# data[].attributes.body
New research shows that juvenile brains are still underdeveloped and shouldn't be treated as adults. They are going through changes with their emotions and would want to seek thrills or gain new experiences. Some cases show that it's not always their fault and are falsely trialed for a crime they didn't commit. One reason being that it could be due to their background. Also being part of groups who aren't great influences. Most of the children who are sentenced become repeat offenders and would only cause them to make worse decisions and commit more crimes. There are options to help with this which includes counseling them or their parents on parenting and childcare. After all it's not their fault for living through a not so good environment and they shouldn't be dealt with the same as an adult with their brains still developing.

# data[].attributes.body
Should adolescents be tried as adults? Study's have shown that the human brain doesn't stop developing until someones early 20's, acknowledging this we can address that teens are still unable to perceive the concept of consequences and why this makes them prone to bad decision making. An underdeveloped brain is more vulnerable to aggressive tendencies and difficulty with social and emotional skills. Taking all of this into consideration adolescents should not be tried as adults instead the system should try helping them with restorative justice by sending them to counseling and or therapy for whatever issue they may have depending on the situation.

# data[].attributes.body
Based on what I read in the article, teenagers aren’t at fault for the decisions they make and shouldn’t be trialed as an adult. In the article, I learned that teen brains are still developing and that is why they make dumb decisions. Their developing brains are the reason why they make their dumb choices. A human brain does not fully develop till a person is in their 20s, which is why adults are more mature and make smart choices. I disagree with the concept of teens being trialed as an adult. Teens do make dumb decisions only due to the fact their brains aren’t fully developed and are still learning. However, teens do need to deal with their consequences and shouldn’t get off so easily but they shouldn’t be trialed as an adult.

# data[].attributes.body
In the source, researchers for years on teenage brains, growing recognition that what was previously seen as immaturity. But it actually is a cognitive, behavioral, and neurological flexibility that allows teens to explore and adapt to their shifting inner and outer worlds.Teens are famous for their heightened emotional sensitivity, especially in social interactions. The brain circuitry is linked to that sensitivity. Different cases between where it’s an asset that helps teens reach emotional maturity versus a risk factor that may predict mental health problems. There’s a link between teens’ social experiences online and the way their brains respond to the environment. Teens’ biological need for social connection, combined with their heightened sensitivity to rewards, likely underlies teen-led activism, for instance on climate change, racial justice, and gun control. Looking forward, researchers in the field emphasize the importance of continuing to challenge assumptions about adolescence around risk-taking, emotionally. To better ensure that the science remains robust and can ultimately support interventions for healthy development.

# data[].attributes.body
According to the articles and research, the teenage brain is still in the process of development and maturity. Likely, the process of brain development will influence teens to be reckless and make stupid decisions. In certain cases, these reckless decisions will cost a teen their childhood and end up as a juvenile. To be fair, other people may say that teenagers don't understand the consequences of their actions, however I don't think this is true. In the case of a juvenile getting charged with serious crimes like murder, I believe they understand the consequences of what they have done, and should be charged as an adult.

# data[].attributes.body
Based on the article scientists know that the adolescent brain is still developing, that its rate of development varies widely across the population and that adolescents mature at markedly varied rates. Young peoples  brains to mature until their early- to mid-20s, and adolescents’ brains are different from adults. Adolescents are more likely to be influenced by peers. Use such knowledge to inform system responses to youth in need and youth alleged to have committed status offense. Adolescents sometimes make poor decisions and it is the adult caregiver’s role to help them recover from mistakes and make better decisions.

# data[].attributes.body
Ronald Garcia

Recent research on the adolescent brain underscores the compelling reasons for refraining from treating teenagers as adults. Their developmental phase is characterized by a predilection for thrill-seeking and an innate curiosity to explore new experiences. It's crucial to recognize that not all their actions can be attributed to deliberate choices, as the article points to various factors influencing their behavior. One such factor is their living environment, which can significantly shape their decision-making processes. Additionally, a lack of accessible resources to guide them in making informed choices can further exacerbate the situation.

Subjecting teenagers to the same legal treatment as adults would likely lead to more detrimental decisions and a potential escalation in criminal activities.The ongoing development of their brains sets them apart from fully mature adults, making it imperative to employ distinct strategies when dealing with adolescent offenders. Consequently, treating teenagers differently from adults recognizes the nuances of their brain development and provides a more effective way to address their needs and behavior.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Juvenile Brain and Justice - Jesus Cortez

# data[].attributes.subject
The Juvenile Brain and Justice - Jesus Cortez

# data[].attributes.body
New research has shown the teenage brain is set to explore and adapt, rewarding the teen for learning new things and experiencing. It's thought that a teens brain is underdeveloped and therefore they are reckless and make stupid decisions. But as it turns out most teenagers do recognize the big risk of some actions and some actually overestimate the risk. It's the idea of the reward which drives them to take great risks. Heighten more by peers of the same age as a teen is able to recognize that relationships can help in their future. So in that sense the average adolescent has the brain function of an adult, so in the case of juvenile justice I think it's fair for the teen to be sentenced like an adult for particular crimes. A teen, because of how their brain works, should be given some leeway in small crimes. But should be sentenced like adults for obvious heinous crimes, like murder and assault. They are capable and must understand those things are unforgivable.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Developmental cognitive neuroscientists are at the frontier of this new outlook, using updated methodology, larger and more diverse samples, and experimental tasks with real-world relevance to answer questions about adolescents in the context of society. They're also supporting developmentally informed policy and practice on everything from mental health care to juvenile justice. "The adolescent brain was long portrayed as broken, immature, or contributing to problematic behaviors," said Eva Telzer, PhD, an associate professor of psychology and director of the Developmental Social Neuroscience Lab at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. "But in the last five years, there's been a huge shift toward seeing the developing brain as malleable, flexible, and promoting many positive aspects of development in adolescence."

Heightened sensitivity to rewards, for example, which is partly driven by increased activity in a part of the brain called the ventral striatum, has been implicated in behaviors such as substance use and unprotected sex among teens. But research now shows that in different settings, that same neural circuitry can also promote positive peer influence and behaviors, Telzer said, such as wearing a seat belt or joining a peaceful protest.

As the field of developmental neuroscience matures, so too do the questions researchers ask. Studies are increasingly considering the influence not just of peers but also of parents. Researchers are also looking closely at how social media use may affect young brains, as concerns mount about teens' online activity. As a result, research on the teenage brain is finally starting to catch up with studies of other age groups, complete with the level of detail it deserves.

"The shift from childhood to adulthood is not a linear one. Adolescence is a time of wonderfully dynamic change in the brain," said BJ Casey, PhD, a professor of psychology who directs the Fundamentals of the Adolescent Brain Lab at Yale University. "Too often, we've superimposed an adult model onto a developing brain, but now we're starting to see more nuanced findings."

Embracing new approaches

Adolescence-spanning from puberty until the mid-20s-describes the transitional period between childhood and adulthood, according to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. During this period, the brain grows and changes in a number of ways. Gray matter in the cerebral cortex tends to thin, while white matter that connects various regions of the brain generally increases in volume. Functional connections between regions, which researchers measure with brain scans that track oxygen usage in blood, also undergo widespread changes during adolescence.

Beyond that, things get a little more complicated-and recent replication efforts indicate that some findings considered fundamental to the field may not hold up in larger samples. For example, early research suggested that brain volume increases peaked earlier in adolescent girls (Lenroot, R. K., & Giedd, J. N., Brain and Cognition, Vol. 72, No. 1, 2010), but more recent studies of large, international samples have shown it's not that simple. Instead, boys' brains tend to change at similar rates regardless of variability in other brain metrics, while changes in girls' brains can be predicted based on certain measurements, such as the thickness of the cortex (Mills, K. L., et al., NeuroImage, Vol. 242, 2021).

"This kind of finding is emblematic of a bigger shift in the field as to how we're approaching our science, what techniques we use, and what information we consider valuable," said Jennifer Pfeifer, PhD, a professor of psychology and director of the University of Oregon's Developmental Social Neuroscience Lab. "It's become clear that if we want to understand developmental processes within individuals, we need to use some different tactics."

More sophisticated methodology is a big part of that shift, she added. Instead of merely comparing brain structure or activity between two age groups (12- and 18-year-olds, for instance), researchers are increasingly relying on a variety of experimental approaches that follow the same youth over time.

"Many people may not realize that our early insights about adolescent brain development were based on cross-sectional approaches, which can sometimes lead to the wrong conclusions," said Pfeifer, who also codirects the National Scientific Council on Adolescence.

Now, researchers use other techniques, such as accelerated longitudinal designs, where participants are sampled a handful of times at a range of ages (starting at ages 12 to 15, for instance, and then annually for three years), which can paint a more comprehensive picture of neurodevelopment.

Large collaborative consortia, in particular the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study, a decade-long effort that follows a nationally representative sample of nearly 12,000 teens, are also providing richer data that can power more rigorous studies of the developing brain. The ABCD Study shares its brain scans measuring neurological development, clinical tests of mental and physical health, and behavioral data on substance use, academic achievement, and more with researchers around the world; of about 250 papers published using the survey's data so far, half were from investigators outside the consortium. Fittingly, one of the study's early insights is that very large samples-with thousands of individual brain scans-are needed to detect reproducible differences between individuals at the whole-brain level (Marek, S., et al., Nature, Vol. 603, 2022).

"On the other hand, there is still a need for innovative, smaller-scale studies," said Eveline Crone, PhD, a professor of neurocognitive developmental psychology and director of the Society, Youth, and Neuroscience Connected (SYNC) Lab at Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands. "If we only ran the big consortia, we would miss out on a lot of novelty in terms of our methods and research questions."

Some questions-for instance, how adolescents' brains respond, on average, to winning money for themselves, a family member, or a stranger-can be examined effectively in much smaller samples, pointing to the importance of a balance between large and small efforts (Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, Vol. 51, 2021). (Crone and her colleagues who conducted this research have found that teen brains show activation in the nucleus accumbens, part of the brain's reward system, when achieving gains for themselves or their parents but not for strangers. Those findings point to the development of ingroup-outgroup distinctions during adolescence.) Like others in the field, Crone employs a mixed-methods approach, combining brain imaging with behavioral measures, youth panels, and large-scale surveys to contextualize development alongside behavior, relationships, and society.

Another major advance is the creation and use of "ecologically valid" experimental tasks, or those that more accurately mimic teens' experiences outside the lab.

"If we really want to understand how the adolescent brain works, we need to use stimuli-things like social media and video games-that they actually care about," said Jennifer Silk, PhD, a professor of psychology at the University of Pittsburgh who runs the Families, Emotions, Neuroscience, and Development Lab.

Silk and her colleagues have developed one such activity, called the Chatroom Interact Task, which simulates acceptance and rejection from peers. Teenage girls participating in the task are either "chosen" or "rejected" by other girls their age while undergoing an fMRI scan, which maps brain activity by measuring changes in blood flow and oxygen levels. Other tasks monitor teens while they use platforms similar to Instagram and Facebook, including how their brains respond to receiving "likes."

Researchers are even collecting data that may redefine the meaning of "adolescence," with an eye on the juvenile justice system.

"We're expanding the age ranges we're looking at because the field is recognizing that significant neurocognitive changes continue into the 20s," said Casey. "Those changes have consequences with regard to decision-making," and research in this area may ultimately inform more scientifically aligned approaches to reward, punishment, justice reform, and other areas.

Optimizing mental health

Teens are famous for their heightened emotional sensitivity, especially in social interactions. Researchers are starting to pin down brain circuitry linked to that sensitivity-and differentiate between cases where it's an asset that helps teens reach emotional maturity versus a risk factor that may predict mental health problems (Casey, B. J., et al., Neuroscience Letters, Vol. 693, 2019).

Research by Silk, Telzer, Casey, and others has identified several areas of the brain that underlie emotional responses in teens, including the subgenual cingulate cortex, anterior insula, and amygdala. For example, teens who had more activity in those regions during the rejection phase of Silk's Chatroom Interact Task, compared with the acceptance phase, were more likely to experience depression and suicidality down the line (Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, online first publication, 2022; Child Psychiatry & Human Development, Vol. 51, 2020). "There seems to be some sensitivity to rejection in this brain network that's related to the development of internalizing disorders," Silk said.

Because mental health problems increase sharply during adolescence-affecting an estimated 1 in 4 teens-there's an urgent need to determine who is at risk and what treatments may be most effective (Silva, S. A., et al., PLOS ONE, Vol. 15, No. 4, 2020).

In animal models, stressful experiences during adolescence appear to alter the development of emotion-focused regions such as the amygdala and hippocampus, as well as the prefrontal cortex (Eiland, L., & Romeo, R. D., Neuroscience, Vol. 249, 2013). Early findings from the ABCD Study have found different patterns of activation in the amygdala, anterior cingulate cortex, and other reward-associated brain regions among preteens with disruptive behavior disorders, as well as brain differences that may underlie attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (Hawes, S. W., et al., The American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 178, No. 4, 2021; Bernanke, J., et al., The Lancet Psychiatry, Vol. 9, No. 3, 2022).

Rather than searching for a drug or mechanism that can address the entirety of depression, anxiety, or ADHD, researchers are increasingly studying specific symptoms-anhedonia or inattention, for instance-as well as subtypes of various disorders and seeking solutions for each.

"We are now looking at specific behaviors for which we can identify a neural circuit, mechanisms, and sometimes even genes," said Pradeep Bhide, PhD, a professor of developmental neuroscience and director of the Center for Brain Repair at the Florida State University College of Medicine. "That is a newer, better, and likely more successful approach to treating complex human psychiatric and developmental disorders."

For example, adolescents tend to benefit less from fear extinction efforts than adults (Pattwell, S. S., et al., PNAS, Vol. 109, No. 40, 2012). According to Casey, this suggests that they may respond poorly to exposure therapy, a key component of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for anxiety, which recruits the prefrontal cortex to reprogram fear memories. It may therefore be possible to optimize CBT to work better for adolescents by using strategies that bypass the prefrontal cortex, instead working to alter memories using other circuitry, including emotion- and memory-focused regions such as the hippocampus and amygdala (Scientific Reports, Vol. 5, No. 8863, 2015; Nature Communications, Vol. 7, No. 11475, 2016). This process is often referred to as "memory reconsolidation" or "reconsolidation update."

"Thus, there appear to be developmental windows in which we can optimize treatments in specific ways," Casey said.

Parents and peers

When it comes to teens' relationships, both the scientific community and the lay public have long embraced the assumption that adolescence triggers a shift away from parents and toward peers, particularly when it comes to risk-taking.

New findings are challenging that assumption, which was pervasive but difficult to test directly, Pfeifer said (Nelson, E. E., et al., Psychological Medicine, Vol. 35, No. 2, 2005). Early data from Project NeuroTeen, Telzer's 5-year longitudinal study of how parent and peer relationships influence adolescent decision-making and development, show that teens shift their behavior to align with the risky choices of parents more than the risky choices of peers. This shift is supported by increased activation in regions of the brain related to reward, including the ventral striatum and ventromedial prefrontal cortex (Journal of Research on Adolescence, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2021).

Silk, Amanda Morris, PhD, of Oklahoma State University, and their colleagues have started to document the synchrony between teens and their parents in real time, using a new simultaneous scanning technique to measure how one brain responds to another during an interaction. They have found that adolescent brain activity tends to mirror parent brain activity, especially in emotion-processing regions such as the amygdala and anterior insula (Child Development, Vol. 92, No. 6, 2021).

"I think a lot of parents believe that it's too late, that by adolescence, peers have all the power," Silk said. "But this research is showing that parents shouldn't give up, that they still do have the power to help their adolescents learn how to process and regulate their emotions."

Pfeifer's lab also recently explored the claim that changes in the brain during adolescence make teens more sensitive to social information related to acceptance by peers, but their findings did not clearly support that idea. Instead, they found that activity in regions such as the ventromedial prefrontal cortex-a brain area related to evaluation of the self-tended to peak during mid-adolescence, especially for information related to status (Cosme, D., et al., Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, Vol. 54, 2022). These findings may suggest that "identity is an important source of value to adolescents, and this could be leveraged to promote healthy decision-making," she said (Child Development Perspectives, Vol. 12, No. 3, 2018).

Peer interactions are still important, of course, and they're increasingly happening online. Parents, researchers, and policymakers have plenty of unanswered questions about how social media use may affect the developing brain. For example, do certain neural profiles among teens predict riskier online behavior, such as the tendency to compare one's appearance and social status to others?

Silk and Cecile Ladouceur, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, have launched new research to bring more nuance to that conversation. They are collecting information about social media use from teens' phones, along with fMRI data on their neurological responses to acceptance and rejection, for instance during the Chatroom Interact Task. Telzer has also launched a new effort, with Mitch Prinstein, PhD, APA's chief science officer, to study whether brain development in regions responsible for reward, emotion, and cognitive control relates to how frequently teens check their social media apps.

"Undoubtedly there's a link between teens' social experiences online and the way their brains respond to the environment, but it's something we're slowly working to unpack," Telzer said.

Challenging assumptions about teens

The malleability of the adolescent brain may make it vulnerable at times, but teen brains are also highly capable of prosocial growth under the right circumstances, Pfeifer said. Teens' biological need for social connection, combined with their heightened sensitivity to rewards, likely underlies teen-led activism, for instance on climate change, racial justice, and gun control.

Research by Crone and others shows that the ventral striatum is linked to prosocial behavior, responding to rewards not just for oneself but also for others (Nature Communications, Vol. 12, No. 313, 2021). Among teens serving time in youth detention centers, both the ability to spontaneously take the perspective of others and activity in the temporoparietal junction-an associated region of the brain-differed significantly from a control group. The temporoparietal junction is more malleable by environmental influence than other social brain regions, according to studies by Crone among twin populations. This suggests that interventions in perspective-taking, which target this area, may be helpful for justice-involved teens (Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, Vol. 9, No. 12, 2014).

Based on ongoing research by Casey and others about the trajectory of development in regions related to cognitive control, including the prefrontal cortex, APA has launched a task force to review new findings that may inform extending Roper v. Simmons, a Supreme Court decision that abolished the use of the death penalty for those under 18, to cover individuals into their early 20s.

Looking forward, researchers in the field emphasize the importance of continuing to challenge assumptions about adolescence-around risk-taking, emotionality, and more-to ensure that the science remains robust and can ultimately support interventions for healthy development.

"We're not going to change adolescents' brains, nor should we want to," Telzer said. "What we can do is optimize what we know to create social contexts and environments that provide the most enriching experiences for them."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What neuroscience tells us about the teenage brain

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New research now turns an old assumption on its head, as psychologists seek to optimize social contexts and environments for developing minds.

# data[].attributes.body
The article talked about how they abolished the death penalty for crimes committed during their adolescence. This makes me think its a wonderful idea that the scientist and the researchers are doing is a great idea. This means that the young people are getting the attention they need. Also that they are not just putting everything aside without looking for solutions. Another thing is that they are considering how they are not well developed with an adult brain. Some kids are due to how mature they are. Makes me go back to how the kids were treated while growing up and what they saw around them.I also feel that the kids need to be treated as adults even though their brains aren't well developed because we should all know what's right and what's wrong.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The question of what constitutes responsible and legal behavior in children and adolescents is an issue with important philosophical, scientific, social, ethical, and practical considerations. A wider and better-translated neuroscientific understanding of the adolescent brain has the potential to help inform and transform how we respond to juveniles who offend, for their benefit and to reduce recidivism.
BRAIN SCIENCE IS REFORMING JUVENILE JUSTICE POLICY AND PRACTICE

A series of recent landmark cases in the U.S. Supreme Court has evolved to change our legal responses to juvenile offending. They have abolished the death penalty for crimes committed during adolescence, found mandatory life-without-parole sentences for murder in violation of the 8 th Amendment, and eliminated life-without-parole sentences for crimes less than murder. In Massachusetts, life sentences for juveniles were ruled unconstitutional, and the review of cases in which those sentences were given in the past has already begun. A significant part of the argument for these decisions included an understanding of adolescent brain development. While society's attitudes will ultimately dictate the shape of law, science can be used to confirm and dispel common ideas about teenage behavior to forge a more scientifically sound and financially viable system for adolescent reform.

Scientists know that the adolescent brain is still developing, that it is highly subject to reward- and peer-influence, and that its rate of development varies widely across the population. They have developed basic tools that offer data with which to judge the potential for juvenile desistance, recidivism, and rehabilitation.

With its ability to examine the workings of the teenage brain, neuroscience is improving our understanding of adolescents, and potentially, juvenile offenders. Through their window into the brain, neuroscientists understand, for example, that adolescents mature at markedly varied rates. The presumed trajectory of brain development, demonstrated in existing "bright line" age cut offs for voting, military service, and drinking, however, is not reflective of this variability in brain maturity. Similarly, neuroimaging research by CLBB faculty ( Somerville, 2010) clarifies that it is teenagers' heightened vulnerability to reward that drives risky behavior, contrary to longstanding beliefs that teenagers are unable to gauge risks. They can often recognize risks, but incomplete development of brain mechanisms related to modulation of impulsive behavior reduces their tendency to heed those risks.

Science may also help us understand which juvenile offenders are likely to commit future crimes and which may not. A longitudinal study, "Pathways to Desistance" ( Mulvey, 2011), has collected significant data on factors such as substance abuse and instability in daily routine that lead to youth recidivism. The seminal paper, "Rewiring juvenile justice: the intersection of development neuroscience and legal policy" ( Cohen and Casey, 2014), elucidates how key new scientific findings about the development of the adolescent brain may inform policy.

HOW CAN THE LAW REFLECT WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE BRAIN?

Scientists and clinicians interested in the practical application of neuroscience have created a substantive body of work that should inform juvenile justice policy. The MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice established and expanded the knowledge base on adolescents and crime, and dissemination of that knowledge to juvenile justice practitioners and policy-makers has played a critical role in policy change. Organizations like the National Conference of State Legislatures have summarized research for application to law, such as "bright line" age limits. Nonprofit groups such as the Juvenile Law Center use brain science research to produce recommendations for the improvement of the juvenile justice system. Models for Change, a multi-state initiative relying on a network of court officials, legal advocates, and researchers, produces research-based tools and techniques to make juvenile justice systems more fair, effective, rational, and developmentally appropriate. Other scientific groups, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, are examining juvenile justice through their existing brain science lens. And the National Academy of Science's National Research Council recent report, "Reforming Juvenile Justice," collates all recent research to promote a developmental agenda for juvenile justice in the future.

Researchers have taken to the popular press, as well, to advance a developmentally appropriate juvenile justice system in the areas of prevention and treatment. Op-eds such as " Why teenagers act crazy" and " Friends can be dangerous" (both New York Times, 2014) seek to communicate understandings about the brain to the public to protect adolescent development and prevent adolescent crime. Other pieces, including " How solitary confinement hurts the teenage brain" ( The Atlantic, 2014); The " Prisoners of profit" series ( Huffington Post, 2013) and " Locking up kids for life" ( Boston Globe, 2014), by Harvard Law School Professor and CLBB faculty Nancy Gertner, all seek to address imminent legal- and treatment- related issues within the juvenile justice system. As part of PBS's Brains on Trial programming with Alan Alda (2013), CLBB co-director Judith Edersheim and CLBB faculty member Gene Beresin authored important commentary on teens and criminal responsibility, mental health services for youth in detention, assessing violence risk in kids, and the workings of the adolescent brain. Even prominent voices like the New York Times editorial board have taken strong stands on social issues where the science is clear, such as juvenile solitary confinement reform (2014).

DRIVING CONTINUED CHANGE

While the science has advanced a general understanding of normal youth development, gaps remain in a thorough neuroscientific, genetic, and epigenetic understanding of adolescent development and the factors that drive juvenile offending. Meanwhile, the legal system urgently lacks a nuanced conception of adolescent brain development as it is currently understood, and an effective use of data and assessment tools that would drive systematic change.

CLBB contributes to the improvement of juvenile justice by engaging in activities that translate neuroscience through original research and expert engagement with the public. With support from the Harvard Society for Mind-Brain-Behavior, CLBB has convened a Faculty Working Group to catalyze the development of a rich, interdisciplinary program of education, outreach, research, and policy work. The Juvenile Justice Faculty Working Group brings together experts on the adolescent brain and criminal justice to respond to key scientific, ethical and legal issues at their intersections. CLBB Faculty and working group members include adolescent brain researchers Leah Somerville, PhD and Margaret Sheridan, PhD, adolescent psychiatrist Gene Beresin, MD, and juvenile offender evaluation and juvenile justice policy experts Thomas Grisso, PhD, Robert Kinscherff, PhD, Esq., and Gina Vincent, PhD. Addressing crucial scientific questions, such as gaps in the science of adolescent brain development, as well as important issues in treatment, policy, and the law, this group of experts aims to produce both public-facing and law- and science-specific resources to advance a more scientifically sound criminal justice system for juveniles.
The group culminated its first year with a public Symposium, "Juvenile Justice & the Adolescent Brain: Is Healthy Neurodevelopment a Civil Right?" on March 12, 2015 at Harvard Medical School. Watch complete event video here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The question of what constitutes responsible and legal behavior in children and adolescents is an issue with important philosophical, scientific, social, ethical, and practical considerations.&nbsp...

# data[].attributes.body
The latest research about teenage brains makes me think about why we shouldn't  treat teenagers as adults. They are going through a period that consists of thrill seeking and an urge to experience new things. Sometimes it's not always their fault and after reading the article it lists reasons why teenagers act the way they do. One of the reasons is that is could be due to their living environment. Also not finding resources that can benefit in making the right choices. If they were treated as adults they would only make worse decisions and potentially cause them to commit more crimes. There are other options that can help which include counseling or talking to their parents. After all it's not their fault and their brain is still developing and for this reason they shouldn't be dealt with the same way as an adult whose brain is developed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Hundreds of years ago all convicted criminals were housed together, regardless of gender, age, or mental illness. Prisons were filled with a mix of them all, until somebody recognized that there was a problem with the system in 1825. That is when New York House of Refuge was established with the goal of educating and rehabilitating juvenile offenders. It was not until 1899, however, that the first juvenile court was established meant to deal just with those under the age of 18. But there was unequal treatment of juveniles, and after much ado, Congress ultimately passed legislation-the Juvenile and Delinquency Prevention Act-in the mid-1970s to try to level things out. Nowadays we often hear that many juveniles should be tried as adults. Quite often those cries are heard, and now over 10,000 prisoners under the age of 18 are serving time in adult prisons across the country. What are the justifications for and against such a move?
Arguments Against Trying Juveniles as Adults
Opponents of such a move have several strong to explain their position:

Parents do not have to take any responsibility: When kids commit serious crimes, parents should be held accountable to some degree, such as by being ordered to find proper counseling, care, and rehabilitation opportunities.

There is no benefit: Nobody wins when children, who should be getting education and rehabilitation, are simply locked up. Furthermore, it does not meet family court's standard of acting in the child's best interest.

Criminal activity is more likely again: When juveniles are treated like adults, they are less likely to get the help they need to change their lives, and a life of crime becomes more likely.

Punishment options are limited: The juvenile court system can order things like curfews and counseling, but the range of options in adult court is not geared toward young offenders.

Suicide risk increases: Juveniles in adult prisons are usually put in solitary confinement until they are old enough to join the general population, which makes them 40 times more likely to commit suicide.

A jury of peers is not possible: Every jury will consist of adults, even though the defendant may be just 9 or 10 years old.

Sealing records is harder: It is much more difficult to seal an adult criminal record, making it more difficult to make a fresh start.

Young brains are underdeveloped: Juveniles' brains have not developed completely, meaning their decision-making abilities are inadequate. Based on neurobiology alone, it is unfair and unfitting to hold them to the same standards we hold adults.

Arguments in Favor of Trying Juveniles as Adults
Proponents of treating kids as adults in the justice system are equally passionate in their arguments:

It teaches accountability: Some families just do not teach accountability, and it is left to society to pick up the slack. Serious crimes deserve serious penalties.

Juvenile courts are too lax with serious criminals: When juveniles are given the toughest sentence possible in a juvenile court, they could be out in their neighborhoods again by the time they are 18 (or 21 or 25 in some states). About 300 people are killed by children every year. Neighborhoods and communities deserve protection from all violent predators, regardless of their age.

Actions should have consequences: If a serious crime is committed, the age of the offender should not matter. Society demands justice, and there is no way around it..

They will have access to more programs: Adult prisons offer vocational and mental health programs that are bigger and better than what the juvenile system offers, along with programming for mental health, addiction, and learning disabilities.

Getting the Best Outcomes for Juvenile Offenders
The criminal defense attorneys at The Law Office of David M Boertje have dealt with many juvenile defendants, and are dedicated to fighting for the best possible outcomes for them under all circumstances. To discuss your situation, schedule a free, confidential consultation in our San Diego office today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hundreds of years ago all convicted criminals were housed together, regardless of gender, age, or mental illness. Prisons were filled with a mix of them all, until somebody recognized that there ...

# data[].attributes.body
The article I read is called, "Teenage Brain Development. In the article I learned that teenagers brains are not fully developed. Their development can cause different behaviors and actions. Us teenagers like to act on impulse, and it was never understood why until research found that teenagers act on impulse because of our non-fully developed brains. There is lots of development still needed to be fully developed. In the other article Beautiful Brains, it talks about adolescence and how the stereotype of adolescence should be removed. Adolescence is known as annoying behaviors where it should be known as highly functional and as an adaptive period for teenagers. So the whole question of if teenagers and children should be charged as adults should be known as no. I believe that children and teenagers do act these certain ways because of their undeveloped brains. I do not think they should be charged as adults for their crimes. I believe they should still be charged but under lower circumstances.

# data[].attributes.body
Based off what I read, I think it's a good idea that scientists and researchers are doing. The studies of the juvenile system is something that many study to make they are getting the care and help. The brain development has different stages and is different throughout a persons lifetime. The risk of people not getting help. The crimes many commit are based off how they were raised. The system fails to watch over the children and make sure they are safe and get the right parenting. The system of sending young teens straight to a cell is sad and should be changed around because kids are putting their life to waste because of mini crimes that could've been avoided.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The question of what constitutes responsible and legal behavior in children and adolescents is an issue with important philosophical, scientific, social, ethical, and practical considerations. A wider and better-translated neuroscientific understanding of the adolescent brain has the potential to help inform and transform how we respond to juveniles who offend, for their benefit and to reduce recidivism.
BRAIN SCIENCE IS REFORMING JUVENILE JUSTICE POLICY AND PRACTICE

A series of recent landmark cases in the U.S. Supreme Court has evolved to change our legal responses to juvenile offending. They have abolished the death penalty for crimes committed during adolescence, found mandatory life-without-parole sentences for murder in violation of the 8 th Amendment, and eliminated life-without-parole sentences for crimes less than murder. In Massachusetts, life sentences for juveniles were ruled unconstitutional, and the review of cases in which those sentences were given in the past has already begun. A significant part of the argument for these decisions included an understanding of adolescent brain development. While society's attitudes will ultimately dictate the shape of law, science can be used to confirm and dispel common ideas about teenage behavior to forge a more scientifically sound and financially viable system for adolescent reform.

Scientists know that the adolescent brain is still developing, that it is highly subject to reward- and peer-influence, and that its rate of development varies widely across the population. They have developed basic tools that offer data with which to judge the potential for juvenile desistance, recidivism, and rehabilitation.

With its ability to examine the workings of the teenage brain, neuroscience is improving our understanding of adolescents, and potentially, juvenile offenders. Through their window into the brain, neuroscientists understand, for example, that adolescents mature at markedly varied rates. The presumed trajectory of brain development, demonstrated in existing "bright line" age cut offs for voting, military service, and drinking, however, is not reflective of this variability in brain maturity. Similarly, neuroimaging research by CLBB faculty ( Somerville, 2010) clarifies that it is teenagers' heightened vulnerability to reward that drives risky behavior, contrary to longstanding beliefs that teenagers are unable to gauge risks. They can often recognize risks, but incomplete development of brain mechanisms related to modulation of impulsive behavior reduces their tendency to heed those risks.

Science may also help us understand which juvenile offenders are likely to commit future crimes and which may not. A longitudinal study, "Pathways to Desistance" ( Mulvey, 2011), has collected significant data on factors such as substance abuse and instability in daily routine that lead to youth recidivism. The seminal paper, "Rewiring juvenile justice: the intersection of development neuroscience and legal policy" ( Cohen and Casey, 2014), elucidates how key new scientific findings about the development of the adolescent brain may inform policy.

HOW CAN THE LAW REFLECT WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE BRAIN?

Scientists and clinicians interested in the practical application of neuroscience have created a substantive body of work that should inform juvenile justice policy. The MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice established and expanded the knowledge base on adolescents and crime, and dissemination of that knowledge to juvenile justice practitioners and policy-makers has played a critical role in policy change. Organizations like the National Conference of State Legislatures have summarized research for application to law, such as "bright line" age limits. Nonprofit groups such as the Juvenile Law Center use brain science research to produce recommendations for the improvement of the juvenile justice system. Models for Change, a multi-state initiative relying on a network of court officials, legal advocates, and researchers, produces research-based tools and techniques to make juvenile justice systems more fair, effective, rational, and developmentally appropriate. Other scientific groups, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, are examining juvenile justice through their existing brain science lens. And the National Academy of Science's National Research Council recent report, "Reforming Juvenile Justice," collates all recent research to promote a developmental agenda for juvenile justice in the future.

Researchers have taken to the popular press, as well, to advance a developmentally appropriate juvenile justice system in the areas of prevention and treatment. Op-eds such as " Why teenagers act crazy" and " Friends can be dangerous" (both New York Times, 2014) seek to communicate understandings about the brain to the public to protect adolescent development and prevent adolescent crime. Other pieces, including " How solitary confinement hurts the teenage brain" ( The Atlantic, 2014); The " Prisoners of profit" series ( Huffington Post, 2013) and " Locking up kids for life" ( Boston Globe, 2014), by Harvard Law School Professor and CLBB faculty Nancy Gertner, all seek to address imminent legal- and treatment- related issues within the juvenile justice system. As part of PBS's Brains on Trial programming with Alan Alda (2013), CLBB co-director Judith Edersheim and CLBB faculty member Gene Beresin authored important commentary on teens and criminal responsibility, mental health services for youth in detention, assessing violence risk in kids, and the workings of the adolescent brain. Even prominent voices like the New York Times editorial board have taken strong stands on social issues where the science is clear, such as juvenile solitary confinement reform (2014).

DRIVING CONTINUED CHANGE

While the science has advanced a general understanding of normal youth development, gaps remain in a thorough neuroscientific, genetic, and epigenetic understanding of adolescent development and the factors that drive juvenile offending. Meanwhile, the legal system urgently lacks a nuanced conception of adolescent brain development as it is currently understood, and an effective use of data and assessment tools that would drive systematic change.

CLBB contributes to the improvement of juvenile justice by engaging in activities that translate neuroscience through original research and expert engagement with the public. With support from the Harvard Society for Mind-Brain-Behavior, CLBB has convened a Faculty Working Group to catalyze the development of a rich, interdisciplinary program of education, outreach, research, and policy work. The Juvenile Justice Faculty Working Group brings together experts on the adolescent brain and criminal justice to respond to key scientific, ethical and legal issues at their intersections. CLBB Faculty and working group members include adolescent brain researchers Leah Somerville, PhD and Margaret Sheridan, PhD, adolescent psychiatrist Gene Beresin, MD, and juvenile offender evaluation and juvenile justice policy experts Thomas Grisso, PhD, Robert Kinscherff, PhD, Esq., and Gina Vincent, PhD. Addressing crucial scientific questions, such as gaps in the science of adolescent brain development, as well as important issues in treatment, policy, and the law, this group of experts aims to produce both public-facing and law- and science-specific resources to advance a more scientifically sound criminal justice system for juveniles.
The group culminated its first year with a public Symposium, "Juvenile Justice & the Adolescent Brain: Is Healthy Neurodevelopment a Civil Right?" on March 12, 2015 at Harvard Medical School. Watch complete event video here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The question of what constitutes responsible and legal behavior in children and adolescents is an issue with important philosophical, scientific, social, ethical, and practical considerations.&nbsp...

# data[].attributes.body
The article that I have read mainly talk about how those Juvenile judges should need to understand how the brain developed. The article touches on how the sentence of the teenage ain't fair because of the bairn devolving. The brain is not fully developed when we are teenage, so we will do stupid thing will not thinking. They think that giving them sentences of jail or changes can't be fair for them cause of their underdeveloped brain cells. They were studies that the brain normally will devolve slowly.

# data[].attributes.body
Many studies have revealed the details of the developing adolescent brain in order to see the physical development and patterns it goes through to answer the question of, why do we behave the way we do? Our brains undergo major reorganization between the ages 12 to 25 which explains why the young are always more reckless and lack common sense. According to ppic.org, the response to a juvenile offense depends on the severity and the offenders background. If a 15 year old is arrested for the first time for skipping school and doing illegal activity, they might be counseled and released. As the latest research shows that the brain of a teen is more reckless because of our developing brains, this shows why juveniles act the way they do. I agree that a juvenile should be handled in a certain way due to their background and its seriousness. Although teens brains are still developing, it doesnt cause the fact that we do bad things. We still know right from wrong and we are aware of our thinking. Our brains do contribute to our recklessness and lack of common sense but it is not the reason why we do criminal activites. People chose to do bad things and adults past the age 25 do terrible things like commit murder, felonies, steal, etc. In conclusion, young people from ages 12-25 have been studied and it has shown that our brains are reorganizing and developing so therefore, it contributes to our lack of common sense and our carelessness of some actions and juveniles should be treated based on their background and the seriousness of the case.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
California's juvenile justice system is a network of county and state agencies and programs. In recognition of developmental differences between adults and juveniles, the juvenile justice system is intended to emphasize guidance, education, treatment, and rehabilitation over punishment. The system deals with juveniles who were under age 18 at the time of their offense.

# data[].attributes.body
According to my most recent studies on the adolescent brain, significant crimes and behaviors might have additional motivating factors. The issue frequently arises since several minors have committed significant crimes. Should they face adult charges? I have concluded that the teenage brain is incredibly underdeveloped based on my research on numerous papers and videos. My main defense is that these young people should be tested and evaluated psychologically before receiving a verdict. Before serving time, the juvenile should be admitted to treatment or a mental health facility if the test results indicate that they have mental health problems. Even if many of the young people struggle, some may not just be "thinking." Teenagers' brains experience numerous chemical changes that feel like drugs

# data[].attributes.body
https://lao.ca.gov/1995/050195_juv_crime/kkpart5.aspx

The latest research about the brain makes me wonder if teens commit crimes because they just aren't fully developed. Another thing it makes me wonder if they commit these crimes because they are looking for approval. In the article it tells us how teens brain aren't even fully developed yet and there is still so much more for them to learn and so much left of their brain to grow. A teenagers brain doesn't work the same as an adults brain works because their brains aren't an adults brain yet. This makes me believe that if their brain isn't an adult yet then why should they be charged as an adult. Many teens are charged as adults because they have committed adult crimes but in reality they just didn't calculate the risks, research shows that teens are more likely to take greater risks especially if the outcome is any kind of reward. So basically if one of the crimes they committed they believe will get them something then they won't even think about the risks especially if they have a friend with them. This is because their brain are looking for approval so teens tend to be more reckless is order to gain approval from piers. Even though teens do commit horrible crimes this could just be because their brain isn't fully developed yet. Even in the juvenile system there is still a way for them to plead their case and a lot of teens don't even go through the system. There are many ways for a teen to be convicted without having to be charged as an adult. Them being charged as an adult also won't really help their brain develop how it should because no teen should have to be in prison with adults where their brain can get corrupted by other inmates and where they will be in more danger than where somewhere were they are supposed to be learning from their mistakes.