INTRODUCTION
Imagine you are fourteen years old. Your parents are absent; you struggle with your mental health; and you are unsure where you fit in this world. This path of challenge and struggle culminated in you ending up in jail. Despite this less than ideal scenario, you are given a choice: Prison One or Prison Two. Prison One operates like a college dorm. You cook for yourself, you grow vegetables in a garden, you meet with a counselor daily, and you go to a normal school. In Prison Two, you sit in isolation for twenty-two hours a day, relieve yourself in water bottles because a guard has not come to take you to the restroom, and only go outside every other day. Which prison would you choose?
Obviously, you would choose Prison One. While this may seem like an extreme example, Prison One and Prison Two exist throughout the world. Prison One seems like a shining example of how an advanced country treats their youth and Prison Two is an example of how one would imagine an underdeveloped, poor, and unstable country treats theirs. Prison One is seen in countries that have implemented and excelled beyond the international guidelines, rules, and conventions governing the treatment of juveniles.1 However, the reality is that Prison Two exists throughout the United States (“U.S.”).2
Youths in the juvenile justice system cannot choose their institutions of incarceration like the scenario above. Instead, state specific juvenile justice laws decide for them. Juvenile justice systems vary worldwide in their approach to incarcerating adolescent offenders, particularly in violent crime cases.
The United Nations (“U.N.”) has multiple guidelines and rules that the vast majority of nations follow.3 As of October 2023, the most widely ratified human rights treaty relates to juvenile justice. 4 However, the U.S. is the only country who refused to join the 196 countries that ratified that treaty.5 Countries that have not only looked to these standards, but excelled past them, have a thirty percent adolescent re-incarceration rate within three years of release, as opposed to the U.S.’s astonishing seventy-five percent.6
In the absence of a federal “United States Juvenile Justice Code,” juveniles within the U.S. are governed by state law, which often vary based on the respective political majority, location, and funding. A majority of the U.S.—forty-two out of fifty states—claim to have a rehabilitative juvenile justice system.7 However, reality reflects how the U.S. juvenile justice system is a punitive system with slow advancement in rehabilitative practices. The U.S. meets its youth with a “tough-on-crime” approach plagued with punishment and incarceration rather than effectively reintegrating juvenile offenders into society.8 A large reason for this dichotomy is the complete lack of a strong, uniform juvenile justice system that incorporates and follows international standards.9
The U.S.’s failure to implement an internationally abiding federal law regulating juvenile justice has important implications on the treatment of incarcerated adolescent populations while incarcerated, rehabilitated, and reintegrated into society. This article will analyze the harmful and outdated legal frameworks and institutional structures of the U.S. juvenile justice systems. Looking to international standards for inspiration and guidance, this article proposes strong federal legislation to better protect the rights of incarcerated juveniles.
Part I of this paper will provide an overview of the “modern” U.S.’s juvenile justice systems as it relates to incarceration, highlighting the lack of federal regulation and individual state practices. Part II will discuss the international standards for juvenile justice, focusing on the United Nations Standard Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice,10 the United Nations Convention of the Rights of a Child,11 the United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency,12 and the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty.13 Lastly, Part III argues that exceeding the international standards by codifying a federal juvenile justice code, encompassing a new minimum and maximum age of criminal responsibility, emphasizing imprisonment as a last resort, and outlawing solitary confinement are needed to protect juvenile human rights and dignity in the U.S.
I. THE “MODERN” UNITED STATES JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
Juvenile justice is the criminal legal system of laws, policies, and procedures designed for adolescents not old enough to be held responsible for criminal acts.14 Before the creation of a separate juvenile court, children experienced the same system adults did.15 Meaning, children from the ages of seven to eighteen could be sentenced to adult prison or even to death for their crimes.16 This idea dates back to the creation of Catholic religious texts, where it is written, “He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.”17
A. Historical Context
The concept of treating youth separately from adults originated in England during the late twelfth century.18 These first rights were called parens patriae, translated as “father of the country.” Children over the age of seven were seen as property of which the king took charge over and responsibility for.19 A child under the age of seven was thought to have no mens rea, or the ability to form the necessary criminal intent needed to hold a person accountable for a crime.20
Parens patriae influenced early familial structures and relationships in the early U.S.21 In colonial U.S., the family served as the end-all-be-all of societal ideals and was the model of parens patriae for discipline and social control.22 Often obtained through the use of corporal punishment, parents insured their children were literate, well behaved, and socialized.23 The developing U.S. saw the doctrine of parens patriae influence its politics as well, with the government believing it needed “absolute authority.”24
In 1825, the first house of refuge emerged in New York and acted as a center for youth with a high risk of entering the criminal system due to their social circumstances.25 Over the next two decades, fifty one reform schools or houses of refuge emerged throughout the U.S.26 State legislatures began regulating these houses, which often required the houses to receive children from parents who deemed them beyond control and children who were committed by the court.27
Just over a decade after the creation of the first house of refuge, the legitimacy of the houses were challenged in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.28 The parent of a child committed to a house of refuge submitted a habeas corpus petition in an attempt to have his daughter released from the house. 29 The Court denied the motion, holding that a parent’s right of control to their natural born child is indeed a natural right, but it is not an inalienable right.30 Accordingly, the Court reasoned the houses acted as charities of reformation which aided in teaching children morals and religion while separating them from corrupting influences.31
By 1876, the government controlled three-fourths of the schools and used parens patriae to justify the legal authority to commit children to the legally recognized community-based schools.32 However, the government operated schools often used corporal punishment to discipline juveniles, and the schools experimented by placing children in a class system based on their behavior.33
In 1870, the Illinois Supreme Court declined to follow the broad doctrine of parens patriae, holding that the state may only take control of a child if the child committed an act of “gross misconduct” or the parents were utterly unfit.34 Subsequently, almost all reform schools in Illinois closed because they stopped housing non-criminal children.35 As a result of the reform schools closing, the Illinois legislature codified the Illinois Juvenile Court Act of 1899, which created the first juvenile court.36 It exercised jurisdiction over all youth-related matters, including dependency, delinquency, and neglected children, and was dubbed the Chicago Juvenile Court of Law.37 Illinois paved the way for what we know to be the modern juvenile justice system, and states around the U.S. began creating separate children’s courts.38 Within twenty-six years of establishing the Chicago Juvenile Court, only two states did not have specialized juvenile courts.39
The 1960s started an era where courts altered the juvenile system.40 In the 1970s, there began a shift towards increased punishment of juveniles.41 Beginning in 1976, over half of the states made transferring youths into adult court with hardened sentencing guidelines easier.42 From 1979 to 1984, the number of juveniles transferred to adult court rose forty-eight percent.43 This “tough-on-crime” approach still plagues juvenile systems today.44 The fight between government officials wanting to implement quick-fix solutions, and the media’s crazed intent on reporting violent crimes, more than successful crime prevention efforts, plague each state’s efforts to amend its juvenile justice systems.45
B. Operation of the United States Juvenile Justice System at the Federal Level
The death penalty—as applied to juveniles—serves as a dark example of the consequences a lack of a robust, comprehensive U.S. federal juvenile justice system poses. The youngest person executed in the U.S., James Arcene, a Cherokee Nation child, was sentenced to hang to death in Arkansas in 1885 for a robbery and murder he helped commit at ten years old.46 In 1944, South Carolina electrocuted George Stinney Jr., a fourteen-year-old Black child, after an all-white jury found him guilty after only ten minutes of deliberation.47 During the “modern” era of juvenile justice, between 1974 and 2005, over a century after the U.S. executed its first child, 226 children received death sentences.48
As of October 2023, there is no codified federal law outlawing the death penalty for juveniles.49 Instead, the Supreme Court precedent in Roper v. Simmons, which outlaws the death penalty for juveniles, is the only authority standing in the way.50 However, recent Supreme Court decisions, like Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, demonstrate that the Court can easily overturn longstanding precedent.51 When analyzing the U.S. standards enacted via legislation or court precedent, the lack of an overarching U.S. juvenile justice system leaves juveniles unprotected from this human rights violation.
1. Legislation Effecting Incarcerated Juveniles
On October 1, 2019, the Juvenile Justice Reform Act (“JJRA”) of 2018 took effect with broad bipartisan support.52 The JJRA reauthorized and substantially amended the former Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act.53 The JJRA’s core included increased attention to racial and ethnic disparities, sight and sound removal for youth awaiting trial, and de-incarceration of status offenses.54 The JJRA requires state juvenile justice codes to consider scientific knowledge and statistics regarding adolescent development and behavior but does not require policy change due to the scientific findings.55 The JJRA also called for individualized case plans for juveniles to re-enter society.56 Notably, the JJRA asks states to eliminate the use of dangerous practices within incarceration facilities.57 However, this legislation only truly impacts a small subset of juveniles who have committed a federal crime or were transferred to federal court.58 Federal law provides that state authorities should handle the matter as opposed to the federal courts.59 Indeed, if a juvenile is going to be subjected to state law regardless of whether their alleged crime was a state or federal violation, federal law holds little weight in ensuring the rights of juveniles will be upheld. Regardless, the legislature codified seemingly superfluous penalties for states who refused to comply with the JJRA. The JJRA includes a twenty percent monetary penalty for states that do not comply with its provisions.60 For a cost-benefit analysis, Title II early intervention programs aimed at crime prevention cost less than imprisonment.61 In 2020, the average cost of incarcerating a juvenile for one year ranged from a minimum of $100,000 to over $500,000. 62 The average cost of incarceration for one child is $588 per day, which equates to $214,620 per year.63 On the other hand, community-based intervention programs can cost as little as $75 per day, which equates to $27,375 per child.64 Focusing on community intervention programs, in addition to the cost-benefit analysis, yielded up to a 5.7% lower recidivism rate for juveniles within the two years following a program.65 This concept is not new: a 1996 report from Connecticut’s state-wide evaluation of alternative sentencing programs for juveniles concluded that sending juveniles to alternative programs instead of incarceration yielded lower rearrest rates.66 States have no excuse for non-compliance with the JJRA—a law that only scratches the surface of the rights juveniles deserve—especially when state law primarily dictates juvenile proceedings regardless of if the allegation is a violation of federal or state law.
The Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (“CRIPA”) allows the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to review the conditions and practices within state or local government juvenile justice institutions.67 However, the Act is severely limited. The DOJ has no authority to help with individual claims, cannot correct problems within federal facilities, and cannot assist in criminal cases.68 A CRIPA investigation must expose a systemic pattern or practice that causes harm to children in order to elicit enforcement—harm to only one person, no matter how serious, is not enough to allow action.69 Similarly, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (“VCCLEA”) allows DOJ intervention in juvenile detention centers.70 The DOJ has intervened in many juvenile detention centers 71—that have violated children’s rights and dignity. While there is more federal legislation affecting juveniles, it has little effect on their incarceration.72
Unfortunately, the fate of children when left to the legislature has become highly politicized.73 The conservative Republican Party attacks the juvenile system for its leniency.74 Simultaneously, the liberal Democratic Party criticizes the system for high youth incarceration rates and excessive use of detention.75 Each party focuses on the politics when the focus should be on the wellbeing of our children. The lack of strong legislation and the implications of the political divide, results in a juvenile justice system at odds with itself, leaving the courts to fight over the interpretation of the various codes.76 The juxtaposition lies in the courts’ ideals: to protect the public but be a guardian of children; to preserve families but provide care and guidance; hold a child accountable for their actions but take into consideration the unique circumstances of each child; to be fair and uniform in disposition and application of law but individualize any rulings to meet the specific and best needs of each child.77
2. A Brief Note on the United States Supreme Court’s Precedent
The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the rights of juveniles on many occasions. The Court banned the death penalty for children under the age of eighteen in 2005. 78 In 2010, the Court banned juvenile life without parole (“JLWOP”) sentences only for youth convicted of nonhomicide crimes.79 Two years later, in Miller v. Alabama, the Court banned JLWOP for youths convicted of homicide, noting that juvenile sentences should be rare, uncommon, and reserved only for individuals the court deems incapable of rehabilitation.80 There are no concrete guidelines for what “incapable of rehabilitation” means.
At the time of the Miller decision, 2,800 juveniles were serving JLWOP. 81 That number has since come down to 542 individuals serving JLWOP sentences for crimes committed as a child, including those awaiting resentencing.82 Alarmingly, the percentage of Black children sentenced to JLWOP increased from sixty one percent to seventy three percent since the Miller decision.83 The U.S. is the only country in the world that allows JLWOP sentences,84 a practice expressly condemned by international law.85 As of 2021, Jones v. Mississippi was the most recent Supreme Court case addressing age in sentencing.86 The Court confirmed that age matters when sentencing an individual but gave states latitude in creating youth procedures.87
Each of these Supreme Court cases are significant because the Court specifically relied on scientific research which concluded that even youths who commit the most serious violent crimes have the capacity to change.88 Most children, who violate the law or not, will naturally grow out of criminal tendencies by their mid-twenties. 89 Accordingly, disproportionately long sentences, such as JLWOP, hold children well past their rehabilitation period and increase their risk of re-offending.90
Juvenile justice scholars argue that juvenile justice programs are complex and require significant resources, attributing much of the differences in application of juvenile law to a lack of concise and widely held definitions, which leads to different interpretations and implementation jurisdictionally.91 The federal government must implement robust, concrete legislation requiring states to adhere to higher juvenile justice standards. As recently as 2023, states still treat juveniles as they see fit—meaning juveniles are sent to prison for cash,92 are pepper sprayed,93 kept in isolation for twenty-three hours a day,94 and denied education.95 The opportunities for the abuse of discretion here are many.
C. Operation of the United States Juvenile Justice System Across the Fifty States
In 2019, officers arrested 696,620 children across the United States, equating to arresting a child every forty-five seconds.96 Half of those arrests involved “theft, simple assault, drug abuse violations, [or] disorderly conduct offenses.”97 And within the last two decades, almost every state has cut the number of incarcerated youths in half, now favoring probation, therapy, and community programs.98 However, the children who are sentenced to incarceration in juvenile court continue to face inhumane conditions that not only violate international standards but also their human rights.99
Many juvenile courts in the States are called courts of delinquency, defined as “an act committed by a juvenile that, if committed by an adult, would require prosecution in a criminal court.”100 The age of minority, or the age at which a child may fall under the juvenile court’s jurisdiction, varies from state to state.101 Solely because an adolescent commits an act, the juvenile court has jurisdiction.102 Juveniles are either held in juvenile detention centers, juvenile units within adult jails or police lockups, or secure or nonsecure shelter care facilities.103
State juvenile detention centers are “total institutions,” which are “a place of confinement . . . where persons of a specific type live, following formalized life routine under the control and direction of a bureaucratic staff, and having limited contact with the rest of society.”104 How an institution operates through its rituals, customs, rules, and laws, creates an inmates’ reliance on the institution such that they are likely unable to function outside of it.105 Instead of rehabilitation, juvenile inmates have come to favor qualities like physical and mental toughness, self-sufficiency, exploitative nature, and loyalty to their group.106 State systems do not foster an environment where a juvenile may address the behaviors or the root causes that may have led to the conduct that led them to prison.107
All states allow juveniles to be transferred to adult courts, a practice widely condemned by juvenile justice experts.108 Generally, states rely on one of four methods, or a combination of methods, for deciding when juveniles should be transferred to adult court.109 The most common is through judicial waiver,110 sometimes called a discretionary transfer,111 which forty-six states use.112 Under a judicial waiver, a judge determines the suitability of transferring the jurisdiction to an adult criminal court.113 The second method is via prosecutorial waiver, also known as a direct or mandatory file.114 Under a direct file, the prosecutor can decide to file in juvenile or adult court.115 The third method is known as either a legislative waiver, a statutory exception, or a presumptive transfer, where a statute excludes certain offenses from juvenile court, and that case is automatically filed in adult criminal court.116 The final method is the demand waiver, which allows juveniles or their parents to request that the case be transferred to adult court.117
As of 2019, thirty-five states had “once an adult, always an adult” statutes, which require juveniles previously tried as adults to be prosecuted as adults in all subsequent offenses.118 These transfer laws are primarily a product of the early-1990’s tough-on-crime approach,119 and disproportionately affect minority populations. In 2018, the likelihood of a Black youth transferring to adult criminal court was more than double that of their White counterpart.120
Leaders in Louisiana have promised for decades to reform its incarceration centers, yet its children are still experiencing inhuman conditions.121 In 2022, a fifteen-year-old incarcerated child received twenty-four hours of solitary confinement a day after being convicted of joyriding in a stolen car.122 He received neither an education nor substance abuse counseling, violating both federal education laws and court orders.123 Although Louisiana considers solitary confinement for juveniles a last resort, most children, many of whom have serious mental illnesses, find themselves locked in their cells for up to twenty three hours a day.124 Guards shackled children with handcuffs and leg irons while they showered.125 Children had their hands slammed in doors, were pepper sprayed, and hit on their knees with various instruments by guards.126 The Center for Children’s Law and Policy executive director blatantly called this “child abuse.”127 At one center in Louisiana, two teenagers committed suicide while in solitary confinement.128 There is absolutely no excuse for incarcerated children to face these horrors.
In 2022, two former judges in Pennsylvania orchestrated a scheme to send children to for-profit jails in exchange for monetary kickbacks.129 Dubbed the “kids-for-cash” scandal, the judges accepted over $2.8 million in illegal payments for pushing a zero-tolerance policy, which yielded large numbers of children sent to for-profit institutions.130 Children as young as eight years old received incarceration for crimes like jaywalking and petty theft.131 After uncovering the scheme, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court threw out 4,000 convictions that involved more than 2,300 children.132
In Wisconsin, children as young as fourteen received solitary confinement for twenty-two hours a day, and guards routinely sprayed juveniles in the face with bear mace.133 In California, there were 102 allegations of juvenile officer misconduct between 2007 and 2010 in Los Angeles County alone. 134 In a 2022 lawsuit, many of the 70 victims said juvenile center staff threatened the victims with continuing sexual liaisons even after their release under the threat of being returned to detention centers.135
Texas juvenile incarceration centers have a similar story. Children have reported using water bottles as toilets because detention officers did not release them from their cells.136 The conditions have led nearly half of the juvenile prison population to be on suicide watch due to distress or as a method to get attention in their isolation.137 Juvenile detention officers often face charges for sexually assaulting girls and using excessive violence while working at the juvenile centers.138 Reform efforts have been unsuccessful thus far. A strong federal juvenile justice code would help curb egregious human rights violations such as these and ensure our incarcerated juveniles receive protection.
Stories like these are not few and far between.139 Some states are beginning to change their flawed laws and policies. In 2019, seventy two bills in thirty-three states sought to reform their juvenile justice incarceration facilities.140 In 2021, North Dakota overhauled their juvenile justice system for the first time since 1969, allowing youths access to services without them formally entering the system.141 Additionally, in 2021, six states increased the minimum age of their juvenile court’s jurisdiction.142 Missouri changed its juvenile justice system to incorporate more education and therapy programs, leading to seventy percent of youth released from juvenile correction facilities not returning to the system.143 However, the tough-on-crime approach still plagues most states’ laws, which harms their juvenile population. Most alarmingly, Louisiana, Michigan, and Pennsylvania still allow JLWOP, accounting for two-thirds of nationwide JLWOP sentences.144
Much of the reform came in response to public outcry after an incident surrounding six-year-old Kaia Rolle. In 2019, officers arrested Kaia at her school for kicking and punching educators while throwing a tantrum in her first-grade class.145 Officers handcuffed the six-year-old using zip ties, placed her in the back of a police car, and took her mugshot.146 Pictures of Kaia sitting handcuffed in the back of a police car went viral.147 Florida responded by raising the minimum age eligible for arrest by only one year to the age of seven.148
Public opinion shows people believe that young people can change, with seventy-eight percent of study participants believing that youth who commit crimes have the full capacity to change for the better.149 Interestingly, one thing all party affiliations agree on is that youths should be treated differently than adults.150 Furthermore, seventy-nine percent of Democrats, eighty percent of Independents, and seventy-one percent of Republicans believe the juvenile justice system should shift from punishment to rehabilitation.151 In 2021, a bipartisan sixty-two percent of Americans favored closing youth prisons altogether.152 Nevertheless, the states are not responding to public opinion nor enacting or implementing consistent or efficient changes.
Juvenile laws throughout the States are inconsistent and vague. Currently, the systems parallel society in ways, divided by class and racial prejudice.153 Uncertainties, unfair standards, and questions riddle the systems. Ultimately, the reliance on each state to regulate its juvenile justice system fails children and continues to violate their rights.
How can one country have such starkly different approaches to treating its children—with some states being in direct opposition to their neighbors only a few miles apart? In some cases, it lies within the political majority of each State. In others, it comes down to localized funding. There are many possible contributing factors informing these differences. The bottom line is that a country that praises itself as a world superpower has no excuse for treating its children with such opposing policies regarding incarceration, abuse, and blatant disrespect for a child’s dignity. Ultimately, there is no strong, overarching federal juvenile justice code in the U.S. that regulates the treatment of children and teenagers while incarcerated under state law. Instead, a juvenile is either indicted in federal delinquency proceedings, left to the state’s policy, or transferred to adult court, where criminal laws and policies apply.154
II. THE EMERGENCE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE
The implementation of the first formal juvenile justice system in the U.S. began a movement throughout the world. In 1908, Great Britain codified The Children Act, which created a juvenile justice system separate from the adult system.155 The Children Act granted the court jurisdiction over children ages ten through sixteen.156 Other countries worldwide followed the Chicago Juvenile Court of Law’s lead and modeled its children’s courts around Chicago’s, with differences that reflected their respective histories, cultures, and values.157
Juvenile justice has become an important and highly debated aspect of the global justice system.158 International governing bodies have developed several legal frameworks, rules, and guidelines to protect young people’s rights.159 These guidelines ensure that the treatment of youths complies with international human rights standards. Overall, these standards ensure convicted children are treated with dignity and respect and their treatment focuses on reintegration into society. The most notable international guidelines that affect incarcerated children are the United Nations Standard Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice,160 the United Nations Convention on the Right of a Child,161 the United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency,162 and the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty.163
A. The United Nations Standard Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice
International communities started discussing children’s rights shortly after countries independently established juvenile justice systems.164 The League of Nations in 1924 and the United Nations in 1959 independently adopted declarations on children’s rights.165 Subsequently, the drafters expressly wrote provisions into human rights treaties and humanitarian law treaties recognizing juvenile rights.166 The most notable first set of rules are the United Nations Standard Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, commonly known as the Beijing Rules.167 In 1985, the sixth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders laid out basic principles that it felt should be developed to protect the fundamental rights of offending juveniles.168 The Beijing Rules acted as standard, minimum guidelines, which did not bind States.169 However, the United Nations invited all Member States to comply with the rules and submit data in compliance with the Beijing Rules.170
The Beijing Rules outlined the protection of children by detailing basic principles surrounding the fundamental rights of adolescents.171 The Rules offered a thoughtful consideration of the best practices within a juvenile justice system while also leaving broad discretion to States to develop their systems and procedures.172 The Rules placed incredible importance on the welfare of the child.173 Notably, the Beijing Rules state that a juvenile must have full access to well-funded programs that allow them to receive positive affirmations, ultimately leading to a meaningful life within their community.174 The Rules recommend that States,
[D]evelop conditions that will ensure for the juvenile a meaningful life in the community, which, during that period in life when she or he is most susceptible to deviant behavior, will foster a process of personal development and education that is as free from crime and delinquency as possible.175
The Rules dictate that States should implement proportionality, where the juvenile justice system ensures any criminal punishment is proportional to the circumstances of the offender’s crime.176 Proportionality dictates that a court must not punish a youth offender solely for punitive purposes; the court must consider the gravity of the offense related to the offender’s circumstances.177 A child’s social status, family situation, and the harm caused by the alleged offense are all factors the Beijing Rules outlined for a court to consider.178 These suggested factors require juvenile courts to respond individually, encouraging new and innovative court reactions based on every child’s individualized needs. The Beijing Rules encourage States to provide juveniles the same procedural safeguards within criminal proceedings as adults—including the right to remain silent, the right to counsel, the right to appeal, the right to a presumption of innocence, and the right to the presence of a parent or guardian.179
B. The United Nations Convention on the Right of a Child
In 1979, the International Year of the Child, the Government of Poland submitted the first draft of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child (“UNCRC”) to the U.N.180 While children received some protections within international treaties, such as the Beijing Rules, countries lobbied for a binding statement on children’s rights.181 The UNCRC is a legally binding international agreement that outlines children’s civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights regardless of race, religion, or abilities.182 The UNCRC is the core human rights treaty setting out the rights of a child.183
On November 20, 1989, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted the UNCRC.184 Although unanimously adopted by the Assembly, the Convention still had to be ratified within each State’s respective governmental body to be legally bound by its provisions.185 By 1990, less than a year after the adoption of the UNCRC, twenty States ratified the Convention, legally entering it into force.186 The States pledged to protect children from socioeconomic and sexual exploitation, violence, and abuse by advancing a child’s right to education, healthcare, and a decent standard of living.187
Only a month after the first twenty States ratified the UNCRC, the U.N. Headquarters in New York City hosted the World Summit for Children with the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (“UNICEF”).188 As the largest gathering of world leaders to that date, the World Summit adopted a Declaration on the Survival, Protection, and Development of Children and a Plan of Action for implementing the UNCRC.189 By the end of 1990, fifty-seven States ratified the UNCRC.190 The UNCRC is the fastest and most widely ratified human rights treaty in history.191 As of 2023, over one hundred ninety-six countries have ratified the UNCRC; the U.S. was the only country electing not to ratify the Convention.192
The UNCRC defines a child as anyone under the age of eighteen.193 The UNCRC contains four general principles:194 (1) nondiscrimination;195 (2) the best interests of the child;196 (3) a child’s right to life, survival, and development;197 and (4) the views of a child.198 These principles make it clear that a child’s best interest must be the State’s primary consideration for decisions regarding children, irrespective of immutable characteristics and political affiliation.199 These principles apply to decisions in a court of law, administrative authority, legislative bodies, and social welfare institutions.200 The State must ensure “to the maximum extent possible” that the child has a right to life, survival, and development that includes physical health, mental health, emotional health, cognitive dissonance, and social and cultural development.201
Notably, the UNCRC outlines rules for children in detention and those who break the law.202 Article 37 articulates that States shall ensure that they subject no child to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.203 This includes, but is not limited to, capital punishment and life imprisonment without the possibility of release.204 Article 37 explicitly states that detention and imprisonment should only be used as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period.205 Any child subjected to imprisonment must be met with humanity and inherent dignity while accounting for the child’s individualized needs and age.206
The U.S. has not ratified the UNCRC.207 Some politicians argue that existing U.S. Laws comply with the Convention, so there is no need to ratify it.208 However, the U.S. violates the UNCRC in instrumental ways. For example, many U.S. States still allow convicted juveniles, when tried as adults, to be sentenced to JLWOP, which directly violates the UNCRC.209
The UNCRC is unparalleled in its subject matter and acceptance. Indeed, there is only one country which has not ratified it. The failure to ratify the UNCRC calls into question this country’s values—values claiming to elevate liberty and justice for all.
C. The United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency and the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of Their Liberty
The United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency, known as the Riyadh Guidelines, were authored and implemented in the 1990 U.N. Plenary Meeting.210 The United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, commonly known as the Havana Rules, were drafted simultaneously in the 1990 United Nations General Assembly.211 The Havana Rules and Riyadh Guidelines came to light only a year after the implementation of UNCRC and acted as further standards for States to follow regarding juvenile detention.212
The Riyadh Guidelines (“Guidelines”) offer States guidance on how to avoid the incarceration of juveniles altogether through a community-based approach.213 Although the Guidelines are not legally binding on States, they emphasize the core elements of prevention programs that need addressing and the need for a holistic approach to juvenile justice.214 However, applying the Guidelines depends on each country’s specific laws. The Guidelines recognize that society benefits from investing in its youth through community-based programs related to crime prevention, which focus on the juvenile before they commit any crime.215 The Riyadh Guidelines emphasize the need to avoid penalization or criminalization.216 Positive socialization through community-based services instead of formal institutionalization is encouraged.217 Most notably, the Guidelines state that labeling a child as “deviant, delinquent, or pre-delinquent” contributes to a child’s undesirable mental health.218
The Riyadh Guidelines implore governments to place the prevention of juvenile delinquency at “high priority.”219 Mirroring the UNCRC, the Guidelines state that a State’s social policy must make institutionalization of a juvenile a “measure of last resort and for the minimum necessary period, and the best interest of the young person should be of paramount importance.”220 An instance where a child should be institutionalized is “when a serious physical or psychological danger to the child or young person has manifested itself in his or her own behavior” and cannot rectify their behavior through community services.221 The institutionalization program should be based on reliable scientific research findings and provide full-time education. 222
A State can achieve the goals of the Guidelines through specific laws and procedures that prevent victimization, abuse, exploitation, and use of criminal methods—instead promoting the rights and well-being of juveniles.223 In conjunction, States must train law enforcement to adequately respond to children in a manner which respects their development and rights.224
The Riyadh Guidelines suggest an ombudsperson should oversee the implementation of the Havana Rules should a child be formally incarcerated.225 The Havana Rules articulate the steps a State should take regarding already incarcerated juveniles.226 If incarceration is necessary, the detention center’s main goal should be to provide treatment designed to assist the juvenile’s return to society, family life, education, or employment after release.227 The Havana Rules understand that a child is a highly vulnerable individual; thus, they need special attention and protection.228
The Havana Rules begin by noting that if a State incarcerates a child, the detention facility should perform an intake interview to outline the psychological and social factors relevant to the specific level of care the child needs.229 This information then gets relayed to a trained faculty member with an individualized treatment objective and time frame.230 If incarceration is absolutely necessary, the State should place a child in a facility that guarantees meaningful activities and programs that prepare youths for reintroduction into society and promote the youth’s health, self-respect, and a sense of responsibility.231 While incarcerated, the Havana Rules note that facilities should provide juveniles with privacy, sensory stimuli, opportunities for association with peers and participation in sports, physical activity, and leisure time activities.232 Furthermore, juveniles should be allowed to keep personal effects and wear their own clothing.233
The Rules suggest open detention facilities—meaning places with little to no security—should be allowed for juveniles.234 Furthermore, detention facilities should hold the smallest capacity of juveniles possible to facilitate easy access to resources.235 While under arrest or awaiting trial, the child should be allowed to work or continue education while incarcerated.236 Additionally, facilities should give juveniles materials for leisure and recreation.237
The Havana Rules stress that using restraint or force should be strictly prohibited 238 unless done to prevent the individual from inflicting self-injury, injury to others, or serious destruction of property.239 The staff of juvenile incarceration facilities should never carry weapons.240 Moreover, all treatment and disciplinary measures should not be cruel, inhuman, or degrading.241 These measures include corporal punishment, placement in a dark cell, closed or solitary confinement, or any other punishment that jeopardizes the child’s physical or mental health.242
The International Standards provide an exhaustive and comprehensive analysis for addressing youth in the justice system, especially when considering juvenile incarceration policies. These principles aim to co-exist with each other and the Member States’ juvenile laws, ensuring each country’s youth get treated with the utmost dignity and respect. The States within the U.N. have taken great strides to implement the guidelines and improve the treatment of their children. However, the U.S. is a different story; often preaching a rehabilitative system, the U.S. resorts to a punitive approach.
III. CHANGE IS NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF JUVENILE RIGHTS
The American criminal justice system is still “at its most punishing point in history” despite “a small decline in incarceration rates over the last decade.”243 By allowing a child’s dignity and human rights to become reliant on political argument, funding, and systematic failure, it is clear the U.S. is failing its children, and failing to implement the minimum international standards. While a systematic overhaul of the juvenile justice system and criminal justice reform would take years to implement, there are immediate steps the U.S. can take to ensure a juvenile’s essential rights. While this article’s suggestions for a robust, comprehensive federal juvenile justice code is non-exhaustive, it serves as a stepping-stone for codification. The suggestions provide broad outlines that require direct, express language within a code.
The Beijing Rules, UNCRC, Havana Rules, and Riyadh Guidelines (together referred to as the “International Standards”) offer an exhaustive list of what the minimum standards for incarcerated juveniles should be. The International Standards must be looked to as the minimum inspirations to excel past when the U.S. adopts a federal juvenile justice code. For example, the proposed code must exceed the standards in establishing juvenile court jurisdiction beyond the International Standards’ eighteen years of age. While the U.S. contributed significantly to the UNCRC drafting,244 the U.S. has not yet ratified it.245
Like the International Standards, the UNCRC acts as a minimum guideline for juvenile justice, with the notion that ratifying countries would exceed the guidelines. In a study of U.S. compliance conducted by the Human Rights Watch, New Jersey adheres the closest to the UNCRC, having incorporated approximately seventy-four percent of the Convention.246 Compare that to the worst complying state, Mississippi, following only approximately twenty percent of the UNCRC.247
Less than five percent of the world’s population is in the U.S., but twenty percent of the world’s incarcerated people are in the United States.248 To be clear, the U.S. not only has the highest incarceration rate in the world, but every U.S. state incarcerates more people per capita than almost any independent democracy in the world.249 It is imperative that the U.S. not only meet the standards outlined in the UNCRC and the International Standards but it should exceed the minimum provisions they set forth. Here, even the best U.S. state fails to do this. The U.S. must not only consider these guidelines as its baseline when drafting a national code but exceed these guidelines.
A. The United States Must Implement National Code Instead of Relying on Insufficient Localized Legislation
The U.S. should not allow its children’s future to rest on whichever immutable location they are domiciled. Children in states that have made efforts to establish a basic legal framework protecting juvenile rights have the opportunity for rehabilitation—states give them tools to live a life free from the system solely because they had the pleasure of being born in a state whose leaders implemented progressive legislation.250 However, the overwhelming majority of the U.S—forty two states, including traditionally “blue” or “liberal states”—lead children down a path of constant punitive punishment simply because of the state’s ever-daunting “tough-on-crime” approach.251 States have proven that being left to their own legislation leads to gross disrespect for a child’s dignity.
The federal government must immediately draft a robust juvenile justice code requiring a rehabilitative focus. However, to do so, Congress must have the power to enact the legislation, either expressly or impliedly, within the limits of the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.252 The anti-commandeering doctrine, located within the Tenth Amendment, notes that the federal government cannot command the States to administer federal laws if they are within the scope of the Tenth Amendment.253
As of publication, this anti-commandeering doctrine was argued most recently in Haaland v. Brackeen. 254 In Brackeen, petitioners argued the Indian Child Welfare Act 255 violated the anti-commandeering doctrine because the Act commanded states and private parties to implement federal law.256 The Supreme Court of the United States disagreed, holding the Act was within Congress’s power and did not violate the anti-commandeering doctrine.257 Cities that do not want to enforce federal immigration law and those that see to shield a state's legalization of marijuana in light of the federal Controlled Substances Act are further examples some argue should invoke the Tenth Amendment.258 However, broad legislation that applies evenhandedly does not implicate the Tenth Amendment.259 A statute that applies to both public and private parties and not exclusively to the states does not implicate the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering doctrine.260
Therefore, Congress possesses the power to enact this code under the U.S. Constitution.261 As one of the enumerated powers, the Necessary and Proper Clause allows federal legislative authority to enact laws that are convenient, useful, or conducive to the authority’s exercise.262 The Supreme Court expanded the federal government’s power to enact legislation relating to criminal law in McCulloch v. Maryland and United States v. Comstock. 263
In addition to the 10th Amendment hurdle, another argument against enacting a federal juvenile justice code is the funding. However, funding is not truly a hurdle in enforcing a federal juvenile justice code. The U.S. government spends billions annually to fund state and local criminal justice agencies.264 The Justice Department alone distributes more than five billion dollars annually in federal grants to State and local governments.265 States receive millions more from the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense.266 Therefore, funding a new code is not a hurdle.
A federal Juvenile Justice Reform Act can be likened to the Violence Against Women Act and the Indian Child Welfare Act.267 Even if a national juvenile justice code fails to pass the legislature, the U.S. must publish the standards to guide states. This approach is similar to the Uniform Commercial Code, from which many states have adopted almost identical variations.268
Most importantly, the new federal code must emphasize the shift from a punitive justice system to a truly rehabilitative system. Not only will this shift reduce juvenile prison incarceration rates, but it will also form a better society.269 A rehabilitative system will decrease re-incarceration rates and encourage successful reintegration into society, ultimately benefiting the criminal justice system.270 Additionally, the federal code must include unambiguous definitions to avoid differences in interpretation and implementation across jurisdictions.271
Eliminating the ambiguity around the juvenile system would also rectify the loopholes created by the jurisprudence of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court did not outlaw the death penalty for juveniles until 2005 in Roper v. Simmons.272 In contrast, the International Standards expressly outlawed the death penalty via the Beijing Rules in 1985. 273 It took the U.S. twenty years to adhere to the International Standards. Notably, legislation did not change this; Supreme Court precedent did. That precedent can be easily overturned by filing a new lawsuit or enacting contradicting legislation.
There are over 48,000 children incarcerated across the U.S., with one in ten held in an adult facility.274 While the number of children in the juvenile justice system is down by almost fifty percent since 2004, 43,580 children remained in an incarceration facility on any night in 2017, 275 and 633 children resided in adult prisons on any given night in 2019. 276
The federal juvenile justice code must accompany the ratification of the UNCRC. Despite contrary arguments surrounding UNCRC ratification, the U.S. is not close to meeting the minimum standards set forth in any of the International Standards.277 The U.S. needs clarity to expel all ambiguity whether their argument that the U.S. does not need to ratify the Convention because it already adheres to the UNCRC standards holds weight.278 The ratification of the UNCRC would simply provide a baseline for the U.S. states by showing its dedication to upholding minor’s rights. The federal code, however, should exceed the UNCRC’s standards. The fact that so many countries have ratified and implemented the UNCRC ideals into practice shows that the U.S. not only has the capacity for change but should be able to excel past the bounds of the International Standards. Furthermore, accepting the UNCRC would give credibility to the U.S. in the international arena.279
A new juvenile justice code must include a uniform minimum and maximum age for criminal responsibility and emphasize imprisonment as a last resort through the use of individualism and proportionality requirements. It should also set standards for the staff employed by juvenile justice detention centers, and criminalize a facility’s use of solitary confinement.280
B. Minimum and Maximum Age of Criminal Responsibility
Federal code must address a minimum and maximum age of responsibility for juveniles. The law must recognize that children below the age of fifteen are incapable of forming mens rea. Stories in the news continue to depict children younger than fifteen as monsters, completely ignoring the child’s dignity.281 American children as young as twelve appear on front page news—pictured in handcuffs, completely shirtless, flanked by police officers boasting that the child may be tried as an adult.282 This treatment of our youth is unacceptable; firm age guidelines can help rectify it.283
In the U.S., more than 30,000 children under the age of twelve are referred to juvenile court each year.284 No state meets the minimum age of juvenile jurisdiction set forth by International Standards, with only five States setting the minimum age higher than ten years old.285 Appellate courts agree that federal legislation does not clearly articulate what should happen to a juvenile whose alleged crime spans past their eighteenth birthday.286 With an evident lack of uniformity and standards, the U.S. is violating International Standards for the minimum age of juvenile jurisdiction.
The International Standards recognize that children below the age of fourteen should not be held responsible for a crime within the juvenile or criminal justice systems.287 The new U.S. Code must follow suit, raising the minimum age to fifteen years old. Studies have shown that children are most vulnerable and crime-prone between the ages of fifteen and twenty-five.288 The Governor of Connecticut visited a foreign juvenile prison that exceeded the International Standards, which influenced him to introduce legislation to treat youth between the ages of eighteen and twenty as juveniles.289
In addition to the minimum age, the U.S. must exceed the International Standards and allow people up to the age of twenty-five to remain in juvenile court jurisdiction and incarceration centers. This means the juvenile cannot be transferred to adult court, no matter the severity of the crime, if the individual’s age lies between fifteen and twenty-five years of age. All fifty States and the District of Columbia have laws that allow the transfer or waiver of juveniles to adult court for one reason or another.290 While initially implemented as a deterrent to juveniles, the deterrence has failed—the U.S. is now harming its children. In a study of fifteen states, juveniles prosecuted in adult criminal court had a rearrest rate of eighty-two percent.291 The U.S. must immediately make this switch, solidifying the juvenile court’s jurisdiction. This solidification would eliminate the transfer of juveniles to adult criminal court.
Juveniles need access to the resources available in juvenile incarceration centers that are not available to them within adult centers. Most importantly, the government must mandate that juvenile prisons give juveniles access to these resources, including treatment, primary education, and counseling aimed at rehabilitation. The International Standards note that no child should ever be tried as an adult.292 However, the U.S. tries over 50,000 children in adult court per year.293 Children in U.S. adult institutions are 500 percent more likely to be sexually assaulted, 200 percent more likely to be beaten by staff, and fifty percent more likely to be attacked with a weapon.294 The recidivism rate for juveniles transferred to adult court is significantly higher than those in juvenile court.295
Solidifying the age jurisdiction with no exceptions will significantly reduce the systemic racism that plagues the juvenile court.296 In California, eighty-six percent of juveniles tried as adults over the past decade are Black and Latinx—eighty-six percent. 297 Only nine percent of white children are tried as adults.298 In Los Angeles County, California, ninety-six percent of juveniles prosecuted as adults from 2007 to 2016 were Black or Latinx.299 In Oakland, California, a Black juvenile is eleven times more likely than a white juvenile to have their case prosecuted within adult court.300 Systemic racism towards children who are not white plagues the entire country.301 California, for example, is significant because of its relative size and diverse population compared to other states.302
Setting the juvenile jurisdictional age between fifteen and twenty five across the country will yield less systemic racism, a higher possibility for rehabilitation, and ultimately, a better society. The minimum age of fifteen would adhere to the International Standards, and the maximum age would allow the most time for rehabilitation. However, creating a uniform age jurisdiction must be coupled with juvenile imprisonment reform. Three immediate steps are using imprisonment as a last resort, staffing juvenile incarceration centers with exemplary training, and eradicating solitary confinement.
C. Imprisonment Must be a Last Resort
The government should only deny a juvenile’s right to liberty if it took all possible steps to rehabilitate the juvenile before incarceration— it should be a last resort. One way to ensure implementation within the U.S. is to codify proportionality and individualism requirements. Graham v. Florida addressed proportionality by noting that “[t]he concept of proportionality is central to the Eight Amendment.”303 Here, the Court held that imposing JLWOP on a juvenile in a non-homicide-related case directly violates the Eighth Amendment.304 The Court discussed proportionality in two different contexts: (1) by challenging the relation between disproportionate sentencing and the crime itself 305 and (2) by categorizing particular sentencing practices as impermissible.306 Recognizing that JLWOP violated International Standards, the Court held that, in addition to sentencing juveniles to death, JLWOP for non-homicidal crimes is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment.307
In Miller v. Alabama, the Court recognized that children have diminished capacities, providing a greater chance for reform.308 Still, the door is left open for children “whose crimes reflect permanent incorrigibility” to receive a JLWOP sentence.309 The sentencer has the discretion to determine what permanent incorrigibility means. The Court decided Miller in 2016; that is far too current to debate whether the U.S. should adhere to International Standards.
These decisions and justifications fail U.S. juveniles. Codification must recognize that imprisonment is to be used in rare cases where all other rehabilitative measures have failed. There is no debate that a juvenile has a different cognitive profile than an adult. A U.S. juvenile justice code must recognize this difference.
The International Standards note that JLWOP should be prohibited.310 At the beginning of 2020, 1,465 incarcerated individuals were serving JLWOP sentences.311 While incarceration rates have dropped, the perverse, extreme racial disparities persist.312 Although sixty-three percent of children arrested in the U.S. are white, Indigenous children are 1.5 times more likely to be arrested and detained, and Black children are 2.4 times more likely.313 The juvenile justice system consists of sixty-seven percent children of color—forty-one percent Black and twenty-one percent Hispanic.314 In 2018, Black children only represented fifteen percent of the delinquent youth population but accounted for fifty-two percent of the youth prosecuted in adult criminal court.315 Black children are nine times more likely than white children to receive an adult criminal sentence, Hispanic children are four times more likely, and Indigenous children are two times more likely.316 The International Standards expressly state that children should be treated without discrimination, irrespective of race, color, sex, language, religion, political, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.317 The racial discrimination within the U.S.’s juvenile justice system indicates a much larger systemic issue and further violates the International Standards sense of justice, a child’s dignity, and a child’s human rights.
The Court must use a holistic, individualized approach to determine if a point of “last resort” has been reached.318 Factors concerning the individual may include, but are certainly not limited to, the child’s socioeconomic status, family life, educational records, personality, disabilities, and the crime itself. A juvenile must complete a community-based program designed to meet their needs before imprisonment.319 States fail to educate the incarcerated children to a standard they would have received in regular public schools. California and Florida spend more on corrections than higher education, with most other States not far behind.320 Within the juvenile justice system, at least one in three youths has a disability that qualifies for special education under the Individuals with Disabilities Act.321 However, less than half receive special education services during custody.322 Using imprisonment as a last resort would ensure children receive an individualized approach to rehabilitation and provide them with their rightful education.
The new code must also include standards for prison center staffing and training. There is conclusive evidence of systemic maltreatment of children in fourteen states since 2011. 323 Children have been beaten, pepper sprayed, screamed at, raped, and left alone in cells for twenty four hours a day.324 Youth reported that forty-five percent of correctional facility staff “use force when they don’t really need to.”325 Corporal punishment in correctional facilities is legal in twenty states.326 Each prison must employ multiple caseworkers, psychiatrists, therapists, doctors, educators, and counselors–trained employees who can address the factors that put the child in prison, not just correctional officers. Correctional officers are no doubt needed but should have two years minimum training in working with children. Under no circumstances should the juvenile detention center staff be armed with any weapon or chemical that can harm a child.
While this approach inevitability takes longer, no child should feel like just another number in the system. Codifying the definition of last resort, its factors, and the minimum requirements must be implemented to ensure all juveniles receive the same resources for rehabilitation. In making imprisonment a last resort, the focus needs to be on community programs that aid in rehabilitation. Ideally, with juvenile prison populations falling, the monetary incentives incarceration systems receive can be reallocated to programs that educate, rehabilitate, and help the child.
D. No Solitary Confinement
The American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the U.N. have expressly condemned using solitary confinement for juveniles as it leads to depression, anxiety, and psychosis.327 The majority of children who die by suicide while incarcerated are, or recently were, in solitary confinement.328 However, only twenty-four states have placed limits on juvenile solitary confinement.329
If a child is incarcerated as a last resort, that child should not be subject to solitary confinement under any circumstances because solitary confinement has devastating effects on children. Incarceration centers with appropriate and well-trained staff must use alternative methods to deal with behavioral or aggressive outbursts.
Juvenile prisons must mirror the outside world in every way they can. If a parent locked their child in a closet as a punishment, they may be subject to child abuse charges.330 Prisons must adhere to the same standards. International Standards condemn solitary confinement but leave the door open for children at risk of harming themselves, others, or property. The U.S. must exceed this standard and outlaw the practice.
The psychological stress caused by solitary confinement inhibits the development of the brain’s prefrontal cortex, which governs impulse control.331 Children may never recover from a stint in solitary confinement. The U.S. must outlaw solitary confinement and corporal punishment in juvenile detention centers.
IV. CONCLUSION
The U.S. juvenile justice system currently acts as a response to crime—and needs to shift to preventing crime. The United States needs to invest in its people and stop investing in crime. The current generation facing the juvenile justice system are the future’s leaders. While a complete overhaul of the criminal justice system is needed, we can start with the shift from crime response to crime prevention, beginning with a more comprehensive federal juvenile code.
In Europe and Central Asia, the number of children in detention fell almost sixty percent between 2006 and 2012 due to countries exceeding the International Standards.332 However, UNICEF has estimated that more than one million children are behind bars worldwide,333 with approximately 60,000 in the U.S.334 More than ninety percent of the practitioners surveyed attributed the success of the drop in juvenile incarceration to both legislative and regulatory frameworks, as well as practices that adhered to and exceeded the International Standards.335 The U.S. is not one of the countries praised, but that can change with strong federal legislation.
The U.S. needs a major overhaul of its juvenile justice system to treat its children with the upmost care and human dignity they are entitled. The U.S. must invest in children, not punish them for crimes committed at an age where they are still developing. The U.S. should practice the standards they helped draft in the UNCRC and other U.N. justice standards. Leaving the states to their own devices has led to incredible human rights violations. A stronger, more rehabilitative federal juvenile justice system is imperative and of the utmost importance. A focus on children is a focus on the future.