Ethan Couch famously claimed in 2013 that his affluent upbringing was to blame for his deadly drunk driving accident.
In most states, there’s no minimum age for juvenile detention.
Child advocates say it's an important victory given the Trump administration's tough-on-crime rhetoric.
Cesar Gaspar faced five years in juvenile detention for bringing a pocketknife to school. Many other kids exposed to lead face similar fates.
The disturbing practice of separating children from their families isn't limited to migrants.
In 2014, two 12-year-old girls were alleged to have stabbed a classmate to please an Internet based fictional villain called Slenderman. This week, a Wisconsin state appeals court ruled that these young girls will be tried as adults. Yes, you read that right. Tried as adults.
In a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision is a deceptively simple line that should affect, and in many cases, transform the way Americans think about juveniles who kill. At the heart of the 2012 groundbreaking case, Miller v. Alabama, said the Court, is the idea, proven by neuroscience and behavioral research, that "children who commit even heinous crimes are capable of change."
This week's developments are just part of a larger wave of reform in how communities and the justice system view and treat young people, and a growing recognition that some of our past practices and policies were ineffective.
Every day, it seems, criminal justice reform is in the news, and America finally seems to be taking the mass incarceration crisis seriously. Yet this focus has not extended to the progress made and the problems still faced by young people caught up in the justice system.
But when a 17-year-old commits a crime, is he or she considered a juvenile or an adult? The answer to that depends on the state in which the crime was committed. Increasingly, individual states are enacting laws that recognize 17-year-olds as juveniles, reversing laws that suggested they are adults.