“Despite their many flaws, juvenile courts are better for youth who break the law than are adult courts. Contrary to critics’ beliefs, juvenile courts regularly address serious and violent crimes. Juvenile courts do not offer a “slap on the wrist;” they often issue harsh punishments. The frequent alternative, sending youth to adult courts, is a dangerous and counterproductive response.” 



 – The Sentencing Project

Contrary to misinformation that the juvenile justice system is ineffective – often dismissed as "kiddy court," a "slap on the wrist," or described using dehumanizing terms such as "catch and release” – it has delivered lower recidivism rates and better educational and health outcomes than the adult criminal justice system, a new report by The Sentencing Project finds. 

Some young people – like people of all ages – will break the law. The question policy makers face is whether to funnel youth into adult courts, where the primary focus is on punishment or to prosecute adolescents in the juvenile system, where adolescent development and rehabilitation are an integral aspect of the system. Despite its flaws, the juvenile justice system remains more effective in both meeting young people’s underlying needs and public safety. 

The data is consistent: juvenile justice policies that have often been unfairly criticized as not “tough enough” on crime have nonetheless measurably reduced it. While the criticism is often driven by a lack of understanding of the system due to the confidentiality of juvenile court, evidence shows that its approach is consistently more effective at reducing reoffending due to its focus on addressing and treating the underlying conditions and issues that led to offending behaviors.  

Below are key differences between the juvenile and adult justice systems as highlighted by the Sentencing Project with additional Massachusetts-specific context provided by CfJJ. 

Recidivism 

• Youth charged as adults are more likely to re-offend and do so by committing more serious crimes. Adolescents in juvenile courts had a 34% lower recidivism rate than similar youth in the adult system. 
• In Massachusetts, there has been a 56% reduction in juvenile crime since raising the age to include 17-year-olds in the juvenile system back in 2013.  

Juvenile Courts Handle Offenses of all Levels of Severity 

• Juvenile courts address all levels of offenses, including serious and violent crimes 
• In Massachusetts, juvenile courts are specialized courts that have jurisdiction over all offenses, except first- and second-degree murder. Serious offenses account for 1%-2% of all delinquency cases in Massachusetts juvenile courts. 
• The adult courts are split between district/municipal courts for low level offenses and superior court for the most serious offenses. 
• Juvenile probation can be highly restrictive, requiring compliance with an extensive set of behavioral expectations. 
• Roughly 25% of youth referred to juvenile court are held in detention prior to trial, countering the “catch and release” narrative. 

Juvenile Court are Specialty Courts with More “Tools in the Toolbox”: 

• To serve justice and address the underlying needs of young people, juvenile courts take individualized responses using a youth development lens.  
• Police, prosecutors and courts can divert youth toward community-based programs that assess youth needs and connect them to treatment in exchange for potential dismissal of cases. 
• In Massachusetts, juvenile court judges have an array of tools at their disposal to address all levels of offending. They are authorized to divert youth with low level offenses to community-based interventions prior to arraignment, which adult court judges are constitutionally prohibited from pre-arraignment decisions. Juvenile court judges also have the authority to impose consequences ranging from apology letters and community service to placing a youth on probation or incarceration. 

Role of Parents and Family 

• Families are actively involved in juvenile court proceedings and treatment programs, including for youth incarcerated in juvenile facilities. 
• When youth are prosecuted as adults, parents are excluded from the legal process. 
• In Massachusetts, parents are integral to the court process, probation and treatment happening in the Department of Youth Services (DYS) continuum. 

Racial Disparities in the Legal System 

• While individualized interventions allow system actors to tailor interventions based on youth needs, this discretion has contributed to racial disparities.  
• The adult system’s focuses on “one size fits all” punishments also results in "sentencing bias".  
• Unlike the adult system, the juvenile system has federal requirements to reduce racial and ethnic disparities. 
• In Massachusetts, the juvenile system has additional state requirements to track and reduce racial disparities. 

Legal Protections  

• The juvenile system has additional safeguards for youth during arrest, court processing and detention set in federal law.  
• In Massachusetts, solitary confinement has been banned since 2013 (codified in 2018), while solitary confinement is standard for youth placed in adult correctional facilities.  

Massachusetts’ juvenile and adult systems have additional differences: 

• Collateral Consequences: Juvenile court records are confidential and are not reported on a CORI. A juvenile “adjudication” does not carry the additional penalties and lasting impacts of an adult “conviction.” 
• Education: Engagement in education is a key component of the juvenile system from the prosecutors and courts to probation and DYS, where youth earn high school credits and diplomas and access vocational and higher education. The majority of young people in adult facilities receive no instruction (with most on waitlists) even when they are entitled to it under federal law. 
• Healthcare Standards: All youth in the care and custody of DYS are connected to preventative, specialized, and community-based medical care, with access to program clinicians that can directly approve treatment. Adult corrections in contrast rely on for-profit health care providers, lacing adolescent-specific care standards.