In the early 1990s, I sat in the back of a high school classroom. As part of a class on government, I was required to observe my peers listen to the story of another classmate who had been caught smoking on campus. The accused, on the request of the all youth jury, admitted to her guilt, explained the circumstances surrounding the event and her thoughts on how her actions affected others. After several minutes of back and forth dialogue, the jury came to a decision in collaboration with the offender. She would perform 20 hours of community service, including cleaning up cigarette butts from a local park, write an essay on the effects of smoking and attend smoking cessation classes. As I sat watching this, I couldn’t help thinking what a positive process the entire thing was. Nothing about the event seemed like the typical authority dominates youth. Years after this experience, I still mull over how this format of juvenile justice resonated with me and the reasons why it works.
Youth Court
The origins of youth court, also known as teen, peer and student courts are murky with conflicting accounts as to where the first court began. Naperville (IL) Youth Jury is one of the earliest known programs to still be operating beginning in June 1972. Since that time, the concept of youth court has gained professional support and many public/private partnerships have developed as a way of offering this alternative structure to youth who have been charged with a crime. The crime, as well as the circumstances and the teen’s criminal history are all factors that are weighed when determining whether this alternative, diversionary program will be offered. In 2010, more than 1,150 youth courts operate in 49 states and the District of Columbia with an estimated 110,000 to 125,000 youthful offenders being served in 2004. Typically, offenders are between 11 and 17 years old, have been charged with a less-serious offense and have no prior arrest history. They voluntarily chose to participate and most require an admission of guilt (93% of youth court programs in the U.S. require this).
Structure
There are four primary models of youth court: Adult Judge, Peer Jury, Youth Judge and Youth Tribunal Models. 53% of the programs in the U.S. utilize an adult judge. In this model, youth serve in the roles of defense attorney, prosecuting attorney and jurors, but the judge role is held by a volunteer adult. The second most popular model, utilized by 31% of youth courts, is Peer Jury. In this model, no one holds the roles of attorney or judge. Instead it is modeled after a grand jury where the facts of the case are presented and a panel of youth jurors questions the defendant directly. The Youth Judge model, utilized by 18% of youth courts, consists of youth holding all the roles including the judge. The third and less prevalent model, the Youth Tribunal does not have a jury. In this model, youth attorneys on both sides present their case to a youth judge who makes a ruling.
Consequences
One of the biggest concerns expressed about youth court is that the youth defendant will face minimal consequences for their behavior. Accountability is a foundation of our justice system regardless of age. As youth court is a diversion program with a main goal of keeping low-risk offenders out of the juvenile justice system, the consequences can seem minor. But when paired with the offenses, many of which are status offenses illegal only by virtue of the youth’s age, and the restorative, rehabilitative nature of youth justice, the sentences make sense. According to the National Youth Court Database, some of the sentences used by youth courts include:
Community Service (99%)
Oral/Written Apologies (94%)
Essays (92%)
Educational Workshops (73%)
Alcohol/Drug Assessment (57%)
Counseling (37%)
Victim/Offender Mediation (28%)
Mentoring (13%)
Suspend Driver’s License (9%)
How Does It Work?
As youth court gains popularity and produces positive results, including lowered recidivism, juvenile justice, especially those interested in youth development, look to the model and try to gain an understanding of its influence. Here are three basic theories on why youth court is appropriate and successful.
Tried by a Jury of Peers-During adolescence, youth begin to look outside their homes and their adult mentors (parents) and attempt to gain acceptance from their peers. The social influence on youth has been researched in numerous ways but it only takes a person observing the hallways of a middle school to realize that what other youth think about you is very important. Being part of a group is human nature and this really comes out when groups of teenagers are together. When a youth commits an offense, the process and the consequences can be much easier to take when you are within a group of peers rather than at the mercy of adults who often are believed not to understand what they are going through or reasons for behavior.
Admission of guilt (taking responsibility)-Because most youth courts require an admission of guilt to participate, the offender is taking responsibility both verbally and in action for their behavior. This ability to talk about the reasons behind the behavior and also to hear the effect of that behavior on others often makes an impact on youth.
Reintegrative Shaming-This is the crux of youth court and kind of ties in to being tried by a jury of peers. Many would argue that having to face other youth would be detrimental because this is more shameful than facing an adult. Although, many would agree that it is more shameful, they would also argue that because the procedure includes open dialogue between the youth and their peers and an agreement about consequence, the event is actually reintegrative. The youth, once they have completed what has been asked of them in the sentence, is once again a part of the group. This model of justice, when conducted correctly, is one of the most successful.
As youth court becomes more popular, juvenile justice, child welfare and law enforcement will interact with those involved, whether a public or private agency, more often. In fact, those involved in a child’s case can recommend a youth to divert to this model when it’s available in their area. Instead of clogging the court system with offenders who can benefit from an alternative model, youth court can be a healing and helpful model of juvenile justice.
Michelle Perin
Michelle Perin has been a freelance writer since 2000. In December 2010, she earned her Master’s degree in Criminology and Criminal Justice from Indiana State University.
