Practice Goals/Target Population
Teen court (also known as youth court or peer court) is a specialized diversion program that offers an alternative to traditional court processing for first-time, nonviolent juveniles (i.e., juveniles who have committed misdemeanor or status offenses and are at low risk of reoffending). The goal of teen court is to hold juveniles accountable for their behavior, repair the harm caused to the community by their offenses, and ultimately reduce juvenile recidivism.
Practice Components
Procedures may vary across different teen court programs, but there are certain components most programs encompass. First, participation is voluntary for juveniles, and they can opt out at any part of the process; however, if they decide to leave the program, they will be sent back to traditional juvenile court processing. Second, the focus of teen court is to have accused juveniles accept responsibility for their actions and repair harm done to the community; therefore, to participate, juveniles must admit guilt for their offenses.
Further, a defining feature of teen court is that volunteer youth serve in the role of at least some of the court personnel (i.e., defense attorney, prosecutor, judge, and/or jury). There are four courtroom models of teen court: adult judge, peer jury, youth judge, and youth tribunal. In the youth judge model, youth assume all roles (the judge, defense attorney, prosecuting attorney, and the jury). The adult judge model has a similar structure except that an adult serves in the role of the judge. Like the youth judge model, the roles in the peer jury model are all assumed by youth but there is no defense attorney or prosecutor. Rather, the peer jury model operates like a grand jury: the youth presents the facts of the case and a panel of youth jurors questions the juvenile defendant directly. Finally, in the youth tribunal model, a panel (usually of three) takes on the role of the courtroom judge, youth attorneys present the case to the panel of judges, and there is no youth jury (Butts, Buck, and Coggeshall 2002; Development Services Group, Inc. 2010; Bouchard and Wong 2017).
When a jury is used, youth must listen to the attorneys’ presentations, question the juvenile defendant, reach a unanimous verdict, and recommend an appropriate sentence. Sentences may include community service, apology letters to victims, education workshops, or paying restitution to victims. If juvenile defendants successfully complete the program, they usually have the offense erased from their criminal record.
Practice Theory
There are several theoretical perspectives underlying teen court. One theory, called peer justice, suggests that positive peer pressure (from the youth volunteers in the program) can push delinquent juveniles toward more prosocial behavior. The theory also suggests that youth may respond better to prosocial peers than adult authority figures (Butts, Buck, and Coggeshall 2002; Development Services Group, Inc. 2010).
Some research summarizing the theories behind teen courts indicates that the use of restorative justice principles, which emphasize repairing the harm caused by the offense, holds juveniles responsible and accountable for their actions and ensures that they are directly involved in the process of restoration (Butts, Buck, and Coggeshall 2002; Bouchard and Wong 2017). Some researchers hypothesize that an emphasis on reparation and enabling the juvenile offender to be directly involved with the process of restoration will prevent future offending (Evans et al. 2016). However, other researchers have noted variations in how teen courts are implemented and concerns about whether restorative justice principles are actually applied. For example, some programs may not actively involve juveniles in the teen court process (Laundra, Rodgers, and Zapp 2013; Walker, Rodgers, and Umbreit 2018).
Finally, another theory that pertains to teen court is labeling. By diverting juveniles away from formal court processing, they can avoid the social consequences of being labeled negatively and should be less likely to internalize a deviant/criminal identity because they are being judged and sentenced by a jury of peers, rather than the court system (Becker 1963; Butts, Buck, and Coggeshall 2002).
