Critics of the decision to try juveniles in adult court point to a recognized and growing body of research that indicates that young people are qualitatively different from adults because their brains are not fully developed. In a move suggesting a national paradigm shift away from treating youth in the same way that adult criminals are treated, the U.S. Supreme Court in May 2010 barred the use of the death penalty for non-capital crimes committed by juveniles. Vera’s Center on Youth Justice (CYJ) has been heavily involved in assuring that youth get age-appropriate treatment, including raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction in Connecticut from 16 to 18. Similarly, Vera’s Cost-Benefit Analysis Unit, with research assistance from CYJ staff, is performing a cost-benefit analysis of raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction in North Carolina from 16 to 18, on behalf of the Youth Accountability Planning Task Force. CYJ also has a finger on the pulse of national best practices in juvenile justice programming.

While Khan writes that, according to a 2010 report by the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, juvenile courts have seen a significant increase in delinquency cases, she neglects to point out that according to the same report, the number of transfers to adult court nationally actually declined substantially from 1994 to 2007. It is worthy of attention that, despite changing juvenile justice approaches based on overwhelming research suggesting that youth benefit from rehabilitation and not from punishment, there are still thousands of instances in which young people are treated as adult criminals, which is unreasonable and ineffective. But it is also important not to omit data that are crucial to a full understanding of the issue. Without presenting information on the declining numbers of transfers to adult court, the author leaves readers with an incomplete version of the larger story.