The Juvenile Justice System: Rehabilitation at Its Core
A Series on Examining Youth on Registries
This Spring, we are launching a six-part series examining the complex and often misunderstood issue of placing youth on adult sex offender registries. The series explores how adolescents became subject to these policies, what the research shows about their effectiveness, and what more developmentally appropriate, evidence-based responses look like.
To guide this discussion, we are interviewing Dr. Janet Rosenzweig— a senior policy analyst, researcher, professor, and author. You can check out her full bio here.
---
The juvenile justice system was originally designed around rehabilitation rather than punishment. Can you explain the foundational goals of the system and why those goals are particularly important when working with adolescents?
The U.S. juvenile justice system emerged in the late 19th century from a reform movement grounded in the belief that children are fundamentally different from adults—and more capable of change. Prior to this shift, youth were processed in adult courts and often confined in adult jails. The first juvenile court, established in Cook County, Illinois, in 1899, was based on the doctrine of parens patriae—the idea that the state has a responsibility to act in the best interests of the child. Early juvenile courts emphasized informality, individualized treatment, and rehabilitation over punishment. In the 1960s, additional protections were added, including rights to due process and legal counsel.
This rehabilitative focus is especially important for adolescents. Young people are still developing cognitively, emotionally, and socially; they are more impulsive, more susceptible to peer influence, and less able to fully anticipate consequences—but they are also highly responsive to intervention. With the right supports, most youth can redirect their behavior and go on to lead healthy, productive lives. A system built around rehabilitation recognizes this developmental reality and aims to guide, not simply punish.
Many people are surprised to learn that youth can be placed on sex offender registries. From your perspective, how did policies originally designed for adults begin to apply to youth in the juvenile system?
In the 1980s and 1990s, rising fears about youth crime—fueled in part by the now-discredited “superpredator” narrative—led to a more punitive approach. States made it easier to transfer juveniles to adult courts, expanded detention, and increased reliance on incarceration. During this period, policies often prioritized public safety and accountability over rehabilitation. The use of sex offender registries also expanded, and by 2006, federal law required states to include certain juveniles.
At the same time, a series of highly publicized crimes against children intensified public demand for transparency and community notification. In one widely known case, seven-year-old Megan Kanka was murdered by a sex offender living in her neighborhood. Her mother, Maureen Kanka, was devastated to learn that law enforcement had information about the offender’s presence that had not been shared with the community. Her advocacy led to “Megan’s Law,” which opened registries to the public.
These two forces—heightened fear of youth crime and increased public access to registry information—converged during the 1990s. As a result, policies originally designed to monitor adult offenders were extended to youth, often without sufficient consideration of developmental differences or the rehabilitative goals of the juvenile justice system.
The Institute for Human Services has conducted significant research on youth with problematic sexual behaviors. What motivated you and your team to begin studying this issue, and what questions were you hoping to answer?
Our motivation grew out of more than two decades of research showing that registration and community notification have little to no impact on preventing either first-time or repeat sexual offenses, while causing significant harm to youth and their families. We summarized this body of evidence in our Issues in Brief, which can be downloaded from: https://cmprc.org/youth-on-sex-offender-registries.
From there, we asked what we could add to the field. We saw a gap: while the harms of registration were well documented, there was less empirical evidence examining what happens when states scale back or eliminate these policies for youth. We set out to study those “natural experiments” to determine whether public safety outcomes changed—and to provide advocates and policymakers with stronger, data-driven evidence to inform reform.
When conversations about registries come up, emotions can understandably run high because the goal is protecting children. How do you help communities hold space for both survivor protection and evidence-based responses for youth who have caused harm?
Communities absolutely need to hold space for both the person who was harmed—and often their family—and for effective, evidence-based responses to youth who have caused harm. That balance is essential in any case involving victimization. Many communities already have strong victim services in place, often funded through the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA, 1984), including specialized support for survivors of sexual assault.
At the same time, research supports responses that go beyond punishment. Communities are increasingly using a combination of evidence-based treatment and restorative justice approaches. Restorative justice focuses on repairing harm rather than simply assigning punishment. It asks three key questions: who was harmed, what do they need, and who is responsible for making things right. It gives victims a voice to describe the impact of the harm, while requiring those responsible to take accountability and actively participate in repair.
Widely used in juvenile justice, schools, and community settings, restorative justice aligns with what we know about adolescent development and behavior change. It has been associated with higher victim satisfaction and lower rates of reoffending. In this framework, accountability is not minimized—it is redefined as taking responsibility and working to repair harm in ways that reduce the likelihood of future incidents.
Evidence-based treatment models for youth with problematic sexual behaviors are well established and are discussed in more detail in our Issues in Brief and related resources. For communities that lack these services, coordinating with a local Child Advocacy Center can be an important first step, and telehealth is expanding access in promising ways.
Ultimately, the significant resources currently devoted to registration would have a far greater impact if invested in a continuum of services—support for victims, evidence-based treatment for youth, and restorative justice programming that strengthens both accountability and prevention.
For practitioners working with youth and families, what is the most important thing to understand about adolescent development when discussing accountability and rehabilitation?
Arguably, the most important thing for practitioners to understand is that while adolescents may look like they are grown, they are not. The part of the brain responsible for higher-order decision-making—the prefrontal cortex—is not fully developed until the early twenties. As a result, impulsivity, risk-taking, and sensitivity to peer influence are not just common in
adolescence—they are developmentally normal. That means accountability must be paired with guidance. Ongoing input from parents, educators, and other trusted adults is critical to help youth slow down, think ahead, and consider the impact of their behavior on others.
At the same time, there is a developmental mismatch: while judgment is still maturing, the body is rapidly approaching adult sexual capacity. Hormonal changes bring new and often intense physical sensations—desire and arousal—that adolescents may not fully understand. Without accurate information, young people can misinterpret these feelings as emotional connection or as a signal to act. They need clear, explicit guidance that arousal is a physiological response, not a marker of love or consent, and that another person’s arousal never implies agreement.
When adolescents act on these misunderstood or unmanaged impulses in harmful ways, the response should reflect both accountability and opportunity for growth. With developmentally informed intervention—accurate sexuality education, skill-building, and appropriate supervision—most youth can learn, recalibrate, and move forward safely.
----
As the series continues, we look forward to further conversation with Dr. Janet Rosenzweig.
Next, we will focus the discussion on the impact on youth and public safety when youth with problematic sexual behaviors are placed on registries.