from

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/104

Tyson Timbs v. State of Indiana, , No. NO. 17-1091 (Supreme Court of the United States 2012).

Retrieved from

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1091/63278/20180911123901051_Tim

bs%20Amicus%20Brief%20-%20FINAL.pdf

Children and Family Justice Center. (2018) Parents as partners: Family connection and youth

incarceration. Retrieved from

https://www.law.northwestern.edu/legalclinic/cfjc/documents/communitysafetyfeb.pdf