The early juvenile justice system in the United States mirrored what reform advocates fight for in the present-day. As explained by Dr. Ashley Nellis at The Sentencing Project, “the philosophical beginnings of the juvenile justice system rested on the notion that young people who become delinquent were amenable to reform and the system should respond by providing ample rehabilitation services”. Proceedings were always very confidential and private; In 1971, the Supreme Court ruled not to let juveniles be judged by a jury in order to emphasize the intended privacy of their trials and remove possibility of extensive publicity, which they feared would impact the final rulings. Society acknowledged the detrimental impacts of disruption in the transition from childhood to adult life and emphasized the correction, and not harsh punishment, of juvenile misbehavior.
This changed around the late 1980’s and 90’s, largely due to misinformation stemming from the media and policymakers. This included claims that used individual instances of serious juvenile crimes to argue that serious juvenile crime was a broad and commonplace issue and led to the easing of privacy restrictions in delinquency cases. Secondary damages of the latter can be found in accessibility, or lack thereof, of education, employment, housing, and the inclusion of former delinquents on public registries.
Likely the most impactful form of media misinformation on delinquency was the invention of the “superpredator”, a term first used by Princeton University professor John Dilulio Jr. in a 1995 article for The Weekly Standard (and later reprinted in the Chicago Tribune). In the story, Dilulio warned of an impending rise in juvenile crime due to a youth population affected by the “moral poverty … of growing up surrounded by deviant, delinquent, and criminal adults in abusive, violence-ridden, fatherless, Godless, and jobless settings.” The resulting media sensationalism largely contributed to the increased incarceration of youth, and especially youth of color. Dilulio’s article was referenced by politicians such as former presidential candidate Bob Dole and former First Lady Hillary Clinton, inspired a federal crime bill, and contributed to a nationwide series of harsh corrective policies in the juvenile justice system.
Interestingly, the number of violent juvenile crimes in the US was already beginning to fall by the mid-1990’s- around the same time in which Dilulio first published his superpredator theory. Additionally, by the year 2000 the rate of homicides committed by youth had stabilized below the 1985 level.
Dilulio went on to later apologize and rescind the idea of the juvenile superpredator and was even among the criminologists who submitted an amicus brief in Miller v. Alabama, in support of the petitioners. The case concerned the constitutionality of mandatory life-without-parole sentences for children. And, although the court eventually ruled them to be unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment (freedom from cruel and unusual punishment), the struggle continues in retroactively applying this decision to the thousands of children currently sentenced to die in prison- especially those that became incarcerated during the height of the superpredator hysteria.
The superpredator myth’s primary victims were, and remain, Black children. Of all youth sentenced to life-without-parole, 75% received their verdict in the 1990’s or later- 70% of this population were youth of color (60% were Black youth). Dilulio’s term “moral poverty” was broadly applied to majority-Black inner-city neighborhoods, and upheld antiquated fears about Black criminality. The pseudo-science on which Dilulio’s claims rested reinforced racially biased assumptions of delinquency- that some children are not children at all.
What can be done to rectify the harm? Recommendations put forward by The Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth include prioritizing non-carceral reforms to be adopted by states and incentivizing juvenile justice officials and community partners to implement age-appropriate interventions and restorative justice programs.
Legislative reforms are necessary as well. The Childhood Offenders Rehabilitation and Safety Act of 2021, which would raise the national age of criminal responsibility and ban the placement of juveniles in federal adult prisons, was first introduced in the House of Representatives in the spring of 2021 before being referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. It has not advanced since then. Sara’s Law and the Preventing Unfair Sentencing Act of 2023 was introduced on July 18th, 2023, and is currently in the first stages of the legislative process. It aims to remove statutory minimums in juvenile sentencing. Another reform bill, Protecting Miranda Rights for Kids Act, also introduced in 2021, sets procedural requirements for youth interrogations. Like the above, it is a long way from becoming law.
Many states have also begun reforming their individual policies that were established in the frenzy of the “superpredator”. However, much remains to be done in order to properly address and resolve the racial biases, excessive sentences, and prosecutorial abuses afflicting American youth and the juvenile justice system.