A teenager grieving his parents’ death gets drunk and goes on a vandalism spree. His probation officer suggests that instead of going to jail, the teen and his accomplice could meet their victims and face the impact of their actions. The teens do so; they then pay restitution to help repair the harm. Born out of the restorative justice movement, this type of restitution—marked by careful tailoring— reduces recidivism and rehabilitates young offenders. The juvenile thus moves away from the criminal justice system while victims receive their rightful compensation. This was restitution’s early promise.

But another strand of juvenile restitution, rooted in the tough-on-crime policies of the 1980s, grew up alongside the restorative justice movement. This strand tends to have the opposite effect. State juvenile restitution laws vary widely, but many impose juvenile restitution that is broad, mandatory, and permanent. The resulting levels of debt can be unrealistically high, following young offenders into adulthood and leaving the victim uncompensated. This kind of untailored restitution pulls juveniles deeper into the system, as it can prompt probation revocation, continued court supervision, reduced educational and employment opportunities, and hopeless debt.

This harsh genre of restitution debuted in expansive federal restitution statutes in the 1980s and then moved into state victims’ rights statutes. Juvenile law soon followed.
Juvenile criminal justice has moved in recent decades toward a rehabilitative model, due in part to new information. The young mind, research has shown, is different from that of adults—more impulsive, struggling to foresee the consequences of certain actions. Less blameworthy. Accordingly, the Supreme Court eliminated the death penalty for crimes committed by minors and limited juvenile life without parole. Arrest and incarceration rates for juveniles have been halved since the 1980s. Yet restitution laws, for the most part, have barely changed since their tough- on-crime inception; juveniles therefore remain subject to lasting involvement in the criminal justice system—a burden that amounts to a financial death penalty.

This article explains why juvenile restitution should now change too. The time has come for restitution that achieves its rehabilitative goals for juveniles while also compensating victims.

Continue reading Reforming Juvenile Restitution