ABSTRACT
Supreme Court jurisprudence beginning with Roper vs. Simmons and culminating in Miller vs. Alabama articulated what juvenile court judges who see kids in court day in and day out know: that children and adolescents are impulsive, susceptible to peer pressure, and have less well-developed senses of themselves than adults. This chapter traces one juvenile court judge's up close and personal view of changes in the discourse surrounding and treatment of alleged juvenile offenders. It draws on the author's 19 years of experience on the bench in the district courts of Durham, North Carolina, a progressive city with a proud civil rights tradition. It covers the time period in which punitive and harsh federal and state laws were enacted in response to overblown and inaccurate depictions of youthful “superpredators.” During that time, Durham, like the rest of the state, witnessed unprecedented numbers of minors transferred to adult court. The chapter also covers the softening of these punitive trends, culminating with the 2018 legislative change to the age of juvenile court jurisdiction. That year, North Carolina became the last state in the country to raise the maximum age of juvenile court jurisdiction to 18. The chapter infuses the discussion of these analytical developments with the judge's own memories and growing skepticism about the court's ability to function as a mechanism for attaining social services for children and youth.
