Adolescent Brain Development

Section 1.2

Judicial, Legal, Law Enforcement, Justice, Social Service and School Professionals Should Understand and Apply Current and Emerging Scientific Knowledge About Adolescent Development, Particularly as it Relates to Court-involved Youth

The U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged the differences in youth brain development and culpability in several recent decisions that strike down extreme sentencing for court-involved youth.3

Advances in brain science and technology are helping us better understand how the adolescent brain functions. We now know that young people’s brains continue to mature until their early- to mid-20s, and adolescents’ brains are different from adults’ both structurally and in how they are influenced by chemicals produced by the body, such as dopamine.1  Adolescents are more likely to be influenced by peers, engage in risky and impulsive behaviors, experience mood swings, or have reactions that are stronger or weaker than a situation warrants.2  These differences do not mean that youth behavior that is harmful to themselves or others should be ignored.  Rather, it means that courts, agencies and practitioners should use this knowledge to inform and perhaps modify their practices and policies.

The U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged the differences in youth brain development and culpability in several recent decisions that strike down extreme sentencing for court-involved youth.3  Still, many juvenile and family courts are not entirely familiar with the relevant science and research that underlie the Court's conclusions.  Consequently, these juvenile and family courts are not yet fully using available research to guide decision-making.  Professionals and systems need to educate themselves about the inherently different ways youth understand and react to the world around them, and use such knowledge to inform system responses to youth in need and youth alleged to have committed status offenses.  Potential changes include providing guidance and structure to youth and their families, and recognizing that adolescents will still sometimes make poor decisions and it is the adult caregiver’s and system’s role to help them recover from mistakes and make better decisions. Some ways that stakeholders can achieve these goals include:4

  1. Support and participate in education and awareness raising activities.  Numerous publications and resources provide more detail on adolescent development, developmental needs and differences, and connect these understandings with youth misconduct and court involvement.5  Professionals should work to educate themselves and their colleagues about these issues, as well as help adolescents understand how their own brain functions and how it impacts their behavior and reactions.
  1. Ensure that courts and other decision makers who impact the lives of adolescents take into account general information about youth development and maturity, but also look at the specific circumstances of each young person’s past and present life circumstances (e.g., prior offenses, past and current trauma, family relationships). 
  1. Use available scientific knowledge to evaluate and inform decisions about competence, culpability, disposition and defenses.
  1. Focus on adolescents’ ability to contribute to their families and society, and work to build on their existing interests and strengths.  This includes supporting healthy bonds between adults and young people, and allowing adolescents to make their own decisions and develop their own judgment in safe environments.
  1. Encourage and work with government and philanthropic organizations to fund promising or proven approaches that use scientific knowledge to craft and implement responses to youth alleged to have committed status offenses, as well as support the evaluation and reform of state laws on these issues.

1 These recommendations are adapted from Coalition for Juvenile Justice. (2006) “Applying Research to Practice Brief: What Are the Implications of Adolescent Brain Development for Juvenile Justice?" Available at http://www.juvjustice.org/sites/default/files/resource-files/resource_138_0.pdf.

2 Id.

3 See Roper v. Simmons, 542 U.S. 551 (2005) (regarding the juvenile death penalty) and Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (regarding life without parole for juveniles). 

4 See Coalition for Juvenile Justice (2006) "Emerging Concepts Brief: What Are the Implications of Adolescent Brain Development for Juvenile Justice?" (pgs. 4-8). Available at: http://www.juvjustice.org/sites/default/files/resource-files/resource_134.pdf

5 Id. (Includes a list of additional resources.)