More than a century after the first juvenile justice court opened its doors, the jury is still out on whether a separate system for children is effective.

Jane Addams, the founder of modern social work, got her native Chicago to create the country’s first juvenile court in the early 20th century. The argument, which hasn’t changed since, was that young offenders could still be “saved” from a life of crime.

But the counterargument, that some people in their late teens are so predatory that they need to be locked up to protect others, has also persisted.

Juvenile courts, including the District of Columbia’s, are less focused on meting out punishment as they are focused on getting services to keep a young offender on the straight-and-narrow path.

This story continues below
Advertisement

Yet D.C. has struggled mightily with youth crime. An October 2006 analysis by the D.C. police department found that nearly one quarter of D.C.’s killers were children. Up to 70 percent of children who are arrested in D.C. have prior records, said Peter Nickles, the next acting attorney general for the city.

Some, like Nickles, blame harsh punitive approaches taken in the last two decades. They say that kids go into tougher jails and become more hardened criminals when they get out.

“It’s always easier to get a headline by talking about youth violence and saying, ‘They’re out of control and you need to lock them up,’ ” Nickles told The Examiner. “We’ve been doing that, and what did we get? A lot more youth violence.”

On the other side are those who say that the rehabilitative approach to juvenile justice creates a culture of impunity.

“The softer approach has been a disaster for the last 25 years,” said Kristopher K. Baumann, chair of the D.C. police union.