ABSTRACT
There has long been a contradictory pull of interests in the way courts handle crimes committed by children. On the one hand, children need guidance and protection from their own immaturity to learn how to make adult decisions. On the other hand, society needs protection from youth acting out in dangerous ways. This chapter looks at this conflict through the historical background of juvenile courts and shifts in the legal landscape pursuant to developments in adolescent brain science and then casts an eye toward future implications. Part One provides context with a brief history of the rise of juvenile courts. Part Two shows a lay person's overview of the adolescent brain science that indicates why youth who commit crimes should be treated differently from adult offenders. Part Three analyzes the Constitutional law shift in juvenile jurisprudence. Part Four examines some statutory changes in juvenile law as states struggle to comply with Constitutional changes. Part Five will suggest future adjustments in both law and policy to continue to improve juvenile justice and attempt to resolve some of this conflict between protecting the child and protecting society from the child.
