Issues & Controversies

Teen Courts
March 10 2006

INTRODUCTION
Creating courtrooms where teens act as jurors, lawyers, and sometimes judges represents an important new approach to
administering justice in the United States. By allowing peers of underage offenders to pass judgment on them, youth
courts harness the power of peer pressure in a positive manner and reduce the likelihood that teen offenders will engage in
future criminal activity.

It has yet to be proven that teen courts are effective in reducing recidivism rates among underage offenders. Furthermore,
teens are not mature enough to knowledgeably administer the law. Since young people are too inexperienced to act as
jurors or other court staff, young offenders appearing in teen court do not take their trial seriously. If a teen breaks the law,
he or she should face a legitimate trial in a real court.

In most U.S. states, people charged with misdemeanor crimes are granted the right to a trial by jury. During a trial, jurors
listen to the judge's instructions, statements by the witnesses and arguments by the lawyers to reach a verdict about the
defendant's guilt or innocence. The presence of an impartial jury at a trial is considered a cornerstone of the American
justice system.

Randy Davey/AP

Teens are sworn in during a training session at Onslow County's

Teen Court in Jacksonville, N.C., in August 2005.

In dealing with youth crime, juvenile courts have traditionally supplemented adult courts by handling cases of young
offenders, who are usually under 18 years of age. But with heavy caseloads overwhelming many sectors of the juvenile
justice system, some people in the nation's legal community have sought new means of handling underage criminals. One
of the most popular alternative approaches to dealing with young, first-time criminal offenders is known as teen court.

Also referred to as "peer courts" or "youth courts," teen courts have been growing in the U.S. justice system since the
1980s. The tribunals often feature teenage jurors, who deliberate over the guilt or innocence of the defendant. With more-
serious felony offenses—such as rape or murder—handled by the juvenile and adult justice systems, teen courts typically
see cases involving nonviolent crimes, such as shoplifting, traffic violations and underage alcohol use. If found guilty, a
defendant is handed a sentence deemed appropriate by his or her peers. Teen jurors, unlike jurors in the juvenile and adult
justice systems, cannot recommend jail time.

As of 2005, there were more than 1,000 teen courts operating in 48 U.S. states and Washington, D.C. (Connecticut and
New Jersey are the only two states without the tribunals.) Those figures illustrate the growing grassroots popularity of the
courts—in 1995, for example, there were fewer than 200 teen-court programs nationwide, found only in 25 states.
Depending on the location, the courts are either run by schools, police departments, local courts or private organizations
such as the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA) and the Youth Service Bureau.

The ultimate aim of teen courts is to discourage teen offenders from graduating to serious criminal activity by making
them aware of the negative impact that their actions have had on others. By dealing with young offenders immediately
after they have committed their first crime, the courts seek to stage an early, effective intervention. A key to that formula,
legal analysts say, is the use of teen jurors.

Many analysts say that peer pressure among teenagers can be a potent force. In American popular culture, peer pressure
tends to have negative connotations. Teens who succumb to that pressure, for example, are often portrayed in the media as
more likely to experiment with illegal drugs, consume alcohol, break the law or engage in other risky behavior. Teen
courts seek to overturn the negative stereotypes of peer pressure by harnessing the power of peer pressure and using it as a
force to promote justice.

By subjecting young offenders to the judgment of their peers, supporters of teen courts contend, the offenders will be
more embarrassed about their criminal activity than they would be if they had been subjected to a trial with adult jurors,
or no jurors at all. In fact, in some cases, teen jurors attend school with the students they are judging. But despite the
positive intentions of the nation's teen-court system and the glowing media attention that many of the tribunals have
received, some questions remain. For example, do teen courts meaningfully curb youth crime?

Many people serving in the U.S. government view the American justice system as an institution highly resistant to
change. Indeed, teen-court supporters' mission to foster innovation in the nation's judicial process has been met with stiff
opposition in some quarters. Adding to the debate over teen courts' effectiveness has been the lack of studies detailing
recidivism rates for young offenders processed by the teen-court system. Recidivism refers to a pattern of repetitive
criminal activity.

Backers of teen courts note that every year, millions of juveniles are arrested for a variety of offenses. Sending the bulk of
those cases to the juvenile or adult justice system puts a strain on courts in those jurisdictions, they assert. Furthermore,
proponents contend, teens standing trial in juvenile or adult courts are often viewed as statistics, rather than people. That
impersonal treatment heightens the likelihood that they will commit more crimes in the future, they argue. By sending
teens convicted of non-violent, first-time offenses to a youth court, proponents say, juvenile and adult courts will be
relieved of some pressure and teen law breakers will be given the attention they deserve. During the trial and sentencing
process, teen courts provide offenders with the opportunity to interact with teenagers who reinforce the message that
breaking the law hurts society, backers assert. Since that message is coming from a peer group, supporters say, it resonates
with the offender and makes him or her less likely to break the law again. Furthermore, for young people serving on the
court as jurors or in some other capacity, the youth tribunals foster civic-mindedness and promote volunteerism, backers
contend. In addition to learning about the nation's judicial process at an early age, young people working on teen courts do
a service to their community by instilling a newfound respect for the law in underage offenders, supporters say.

But despite the burgeoning popularity of teen courts, skeptics persist. Critics allege that the courts have not proven
effective in reducing youth recidivism rates, since few studies exist documenting that trend. The lack of evidence
documenting youth courts' effectiveness suggests that communities should not be so eager to allocate financial resources
to support those tribunals, opponents say. Many critics insist that teens are too inexperienced to knowledgeably administer
the law. Whether they are acting as jurors, lawyers or judges, teens are simply not mature enough to decide upon the guilt
or innocence of a criminal suspect, critics charge. The process of trying a teen for breaking the law should be left to the
country's juvenile or adult courts—venues that are capable of holding legitimate trials, opponents assert. Also, some
opponents warn that the punishments handed out to offenders in teen courts are not severe enough. Since teens on trial in
youth courts know they cannot be sentenced to jail, they will not be intimidated by teen jurors' peer pressure, those
opponents charge. Underage first-time offenders must be subjected to harsh punishment for their actions, so that they
think twice before breaking the law again, critics say.
 Jeremy Eagle

Overview

How a Youth Court Works

A young person who appears before a teen court usually has committed a "petty" crime that is nonviolent in nature. Theft,
skipping school and speeding are examples of illegal activities that youth courts prosecute. Nearly all teen defendants
brought in to teen court have committed only one criminal infraction.

While a court featuring teenage jurors and an adult judge is one of the most discussed teen-court models, there are
actually four distinct types of youth courts. According to the 2002 Report on Trends in the State Courts, released by the
Virginia-based National Center for State Courts, communities may implement an adult judge model, a youth judge model,
a youth tribunal model, a peer jury model, or some combination thereof.

In an adult judge model, an adult acts as judge and supervises the proceedings, while teens assume the roles of jurors,
clerks and attorneys. A youth judge model court features the same roles, except that the judge is a teenager instead of an
adult.

In a youth tribunal model, juries are not involved. Instead, teens acting as lawyers present their cases to a group of three
teen judges. After arguments for and against the defendant have been made, the judges issue a verdict and, when
necessary, a sentence as well.

The peer jury model features teenage jurors, but no teen attorneys. Rather, an adult or a teenager presents the jury with the
facts in a particular case. Afterward, the jury is allowed to directly communicate with the defendant, asking him or her
questions in an effort to reach a verdict and, if necessary, decide on a sentence.

In some cases, a teenager on trial will plead guilty before appearing before a jury of his or her peers. In those instances,
the jury's role is not to proclaim the suspect guilty or innocent, but rather to decide on an appropriate punishment for the
crime. However, in cases where the accused does not declare his or her guilt, the jury and judge are responsible for
reaching a verdict and deciding upon a punishment, when appropriate.

Teen-court models involving juries staff them in two ways. Firstly, students may volunteer to perform jury service. The
other pool of jury members is comprised of underage offenders who have been found guilty and who have received
mandatory jury service as a punishment. A typical jury-service "sentence" is eight consecutive Saturdays of hearing cases.

The operating procedure of a teen-court trial varies from location to location. While the jury in some cases listens silently
as others present statements and arguments, other teen tribunals are more interactive, with jury members directly
questioning the accused. In some instances, jury members are even permitted to interrogate the parents of the accused.

After cases have been made by the prosecutors and the defense, a jury will deliberate, reviewing testimony when
necessary, in order to determine a suspect's guilt or innocence. If the accused is found guilty, a punishment fitting the
crime is then handed down. A typical sentence might involve mandatory jury service, 40 hours of community service, a
written apology to the defendant's victim or enrollment in a drug or alcohol abuse program, depending upon what law the
teen broke.

In conjunction with the sentence, adults running the court or local health officials may sometimes conduct additional
follow-up work to determine whether further action is needed to aid or rehabilitate the convicted teen. For example, teens
in some cases may be referred to social-service programs so that they may function in society more easily without the
urge to break the law.

Once an offender has served his or her sentence, the original crime is usually erased from his or her permanent record.
Therein lies a major difference between teen court and the juvenile justice system: While teens found guilty in juvenile
court face fines, detention and a permanent mark on their record, teens found guilty in youth courts are essentially given a
clean slate.

Teen Courts Gain Acceptance Nationwide

The predecessors of modern-day teen courts date back to the 1940s. Toward the end of that decade, young people in
Mansfield, Ohio, ran a "Hi-Y" bicycle court that dealt with traffic incidents involving bike-riding youth. That court, like
many teen courts of the early 21st century, would convene on Saturdays, when young people were not required to attend
school.

It was not until the 1970s that teen courts began to spread noticeably around the country. The towns of Odessa and Grand
Prairie, Texas, were two locations where high-profile youth courts were founded. In fact, the Odessa Teen Court is hailed
even today by supporters of the teen-court movement as a model for youth courts.
 Jeremy Eagle

By the early 1990s, teen courts were being created at an unprecedented rate, as growing numbers of school administrators
and law-enforcement officials became sold on the merits of the youth-court system. Observers say that trend has
essentially continued to this day, with the number of youth-court programs expanding to more than 1,000 in 2005 from 80
in 1993.

Some legal analysts explain the popularity of teen court by focusing on the concept of "restorative justice." Long
considered one of the underpinnings of the nation's youth-court system, restorative justice "is not about punishment, but
about students taking responsibility for their actions," explains Pat Zamora, a coordinator at Alternatives Inc., a Chicago-
based youth and family service agency. "It works with them to help them see the harm to themselves, to other students
and to the community" that results from criminal activity.

Indeed, the trial process in teen court is designed to make young offenders acutely aware of the pain or inconvenience
they have caused others as a result of their criminal action. By acknowledging that impact, but refraining from sending the
offender to jail or leaving a permanent mark on his or her record, teen court seeks to foster a healing process for both the
victims and the perpetrators of crime.

In 1999, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)—a division of the Justice Department—
founded the National Youth Court Center in an effort to promote further integration of teen courts into communities
around the country. Among other things, the center's mission was to train teen-court volunteers and aid with the logistics
of creating new youth tribunals in places that did not have them. Many observers viewed the creation of the National
Youth Court Center as a distinct sign that youth courts were becoming an important facet of the U.S. justice system.

In 2002, the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan economic and social policy research organization in Washington, D.C., lent
some credibility to the nation's teen-court system by releasing a study reporting that youth courts helped lower recidivism
rates among teenagers. The Urban Institute's study, which tracked courts in the states of Alaska, Arizona, Maryland and
Missouri, scrutinized all four major models found in the system.

The report said that recidivism rates among youth processed in the teen-court system were equal to or slightly lower than
recidivism rates among teenagers processed in the more traditional juvenile justice system. While teen-court supporters
cheered the Urban Institute's findings, skeptics insisted that the report proved that teen courts and juvenile justice were
equally effective in combating youth crime.
Supporters Argue

Teen Courts Curb Crime

Supporters contend that teen courts are a helpful addition to the nation's justice system. By focusing on the concept of
restorative justice, the tribunals aid both young offenders and the victims of their crimes, backers say. Though many
proponents acknowledge the lack of statistical evidence that teen courts are more effective than the juvenile justice
system, backers point to the courts' growing popularity as proof that the tribunals are a good idea.

Perhaps more than any other factor, proponents tout the role that peer pressure plays in the teen-court system. By
harnessing the positive qualities of that pressure, they say, youth courts have found a way to deliver peer-administered
justice in a manner that reduces the likelihood that young offenders will break the law again. Supporters assert that
subjecting teen offenders to public embarrassment is a more powerful deterrent against criminal activity than critics say it
is.

Judge Jose Rodriguez, who serves on the Ninth Judicial Circuit of Florida in Orlando, Fla., discusses the effectiveness of
peer pressure in youth courts:

The peer pressure that teen court imposes is a peer pressure that goes after positive values as opposed to
usually relying on peer pressure and what we see peer pressure do, which is reinforce negative decision
making.... Teen court is wonderful because it reinforces through the same peer pressure methodology the
positive values.

Other defenders of the teen-court system say that the use of teen jurors in underage criminal trials functions well because
young people naturally pay attention to what other young people think and say. In that sense, supporters contend, teen
jurors will likely have more of an impact shaping an underage offender's attitude toward crime than an adult presiding
over a juvenile court proceeding would have. "Kids are used to having authority figures tell them what to do," comments
Judge Joan Reilly, who sometimes supervises youth-court trials. "Sometimes hearing it from an authority figure sounds
like noise, and they tune it out. But a peer has more credibility."

Furthermore, many proponents argue that despite the dearth of concrete evidence linking teen court to low recidivism
rates, teens who stand trial in a youth court are less likely to engage in criminal activity in the future. In explaining their
assertion, backers say that the penalties issued by teen juries for first-time offenses are more severe than those handed
down in juvenile court.

For example, supporters say, whereas a juvenile court might merely fine a teen who has broken a traffic law, a teen court
might require the young offender to perform extensive community service and attend driver retraining classes. The
harshness of teen-court verdicts, they insist, deters underage offenders from committing other crimes.

Besides treating youthful offenders toughly yet compassionately, teen courts empower young people to become involved
in the nation's judicial process at an early age. By allowing teens to assume the role of jurors, clerks, attorneys and
sometimes judges, youth court gives young people meaningful real world experience by involving them in community
affairs, supporters say.
 Rick Gebhard/Marinette Eagle Heral/AP

Teenagers in Marinette, Wis., conduct a mock teen-court trial in

2002 to show members of the public how youth courts function.

"If you want to teach someone how to play basketball, you don't do it by sitting them down in a classroom and telling
them about it," says Kara Hanson, an AmeriCorps volunteer who is helping organize a teen-court program at Kensington
High School in Philadelphia, Pa. "The same goes for the court—you have students practice how to act as responsible
citizens."

Some backers say that involvement with youth courts even inspires some teens to pursue a career in law. Tameka Linzy,
an eighth-grader at Jefferson Junior High School in Washington, D.C., said in 2004 that her experience with teen court
had motivated her to become a lawyer. "What I like about it the best is learning new things. And I like to help people," she
remarked.

Finally, some backers of the teen-court system say that the courts provide a necessary alternative to the nation's juvenile
justice system. Whereas the juvenile system frequently views troubled teens as mere statistics, the youth-court system
humanizes both the criminal and those victimized by his or her crime, those supporters assert. If underage offenders were
simply left to fend for themselves in the juvenile system, they say, those individuals would more likely than not end up
spiraling into a life of crime.

"The juvenile justice system was serving as the feeder—the supply line—into adult prisons," comments Edgar Cahn, a
professor at the District of Columbia Law School who helped create a teen-court system in Washington, D.C. Cahn
contends that young first-time offenders in juvenile courts are often essentially ignored by prosecutors, since those
lawyers are more focused on handling cases involving repeat offenders. Being processed by the justice system with little
personal attention during one's first visit to court heightens the likelihood that one will return, he says. Cahn adds:

That's how it begins. But by the third arrest, the formal juvenile proceeding functions as a rite of passage
rather than a chance to choose a different path. Without meaning to, the juvenile system is turning young kids
into hardened criminals faster than any gang in town.

Opponents Argue

Teen Courts Do Not Curb Crime

Opponents of the teen-court system cast doubt on the merits of youth courts for several reasons. First and foremost,
despite the positive media coverage surrounding the rise of teen courts in the U.S., there is little evidence linking the
tribunals to lower crime rates among teens, they say. For that reason, critics assert, supporters' boasts about teen courts'
tough treatment of first-time offenders must be viewed skeptically.
Many critics question teen juries' commitment to issuing tough penalties for breaking the law. They say that if teen juries
are too relaxed, or simply inconsistent, in their sentencing practices, underage offenders may be left confused. Deborah
Williamson and James Wells, writing on behalf of the Chicago-based American Bar Association, explain:

If peer jurors are too lenient...it sends a mixed message about accountability. For example, let's say a
juvenile defendant has been through diversion and was assigned 30 hours of community service for a first
time shoplifting offense. The juvenile comes to district court on a second shoplifting charge, is referred to
youth court, and the peer jury assigns 15 hours. What is the message being sent?

Even some parents assert that the sentences imposed by teen juries are too light. If young people are not required to make
significant personal sacrifices as a result of breaking the law, they say, there is little hope that those teens will refrain from
illegal activity in the future. For example, Ellen Hallgarth, a student at Everett High School in Everett, Wash., was caught
speeding as a new 16-year-old driver; a teen jury sentenced her to 14 hours of mandatory community service. Hallgarth's
mother, however, decried the sentence as too lenient. "You're going to have to give up time on the phone," she says. "It's
still getting off easy."

A few proponents of the youth-court system express concern that teens may be sent to teen tribunals for the wrong
reasons. Those supporters warn that some teen-court programs may be overeager in terms of getting young people to
participate in youth tribunals. In particular, they say, law-enforcement officials or school administrators sometimes
apprehend young people for trivial reasons in order to "reform" them through the teen-court process. Jeff Butts, a senior
research associate at the Urban Institute, elaborates on that point:

I have met a few who are concerned that [teen court] opens up...what we call the net of intervention. The
metaphor that's used among criminologists is widening the net, that because we have this program for young
offenders, we may be more willing to arrest kids for very minor behavior and then bring them into the system,
even if it is diversion and that's a concern.

While many critics claim that the sentences doled out in teen court are too light, other opponents argue that the
punishments are often too severe. Those critics allege that teens are not sufficiently mature to serve on a jury, act as
attorneys or preside over court proceedings. Their collective inexperience, they insist, can lead to unfair punishments
imposed on teen offenders.

Indeed, some critics warn that teens acting as authority figures in a youth court may simply become drunk with power and
act unjustly. "It's kind of fun to have some power," admitted student judge Jeremy Wallace in 2005, then a high school
senior, after doubling one defendant's sentence to 40 hours of community service from 20 hours of community service as
punishment for a speeding infraction.

If teens commit a real crime, many critics conclude, they should be brought before a real court. Too often, opponents
insist, teens tried in youth court do not take teen jurors seriously. As a result, they say, underage offenders will likely serve
their court-mandated sentence but fail to learn any moral lessons about the impact of their criminal behavior.

Conclusion

The Future of Teen Juries

Cases entering the nation's justice system have historically been split between juvenile and adult courts. Can teen courts
sustain their recent momentum and offer a viable third option for hearing criminal cases involving young people? Many
analysts say that for that to happen, more statistical evidence must be released documenting the effectiveness of youth
tribunals. In the meantime, however, they say that teen-court programs will likely become even more widespread
throughout the U.S.

The state of teen courts today reveals that much work remains for the supporters of youth tribunals. In addition to
contending with critics' ongoing skepticism, backers are working to have teen courts recognized officially by the
government at the federal, state and local levels. While the federal government does provide some funding for youth-court
programs and some adult courts act as parent institutions for local teen courts, a vast number of youth tribunals exist in
relative obscurity, without a means of attracting necessary funds.
Though the process is unfolding slowly, analysts say that teen courts will likely gain greater acceptance in the nation's
legal community during the coming years. They point to the large number of state governments that have passed
legislation since 1995 expressing support for the teen-court system as proof that legislators are intent on making youth
tribunals a firm part of the judicial landscape.

Though the U.S. court system is notoriously resistant to innovation, some observers say that some reforms—particularly
involving communities' prosecution of youth crime—would benefit the country as a whole. Promoting young people's
involvement in the country's justice system by placing them on juries and educating them about the law at an early age,
they say, could result in a new wave of civic pride and community responsibility in the coming years.

Discussion Questions
1) Do you think teen courts are effective in curbing youth crime? Why or why not?

2) In your opinion, are teenagers mature enough to sit on juries and participate in a courtroom trial?

3) Do you think peer pressure is usually a positive force or a negative force? Explain.

4) Some critics say that teens who commit a real crime should be put on trial in a real court, such as a tribunal in the
juvenile or adult justice system. Do you agree or disagree with that sentiment?

5) Set up a mock teen court in your classroom. Select jurors, attorneys, a defendant and a judge. After conducting a mock
trial, reflect on the experience.

Additional Sources

Additional information about teen courts can be found in the following sources:

Krisberg, Barry. Juvenile Justice: Redeeming Our Children. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 2004.

Liss, Steve. No Place for Children: Voices From Juvenile Detention. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press, 2005.

Keywords
For further information about the ongoing debate over teen courts, search for the following words and terms in electronic
databases and other publications:

Restorative justice
Misdemeanor
Recidivism
Peer jury
Juvenile justice

Bibliography

Breen, Kim. "Peer Pressure Delivers Justice in Texas Court." Dallas Morning News, February 5, 2006,
www.dallasnews.com.

Butts, Jeffrey, Janeen Buck and Mark Coggeshall. "The Impact of Teen Court on Young Offenders." Urban Institute
Research Report, April 2002, www.urbaninstitute.org.

Butts, Jeffrey and Janeen Buck. "The Sudden Popularity of Teen Courts." Urban Institute, March 1, 2002,
www.urbaninstitute.org.

Eash, Anjanette. "Teen Courts Offer Options for Youth." The Advocate, September 2002, 1.
Fisher, Margaret. "Youth Courts as Service Learning." Constitutional Rights Foundation Online, Spring 2003, www.crf-
usa.org.

Gibb, Frances. "Tough on Crime: Teenagers Put on Trial By Their Peers." The Times, March 8, 2005,
www.timesonline.co.uk.

Godwin, Tracy. Peer Justice and Youth Empowerment: An Implementation Guide for Teen Court Programs. Lexington,
Ky.: American Probation and Parole Association, 1998.

Zehner, Sharon. "Teen Court." FBI Publications--Law Enforcement Bulletin, March 1997, www.fbi.gov.

Contact Information
Information on how to contact organizations that are either mentioned in the discussion of teen courts or can provide
additional information on the subject is listed below:

National Youth Court Center

c/o American Probation and Parole Association
P.O. Box 11910
Lexington, Ky. 40578-1910
Telephone: (859) 244-8193
Internet: www.youthcourt.net

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

810 Seventh Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20531
Telephone: (202) 307-5911
Internet: ojjdp.ncjrs.org

Center for Court Innovation

520 8th Avenue, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 397-3050
Internet: www.courtinnovation.org

American Bar Association

Juvenile Justice Center
321 North Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60610
312.988.5000
www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/home.html

Citation Information:

“Teen Courts.” Issues & Controversies, Infobase, 10 Mar. 2006,

icof.infobase.com/articles/QXJ0aWNsZVRleHQ6MTYwNTQ=. Accessed 21 Jan. 2023.

Copyright © 2023 Infobase. All Rights Reserved.