Abstract
By examining previous literature on the brain’s developmental process during adolescence, this paper aims to determine how early childhood trauma potentially effects decision making in adolescence through exploring self-regulation theory. Through a self-regulation framework, the hope is to determine the connection, if any, between early childhood trauma, delinquent behavior, and involvement in the juvenile justice system. The author insists that not only do adolescents have less cul- pability due to their brain developmental stage compared to adults, but also early childhood trauma puts adolescents at a greater risk of impaired self-regulation which allows for more probable delinquent behavior. This paper also considers implications for social policy makers and youth advocates concerned with juvenile offenders tried in adult courts and existing racial disparities in the system.
Introduction
Previous literature on adolescent brain development has found that youth are developmentally different than adults (National Research Council, 2013). Despite these findings, debate still exists among many, on the culpability of juvenile offending. Furthermore, we know that trauma impairs the development of the brain. Additionally, 93% of youth entering the justice system has had at least one adverse childhood experience (Evans-Chase, 2014). The way in which youth are held accountable for delinquent behavior needs to be reexamined. Lengthy sentencing, confinement and harsh punishments further traumatize youth, preventing them from becoming constructive members of society, upon release. Research finds that the recidivism rate for juveniles that have experienced trauma in and out of the justice system are high relative to those that have not.
The juvenile justice system is structured around the belief that youth can be rehabilitated and have a successful reintegrate into their community. However, youth that are tried in adult courts are often not awarded that same opportunity. In fact, those that are tried in adult courts, often receive longer and harsher sentences. At the foundation of this belief is that if youth cross into a threshold deemed adult-like (such as committing a violent crime), then they should be treated as adults. These youth are at a greater risk of traumatization and more likely to reenter the justice system upon release (Evans-Chase, 2014). Treating youth as adults is unjust, morally wrong, and a profound policy failure, especially given that scientific research continuously proves that youth are developmentally incomparable to adults. This paper aims to examine early childhood trauma impact on adolescent brain development, decision-making abilities and delinquent behavior to establish how research in these areas can be used to determine the culpability of older juveniles and provide policy recommendations that will serve youth in the best way pos- sible given the findings.
Early childhood trauma and justice-involved youth
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) research on Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) has uncovered a path towards the connection between early childhood trauma and juvenile delinquency. ACE is defined as adverse childhood experiences outlined in several different categories that may cause childhood trauma. These categories include a variety of child maltreatment circumstances: physical neglect and neglect, sexual abuse, violence, parental incarceration, emotional abuse, household substance use, parental separation or divorce, family violence, household mental illness, and incarceration of a household member that occurs before a child’s eighteenth birthday (Logan-Green, Kim, & Nurius, 2016; Evans-Chase, 2014; Baglivio, et. al, 2015). Other experiences that may cause trauma include violence in one’s community, involvement in the child welfare system, living in poverty, and death of a caregiver or loved one (Evans-Chase, 2014). Childhood traumas, particularly those that are interpersonal, intentional, and chronic increase the likelihood of developing mental health disorders. The development of post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety, antisocial behaviors and alcohol and substance use disorders are common among those impacted by trauma (De Bellis, & AB, 2014). This can explain why research has found that childhood trauma such as physical abuse, sexual abuse, and physical neglect are significant factors in predicting levels of violent and nonviolent crimes, as well as status offenses (Kang & Burton, 2014).
According to the ACE study, each adverse childhood experience will increase the likelihood of a disruption in brain development leading to an impairment in cognitive abilities (Evan-Chase, 2014). According to Evans-Chase’s research on Addressing Trauma and Psychosocial Development in Juvenile Justice-Involved Youth, repeated incidents of victimization and exposure to violence increase the likelihood of juvenile offending (2014). In addition, 93% of juveniles entering the justice system having one adverse childhood experience, and over 50% of juveniles in the system have had six or more adverse childhood experiences (National Research Center, 2013).
Youth who experience adverse childhood experiences have been found to be anywhere from 2 to 44 times more likely to “get into fights, perpetrate dating violence, carry a weapon, bully, harm themselves, have suicidal ideation or attempt suicide” (Evans-Chase, 2014). Phyllis Crocker, J.D., death row attorney and professor of law, stated that "the nexus between poverty, childhood abuse and neglect, social and emotional dysfunction, alcohol and drug abuse and crime is so tight in the lives of many capital defendants as to form a kind of social historical profile” (Crocker, 1999). Once in custody for delinquent acts, youth have reported being revictimized while housed in residential rehabilitation facilities. Of these youth, 29% reported physical assault and 12% reported sexual assault by either a staff member or another resident (Evans-Chase, 2014).
Trauma impact on adolescent brain development
Adolescent development in a way is unpredictable in that age cannot be a determining factor of maturity (Merrell, 2003). Although some adolescents may appear physically mature, it is certain that they are still developing mentally. Research indicates that the cerebral cortex, or the frontal portion of the brain that is responsible for advanced cognitive functioning undergoes significant changes during puberty and throughout adolescence (Juvenile Justice Center, 2004). Scientists used to believe that the brain only developed until the end of childhood, however recent research has found that more changes occur in the brain during adolescence than any other developmental stage (Steinberg et al., 2011). Because of the restructuring of the brain during adolescence, gray matter (a thin layer of tissue in the cerebral cortex), increases significantly during adolescence. The brain must “prune” or strip away the gray matter it no longer needs before an adult brain can be completely formed.
The pruning phases allow for better processing of information from different regions of the brain (Steinberg et. al, 2011). This also happens to be the part of the brain that develops the slowest and at the latest time (Juvenile Justice Center, 2004). The cere- bral cortex includes several parts of the brain that are responsible for decision-making, response inhibition, attention, perspective taking and social cognitive abilities (Mayzer et al., 2009; Choudhury & Blakemore, 2006). Because this process is so lengthy, adolescent brains have not achieved a capacity for high executive functions that aid in cognitive abilities such as the weighing pros and cons in decision-making processes (Mayzer et al., 2009). In fact, research shows that the process of developing mature social cognitive abilities really forms during the ages of 16-19 years old (Bryan-Hancock & Casey, 2010).
In addition to recent progress in adolescent brain development science, ACEs aids in the understanding of how trauma impacts the adolescent brain development process. Brain development in adolescence is a lengthy, yet critical process. Some youth may not reach full adult maturity until the age of 21 or later (Bryan-Hancock & Casey, 2010). Hormonal changes in the body during adolescence also play a role in brain development. For example, testosterone increases in the body during puberty, which is often linked to aggressive behavior (Juvenile Justice Center, 2004). Young people are known to express the biological, physiological, and emotional changes in a number of different ways. Because adolescent brain development varies significantly depending on the individual, how this process is expressed is revealed in many different ways and thus, will look different for each adolescent. In their quest of developing their own identity and entering into young adulthood, they will seek to find themselves and gain independence. It is normal to see that these young people may challenge authority and engage in risky behaviors (Balocchini et al., 2013).
Trauma in the early adolescent significantly slows the natural development process down, even if the adolescence physical development continues. This disruption in the natural process is likely to heighten risky behaviors and prevent these youth from making rational decisions. Consistent and chronic traumatic experiences from early childhood throughout adolescent prevent adequate development of the prefrontal cortex, thus delaying the adolescent’s abilities to properly make decisions, plan ahead, and control their impulses even more so than youth who have not had these experiences. Deficiency in executive functioning or the brain’s ability to make advanced decisions caused by trauma can be predictive of delinquent behavior (Mayers et al., 2009). Youth with chronic delinquent behavior have significantly impaired social cognitive functioning due to early childhood trauma (Baer & Maschi, 2003).
Trauma impact on adolescent decision making
Adolescents have less ability than adults in making rational judgments and decisions, especially when it requires future planning (National Research, 2013). Youth tend to be extremely impulsive. The heightened level of risk-taking and impulsive activities experienced in adolescence has been attributed to the slow development of the brain regions necessary for cognitive control, subsuming response selection, top-down control and inhibitory processes, and including the prefrontal cortex (Blakemore & Robbins, 2012). The different cognitive patterns and interactions in the brain contribute to the tendency of adolescents preferring to engage in risky behaviors that have a high probability of immediate reward but may have harmful consequences (Blakemore & Robbins, 2012; National Research Council, 2013). Additionally, they are more sensitive to gains and losses and particularly tend to favor the brain reaction to the increase in dopamine when rewards result. Young people inherently find these responses more arousing and meaningful (Van Duijvenvoorde & Crone, 2013).
As mentioned previously, adolescence is permeable for an increase in gray matter in the brain, which prevents the brain from making the connections it needs to. A 2003 study on juveniles’ competence to stand trial revealed that juveniles under the age of 18 were significantly less likely to “apply relevant information to situations, consider the impact of the situation on future consequences and process these events in a meaningful way” (Grisso, et al., 2003) Therefore, due to this process in the brain, young people have less control over their impulses and often make decisions that result in an immediate reward (Blakemore & Robbins, 2012). While adults have the ability to think ahead and weigh outcomes, youth have a harder time doing so. Moreover, even though older adolescents have more capacity to have cognitive abilities similar to adults, their decision-mak- ing capabilities still differ from adults due to their social and emotional immaturity (Mayzer et al., 2009). Blakemore and Robbins attest that emotionally charged or high arousal situations impact decision-making, especially for adolescents (p.1185).
For example, stealing a car may seem appealing to youth and the immediate reward of driving a car without considering the potential negative consequences for engaging in this behavior. For youth who have adverse childhood experiences, the ability to self-regulate will be even more so challenging, if not nearly impossible. Given the body of research on the effects of early childhood trauma and the impact on adolescent brain development, the culpability of juvenile crime needs to be re-examined. It critical that get tough on crime ideologies are abandoned and we must move towards policies and reform that are designed to truly rehabilitate youth regardless of the crimes they may have committed.
Early childhood trauma impacts on self-regulation
Early Childhood Trauma, adolescent brain development decision making, and delinquent behavior are further examined through self-regulation theory. Evans-Chase describes self-regulation as a “cognitive function that is associated with the control of emotions and desires, along with the behaviors associated with them” (2014). Self-regulatory systems aid in the mediation of external influences (Bandura, 1991). Self-regula- tion operates through a set of psychological sub-functions that must be developed and then mobilized (Bandura, Id.). According to Bandura , “self-regulation also encompasses the self-efficacy mechanism, which plays a central role in the exercise of personal agency by its strong impact on thought, affect, motivation, and action” (p.248) The brain system that influences pleasure-seeking and emotional reactivity develop more rapidly than the brain system that supports self-control (National Research Council, 2013).
During adolescence, the brain’s ability to self-regulate develops slowly (Evans-Chase, 2014) and often does not fully develop until one’s early twenties. Successful self-regulation requires the ability to self-monitor one’s behavior (Bandura, 1991). However, self-monitoring is not just about a simple recording of one’s actions; self-monitoring is dependent on one’s belief system. Although young people are not keen on consideration of their behaviors, they also have not yet developed a true sense of self or belief system. Adolescents have less capacity for self-regulation, especially in emotionally charged and stressful situations. (National Research Council, 2013). Trauma further impairs self-regulation and because of this, at-risk youth struggle even more to regulate aggressive behaviors (Bryan-Hancock & Casey, 2010; Baer & Maschi, 2003).
Early childhood trauma, racial disparities, and the justice system
In the United States, 61% of Black children and 51% of Hispanic children have experienced at least one ACE, compared with 40% of White children (Sacks & Murphey, 2018). In most areas in the country, the prevalence of ACEs is highest among Black (Sacks & Murphey, Id). The high occurrence of ACEs among these groups can likely be attributed to the uneven provision of services and opportunities in minority neighbor- hoods (Jameison, 2018). ACEs are the result of not only situations children face within their homes, but the general circumstances in which they live. A child’s social environment is just as impactful to their mental and emotional health. Because ACEs impact can be cumulative, we often see high rates in areas where several detrimental situations are occurring simultaneously (Jameison, Id). This could explain some of the correlation between high ACE scores and juvenile delinquency.
According to the NAACP “youth of color face higher rates of arrest and detention than similarly situated white youth” (n.d.). They also experience harsher penalties for crimes, and those discrepancies accumulate throughout the stages of the juvenile justice system. African American youth are disproportionately represented in the numbers of incarcerated youth, making up 44% of those incarcerated, yet only represent 16% of the U.S. population (The Sentencing Project, 2017). They represent 32% of children who are arrested, 42% of children who are detained, and 52% of children whose cases are judicially waived to criminal court (NAACP, n.d.). Black youth are 5 times more likely to be arrested and charged for a crime, compared to their white counterparts (The Sentencing Project, 2017). When it comes to being tried as an adult, African American youth are 9 times more likely to receive an adult prison sentence compared to their White counterparts (Campaign for Youth Justice, 2015).
Racial profiling and stereotypes also have a role in these racial disparities. Racial minorities, especially young Black men are often seen as criminals regardless of criminal history and therefore deemed deserving of imprisonment. Youth of color report being treated with suspicion by police and often express that their neighborhoods are over-policed (Kang & Burton, 2014). Experiencing persistent racial discrimination and harassment on behalf of the police is a significant stressor for many minority youths. Often times these individuals live on edge in preparation of conflict with law enforcement. In many of these areas, there is a long history of tension between communities and the police. These tensions are exacerbated when police that patrol these low income and primarily Black neighborhoods cannot identify with the youth in their experiences.
Previous research has found that “perceived and experienced discrimination by African American youth were correlated with numerous negative consequences including the following: depressive symptoms and decreased self-esteem and life satisfaction [as well as], lower levels of psychological functioning, decreased psychological resiliency, and increased psychological distress” (Kang & Burton, 2014). Because of this youth may self-label, act out, and even anticipate negative police contact. In Kang and Burton’s (2014) study, they found that experiences of racial discrimination further increased a young person’s likelihood of future delinquency (p.1118).
Furthermore, incarceration is often seen intergenerationally. One in 9 Black children has a parent that is incarcerated (Paquette, 2015) As explained earlier having an incarcerated parent constitutes as an adverse childhood experience through a combination of trauma, shame, and stigma. Children of incarcerated parents also tend to be negatively labeled while at school (Hagan & Foster, 2012). Teachers may assume they are disengaged or aggressive. These students may be disadvantaged socially, from the labels they may receive from having an incarcerated parent (Hagan & Foster, 2012).
Despite this, it’s important to note that race itself is only a risk factor to the extent that personal, institutional, or structural discrimination and racism block opportunities for traditional success and stunt personal and social growth (Bruner, 2017), which can serve as significant traumatic experiences for these youth that can lead to mental health issues and delinquency.
Implications for juveniles in the justice system
The factors examined throughout this paper have serious implications for juvenile offenders, especially those that are tried in adult courts. Youth make up 48,000 of those incarcerated each year (Wagner & Sawyer, 2018). This number does not account for the sum of thousands of youth that make up adult prisons. Every year, over 250,000 youth are arrested, tried, sentenced, and prosecuted through the adult court system (Arya, 2011). Over 6,000 youth are locked up in adult jails and prisons on any given night (Arya, 2011). The juvenile justice system uses containment, confinement, and control by removing youth from their families, peer groups, and neighborhoods (National Research Council, 2013). States justification emphasizes public safety and protection as the main factor in juvenile transfer laws (Walker & Woody, 2011).
Those under the age of eighteen who are accused of committing a delinquent or criminal act are typically processed through the juvenile justice system (unless they are certified as an adult). The primary goals of the juvenile justice system, in addition to maintaining public safety, is to development skills, rehabilitation, addressing any treatment needs, and successful reintegration of youth into the community (Skowyra & Cocozza, 2007). Transferring juveniles to adult courts through certification has serious ramifications for marginalized juvenile offenders, especially racial minorities and those in poverty who are often overrepresented in the juvenile justice system (Farnum & Steven- son, 2013).
Negative stereotypes about the criminality of Black juvenile offenders might drive legal decision-makers to treat them more punitively than similar White juvenile offenders (Farnum & Stevenson, 2013) due to their disproportionate exposure to circumstances, both in and out of custody, that not only act as barriers to healthy development, but also contribute to and exacerbate the high rate of emotional problems and recidivism found in this population (Evans-Chase, 2014).
Furthermore, young people in the juvenile justice system are disproportionately exposed to experiences outside of police custody that is known to increase the risk of violent behavior. (Evans-Chase, 2014) Youth tried in adult courts receive harsher punishments. Through the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency under the Juvenile Justice and Prevention Act, states are required to remain in compliance four core requirements; deinstitutionalization of status offenders, adult jail lock up and removal, sight, and sound separation, racial and ethnic disparities (Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2019). Therefore, under these requirements, adult correctional facilities are required to make sure youths and adults have no contact with one another. However, the structure of these facilities makes this near impossible (Campaign for Youth Justice, 2015). When youth are able to be separated, it is often in an unsafe environment, where youth are isolated. Adult prisons are not equipped to accommodate the needs unique of youth, leaving rehabilitation nearly impossible.
Policy Recommendations
Standardized age of jurisdiction
There has been much movement and advocacy surrounding raising the age for juveniles that can be tried in adult courts. Currently, states have the discretion to determine the age in which juveniles can be tried in adult courts. However, the momentum for this movement is mostly for juveniles charged with non-violent crimes (Justice Policy Institute, 2017). There have not been many efforts in rethinking rehabilitation measures for juveniles who are charged with violent crimes. It is essential that the “adult crime, adult time” attitude be abandoned. When youth are deemed adults before they are developmentally there, it sets them on a trajectory that can hard to recover from. Especially considering that these same youth have likely experienced profound trauma through their lives.
The federal government’s efforts to reform criminal justice should include putting pressure on states to standardize the age to try juveniles as adults by removing funding in other areas if they do not comply. Congress has done this in other areas of the justice system. For example, when states are not in compliance with under the Juvenile Justice and Prevention Act, funding is restricted from these states and reallocated to aid these states in becoming complaint (Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2019). This is not a scarce practice and puts pressure on states to maintain integrity where it is lost.
Currently, states have many different laws and processes for transferring juveniles into adult courts. A juvenile can be transferred into an adult court anywhere from 12-17 years old. However, scientific research conflicts with the way states are handling these cases. The practices that are currently used are based on outdated research. The federal government has yet to put any policy through that would streamline these practices and make them more cohesive and practical for all youth in the system, regardless of age or crime.
If states truly take into account adolescent brain development and put efforts into reforming this part of the justice system, it would profoundly change the juvenile justice system as it is known. It is imperative that these states are held accountable and the fed- eral government must encourage them to be mindful when considering methods that would have juvenile in adult courts and facilities. Even for cases involving violent crimes, consideration of the development stage should be taken into account.
Court accountability
In addition to states being held accountable, court accountability is just as important. Real change in the juvenile justice system can happen when courts are held accountable. It is no longer acceptable to be ignorant and dismissive of the science of adolescent brain development and the impact trauma can have in the lives of young people. The fate of young people involved in the justice system is ultimately decided by prosecutors and judges.
Prosecutors have the discretion of deciding what charges should be brought against individuals and judges have the very important role of deciding the ultimate consequences that a young person must face if found guilty of those charges. If judges and prosecutors take into consideration how a person’s environment, trauma, and mental health issues may have impacted their behavior then the system can begin to focus on the rehabilitation and the best interest of the child. It is imperative that every court official involved in the juvenile justice system be trained on adolescent brain development and the impacts of early childhood trauma. A standard such as this can only prove to serve the needs of youth in the best way possible.
Rehabilitation facility for older adolescents
Older adolescents or “emerging adults”—as coined by Jeffrey Arnett, a psychologist with Clark University—although not yet adults, are at a different developmental stage than younger youth (Arnett, 2000). Emerging adults are considered to be between the ages of 16-21 and are developmentally more similar to juveniles than adults. This time period during adolescence is marked by the transition from dependence to independence. Rehabilitation efforts for older youth or “emerging adults” need to take in into account their unique developmental stage. Within recent years, there have been efforts on considering age-appropriate rehabilitation methods for the older youth that come into contact with the system.
Some states that have started to lead the way in these efforts include Illinois, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. For example, in 2018, Connecticut’s governor Dannel Mal- loy proposed a bill that would include young adults aged 18-19 that have committed crimes in juvenile courts (Schiraldi & Chester, 2018). If successful, Connecticut would be the first state in the United States to do something this significant in juvenile justice reform. He believes that “everyone deserves a legitimate second chance [and] this includes our youngest adults who are just beginning to build a life of their own.” (Schiraldi & Chester, 2018). However, others such as Oregon and Florida still believe in the importance of tough-on-crime politics for juveniles. Moving away from this ideology is critical in juvenile justice reform efforts.
Focus on alternative & diversion programs
One way that youth incarceration and its impact on young people can be addressed is to take a less punitive approach to crime. There are ways that we can hold youth accountable for their actions without being detrimental to their development. Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ) methods have shown to be successful with youth populations. The BARJ model was developed out of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention initiative in 1993 (Bilchik, 1998). This approach focuses on accountability and acknowledging harm as its basis for restoring justice. It also emphasizes addressing the harm and actively taking actions to repair the harm.
Additionally, diversion programs have also been shown to be successful. They serve as alternatives to the traditional justice system and aim to address delinquent behavior in a more productive way. BARJ frameworks are used to design and implement these pro- grams. They have shown to be very effective in preventing premature involvement in the adult prison system, reducing costs related to juvenile courts, maintaining youth connectedness and positive involvement within their communities.
Community assessment centers are another way to address juvenile delinquency while also diverting involvement in the juvenile justice system. The goal of these centers is to serve as a preventative measure for further involvement in the juvenile justice system and future delinquency. Community assessment centers allow youth who have had previous police contact and involvement with the justice system access to resources. In these models, youth are assessed for potential risk and protective factors that aid in delinquency, and existing trauma is examined. These youth are then connected to community resources based on the assessment’s findings. (Oldenettel & Wordes, 2000) Community assessment centers can provide and/or implement diversion programs onsite.
Current barriers to the implementation of these programs include the country’s view on crime and incarceration. Generally, the U.S. values punitive measures and harsh sentencing to address crime for both children and adults. Implementation of diversion programs and balanced and restorative justice models would need to come with a change of attitude. Funding these programs also serves as a barrier as some states may not feel it is worth the money. This is why it is important for states to have standardized methods, to ensure that further inequities are not created.
Furthermore, these programs historically only target youth that have committed low level crimes and minor offenses. Such programs need to be extended to youth that have committed violent crimes, as well. Based on the adolescent brain developmental stage and further considering potential trauma, these types of programs would profoundly beneficial for these youth as well. Youth who have committed a violent crime could also benefit from restorative justice techniques that focuses on reflection, empathy, learning from one’s mistakes and attempting to repairing harm to victims. Youth and young adults have more of a capacity to be rehabilitated and change.
Conclusion
During adolescence young people are faced with a variety of different physiological, biological, and social-emotional changing. While risk-taking in search of independence is a key feature in the development stage, the cause of delinquent behavior is much more complex. Early childhood trauma includes a variety of experiences that have last effects on youth behavior. Furthermore, Early Childhood trauma significantly impairs brain development which impacts the way a young person makes decisions leading to potential delinquency.
Trauma in early life is linked to and predictive of delinquent behavior during adolescence and in later life. Most youth entering the justice system have had adverse childhood experiences—(or traumatic experiences),—that the way in which they interact with and perceive the world is contingent on these experiences. Trauma impacts youth ability to self-regulate and weigh potential outcomes of decision making. This is already significantly challenging to youth given the brain’s developmental process at this stage in life. Youth often seek situations with immediate rewards, rather than considering potential long-term outcomes.
Juveniles being tried as adults is a practice that needs to be eliminated. Given the research, there is no reason that youth should spend any time in adult facilities. Juveniles that are tried in adult courts are at risk of being treated as adults and serving longer and harsher sentencing. Furthermore, adult correctional facilities are not designed for youth and can be extremely detrimental to their continual development, especially for those youth that has been seriously impacted by childhood trauma. Continuous victimization of these youth will not address the problem and will only lead to further involvement with the justice system. “Condemnation, control, and lengthy confinement, the identifying attributes of criminal punishment, are not necessary features of accountability for juveniles” (National Research Council, 2013).
There are a variety of methods that exist to serve as an alternative form to youth lockups. However, these methods need to be used more often and taken more seriously by policy makers, judges, and the juvenile justice system. Although additional research may be needed in these areas, the status quo is not working for our youth or our society. If we continue to maintain the status quo, we will continue to see racial disparities in the justice system. There are other ways that youth can be held accountable that does not negatively impact their lives in such a dramatic way. We need not forget that juveniles are not adults, even when they begin to look like they are. Therefore, they should not be treated as such. Juvenile Justice reform can only get to where it needs to be if policymakers consider standardizing the age of trying juveniles in adults across all states and consistently provide alternative methods for the unique stages in adolescent development, from younger youth to emerging adults.