Should 14-year-olds be charged as adults?

In September 2025, the House of Representatives passed the DC Juvenile Sentencing Reform Act, which would allow 14-year-olds in Washington, D.C., to be charged as adults if the Senate follows suit. With homicide rates in D.C. reaching a 26-year high in 2023, attention to violent crime has understandably intensified; communities are urgently seeking effective ways to address rates of youth violence and protect public safety.

Currently, youth under the age of 16 are under the jurisdiction of the D.C. Family Court. Nationally, 11 states allow prosecutors to directly file charges against youth in adult criminal court—but typically, youth ages 16 and 17, and only for serious offenses. Of those states, nine permit reverse waivers, which allow a judge to send the youth’s case to juvenile court. Reverse waivers do not currently exist in Washington, D.C.

Youth who commit serious offenses require interventions that hold them accountable for their actions while recognizing their capacity for growth and rehabilitation. Psychology research has extensively documented the harms of prosecuting youth as adults and placing them in adult facilities. Additionally, charging and convicting youth as adults does not appear to reduce recidivism. By contrast, keeping youth in the juvenile system and pairing supervision with community-based services is associated with better educational outcomes and lower rates of future incarceration.

This research, combined with studies on adolescent brain development, has led to several reform efforts. Evidence shows rehabilitation works. Randomized evaluations of Chicago’s Becoming a Man program found approximately 45–50% reductions in violent-crime arrests during the program year and an increase in graduation rates (Heller, S. B., et al., The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 132, No. 1, 2017opens in new window). A statewide analysis of Ohio’s Reasoned and Equitable Community and Local Alternatives to the Incarceration of Minors (RECLAIM) reforms found community-based placements reduced subsequent juvenile justice system involvement relative to commitment (Park, I., et al., Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 70, No. 3, 2022opens in new window). A quasi-experimental study of North Carolina’s Teen Court reported significantly lower reoffending than traditional juvenile processing (Cockerham, A., & Cockerham, J., National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, in pressopens in new window). Taken together, these findings demonstrate that accountability, paired with targeted, developmentally appropriate services, outperforms confinement-only responses in terms of public safety.

Several states have also introduced “Raise the Floor” legislation in response to growing concerns about criminalizing normative childhood behaviors such as school misconduct, truancy, and minor illicit substance possession, particularly among youth ages 10 to 12. Several states have no minimum age for criminal responsibility and prosecution, resulting in youth younger than 12 years old having contact with the juvenile court. These bills aim to route younger children to community-based, developmentally appropriate interventions instead of traditional, punitive measures. At the other end, “Raise the Age” legislation has been introduced in several states to extend the juvenile court jurisdiction to age 20 in cases of nonviolent crimes.

Even so, this year, several states have considered rollbacks in response to public concern about youth crime. For younger youth, researchers and practitioners should continue to explore alternatives to adult incarceration, including community-based sentencing such as diversion programs and restorative justice models, which hold youth accountable while addressing the drivers of harm.