Juvenile Plea Agreements

by Kiera Burns, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review Vol. 93

I. Introduction

Around 95 percent of convictions in adult and juvenile cases are settled by plea agreements.[1] Plea deals usually require a waiver of constitutional rights, such as the right against self-incrimination, the right to a trial by jury, and the right to confront one’s accusers.[2] Entering into a plea requires an abstract form of critical thinking into the future, which is challenging for many, especially youths. This is especially difficult for youths because of developmental factors such as limited life experience, susceptibility to influence, and immature risk perception.[3] A juvenile’s ability to meet the standard for accepting a plea offer must be carefully evaluated to ensure their constitutional rights are preserved.[4]

This article will analyze the effectiveness and validity of juvenile plea admissions, as well as the potential consequences of improper court procedures. Part II will analyze the legal standard for accepting a plea, the constitutional rights involved, and the issues with juvenile plea procedures. Part III will discuss rehabilitative solutions to preserve youths’ rights, including standardized colloquies and restorative justice programs. Part IV will conclude by emphasizing that solutions are needed to create a system that better understands juveniles’ socio-environmental influences and cognitive abilities.

II. Background

The U.S. juvenile system was created in 1899 to establish a system for juveniles more fair than the adult criminal justice system.[5] The U.S. system is impacted by international standards, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the United Nations Standard for Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, and the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty.[6] The U.S. first created a separate intervention system for juvenile justice in the state of Illinois in 1899, and it quickly became a nationwide system.[7] Currently, each state in the U.S. has a system that follows the basic phases of pre-adjudication, adjudication, and post-adjudication sentencing for youths.[8]

A. Plea Bargaining

Plea negotiations are primarily in place for defendants to avoid trial and perhaps achieve a better outcome without the uncertainty of trial, while also preserving judicial resources.[9] Negotiations between the defense and prosecution involve a precarious agreement, usually involving the defendant pleading guilty to a lesser charge or fewer charges.[10] Entering into a plea agreement means that certain constitutional rights of the defendant must be waived.[11] These rights include the right to a jury trial, to confront witnesses against them, against self-incrimination, and to remain silent.[12] These rights must be knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived by the defendant when entering a plea.

The judge is not required to accept a plea, and usually, this process is fairly private and does not include the victims of the crime in the decision-making process.[13] However, many victims’ rights groups are now addressing the right of a victim to have more input in the plea process.[14] Ultimately, the defendant must choose whether to accept the plea bargain and offer it to the judge who will decide what sentence to impose in criminal courts.[15] Oral colloquies occur during plea hearings, which allow the judge to discuss plea requirements on the record.[16]

A major concern with youth adjudications for delinquency is that the vast majority result from guilty plea agreements.[17] The plea process is meant to be based on fairness and the understanding that youths can comprehend and choose an option without coercion.[18] The juvenile plea agreement process also has a standard of knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.[19] However, the standard of law in today’s society is to treat children differently; for example, the motion to suppress has different applications according to age, and sealing or expunging records may be more lenient for youth offenses.[20] It is not logical for adults and minors to be held to the same standard if other aspects of the process are more lenient, especially for a part of the process that is extremely consequential. The focus on rehabilitation for the juvenile justice system seeks to prioritize the best interest of youths, yet many criticize that defendants themselves are rarely part of the plea negotiation process.[21] Democratic ideals surrounding justice are frequently disputed in the context of plea agreements that promote more of a “dealing and settling,” even if it is in the name of efficiency or leniency.[22]

B. Adverse Consequences

Plea deals greatly impact a youth’s future, including mental health, risks of recidivism, family life, and rehabilitation.[23] Additional collateral consequences affect future prospects, such as housing opportunities, military eligibility, and employment.[24] Children do not enjoy the responsibilities of adulthood, yet are forced to participate in a life-altering decision that has dire future consequences.[25]

Subsequently, many intersectional and inequality disparities exist throughout the juvenile justice system.[26] The juvenile system is primarily focused on rehabilitation and public safety, yet there is no emphasis on preventative intervention.[27] Disproportionate consequences frequently affect minority youth, particularly African American youth, low-income youth, and girls.[28] There is also an error rate that leaves risks of youths being pressured to plead guilty even in cases where they are innocent.[29] Even with low false conviction rates, there are still many juveniles impacted, for example, .05 percent of wrongful convictions still impacts about 11,000 people.[30] These intersectional factors at play have led many to question whether there are better and more rehabilitative options available than plea bargains.[31]

III. Discussion

The use of plea agreements in the juvenile system has led to many problems, including a lack of research on the competency of youths waiving constitutional rights and whether court procedures substantively reach the standard of knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.[32] Socio-environmental influences also create problems in certifying a valid waiver of rights and the acceptance of a plea.[33] Alternative solutions may serve to develop valid and rehabilitative options while still upholding the accountability and dignity of a juvenile.[34]

A. Standard of Waiver

Improving juvenile plea agreements begins with assessing the components of a valid legal waiver of constitutional rights for youths, following the knowing, voluntary, and intelligent standard.[35] Issues, such as the amount of information given to a child client, the capacity of the client, and the circumstances regarding the client’s knowledge, can all affect the integrity of a knowing waiver.[36] A 2022 study found that, on average, juvenile plea hearings lasted only seven minutes.[37]

Also, coercion, procedural norms, and lack of legal guidance can impact voluntariness.[38] One study found that sixty percent of eleven to thirteen-year-olds and fifty percent of fourteen to fifteen year olds showed slight to significant impairment in understanding plea deals.[39] Another concerning study found that youths younger than fifteen scored similarly to those found incompetent to stand trial on a standardized test of abilities regarding competency.[40] Many youths lack basic legal knowledge of their rights and the ability to comprehend long-term consequences.[41]

B. Mental State

Developmental changes in the prefrontal cortex suggest that maturity changes during adolescence significantly affect decision-making and emotional processing capabilities.[42] Abilities like resisting peer pressure, having a future-oriented perspective, and anticipating consequences are significantly lower in those under the age of fifteen.[43] The intersection of these obstacles, combined with the fact that research has shown fewer than five percent of plea forms would be completely comprehensible to the average juvenile defendant at a sixth-grade reading level, demonstrates that youths may be inadequately equipped to fully understand and resist pressure in making plea decisions.[44]

This concern is exacerbated by the fact that many situations present an emotionally charged atmosphere with an unbalanced power structure of judicial authorities over youth defendants.[45] There are further risks associated with youths psychologically resisting paternalistic pressure from defense attorneys. Other concerns in juvenile pleas include attorneys viewing plea deals as quick solutions without considering the complete needs of the defendant,  including coercion from prosecutors and parental guardians not acting in the child’s best interest to avoid litigation costs or general misconceptions about the legal process.[46] Socio-environmental factors may create a coercive system as juveniles tend to focus more on immediate consequences than adults, such as wanting to end the legal process swiftly.[47]

While the practical efficiency reasons for plea bargains are logical, concerns about plea bargaining existing within the juvenile system are extensive.[48] To begin with, if the juvenile system was designed to treat youths differently than adults, then bargaining for admissions should also have a different solution.[49] Juvenile plea deals are tied to a larger conversation about problematic processes in the juvenile criminal justice system.[50] New solutions are needed to reduce recidivism and promote evidence-based options for youths within the criminal justice system.[51]

C. Solutions

Within a plea process, it is important to allow youths to speak with their own voice and express their views.[52] Meaningful choice requires having access to information and education, along with giving respect to youths to improve their perception of the justice system’s integrity.[53] Further, attorneys should explain all information in an age-appropriate way, including all potential consequences and providing nonjudgemental empathy.[54] Better training for attorneys’ interactions with youths and judges offering developmentally appropriate procedures can increase youth compliance and understanding.[55] In the U.S., there are training programs that focus on juvenile law as a specialized practice, such as the National Legal Aid and Defender Association and the National Juvenile Defender Center.[56] However, the length and requirements among states differ, emphasizing the need for a more standardized focus on training that provides competency skills regarding communication with children, trauma, and children’s mental health and development.[57]

A judicial hearing should be conducted in a way that youth can fully understand, and there should also be a standardized script for magistrates.[58] Attentiveness to neurological studies and proper engagement with adolescents during a plea process are integral to fully understanding the circumstances surrounding a judicial outcome.[59]  Psychological research regarding the dynamics of juvenile understanding and plea bargains has only been explored since about 2010.[60] Courts should endorse more research about the effective juvenile perceptions and voluntariness factors regarding juvenile plea deals.[61] Establishing longer standard timeframes for deliberation could help reduce high stress and emotional pressure, as some cases have given juveniles less than an hour to make plea decisions. An effective amount of time may be based on a case-by-case basis.[62] Additionally, providing more opportunities for youth to have prior contact with effective legal counsel could significantly improve their preparedness and competency during plea negotiations.[63]

All juveniles need access to fair legal representation, and there should be proper training for lawyers to effectively advocate for juveniles.[64] Increasing client education for parents and youths to have a better grasp on legal vocabulary and processes is indispensable for reform.[65] Courts are in a difficult place because it would be unfair to deny youths opportunities for good plea bargains just because there may not be full comprehension. Still, competency is an important standard to uphold to ensure youths are not denied their constitutional rights. Courts must certify that the questions being asked when judges determine the acceptance of a plea fully determine what youths understand and explain what they may not fully seem to understand without improperly giving legal advice.[66] Suggestions include involving child advocacy groups and maintaining good relations with these groups that may serve as a check on courts.[67] Advocacy groups may involve grief support groups, the Court Appointed Special Advocates Nationwide Program, the Coalition of Juvenile Justice, and the National Children’s Alliance.[68] Providing more access and knowledge of these advocacy options may be imposed on courts and schools alike so there is more awareness of support options.[69]

A standardized approach to ensure plea validity should confirm that, regardless of age or charge severity, all questions effectively assess the plea and include clear definitions of key terms.[70] Studies have found that constitutional rights are not reviewed in twenty-four percent of cases, that charges are not explained in thirty percent of cases, and questions about any other promises that had been made outside of a plea deal are not asked in sixty-eight percent of cases.[71] Standard questions that should be asked include: if the plea had been reviewed; if the defendant understood the charges; if the defendant understood their constitutional rights; the collateral consequences; any pressure put on the defendant; and what the sentencing guidelines may entail.[72] Judges should phrase questions in plain language and ask the juveniles open-ended follow-up questions to explain concepts in their own words in gauging their level of understanding.[73]

D. Rehabilitative Programs

The focus on rehabilitation for juveniles means that options other than adjudication and detention should be utilized by the juvenile justice system. A 2013 study found that diversion programs were capable of lowering youth recidivism from 41.3 percent to 31.5 percent.[74] Examples of other rehabilitative programs include teen court with a more transformative and alternative process for youth proceedings, mentoring programs, supervised release, counseling, and behavioral therapy.[75] Many nationwide programs have found success, and some are funded by courts or organizations, while others are voluntary. Outcomes from programs find more success if they are multi-pronged, individualized, and focused on involving family members, educational, and employment services.[76] Successful programs will reduce recidivism rates, provide support, and allow juvenile offenders to reintegrate into society.[77] Research has shown that a rehabilitation program being added to a disciplinary action leads to a thirty percent decrease in re-offenses occurring.[78]

Reducing incarceration rates for juveniles can still involve programs that hold them accountable while better reflecting their dignity and potential to work towards a better future.[79] For example, restorative justice community programs for nonviolent offenders work through a non-adversarial mediation process, meeting the needs of victims through dialogue and solutions such as apologies, fines, community service, family group conferences, and school-based restorative justice.[80] Active involvement of victims and community members is encouraged with restorative justice, focusing on values of accountability, inclusion, and reintegration.[81] A successful community court program has been developed in Cook County, Illinois, with healing as a collective goal rather than punishment.[82] Exploring new options and ways to enhance community-based justice programs can encourage all participants to communicate and problem-solve with dignity.[83]

IV. Conclusion

The juvenile justice system’s approach to plea bargaining issues with reaching the knowing, voluntary, and intelligent standards and upholding juvenile defendants’ constitutional rights. Problems include the lack of psychological development for youths that impacts cognitive decision-making, and other coercive influences within the judicial system. The ability to understand and make independent choices has a great impact on plea agreements, which has lifelong effects on a juvenile. Solutions working towards the best interest of youths must keep in mind the socio-environmental influences affecting juvenile defendants. Alternative measures such as restorative justice and promoting standard colloquies are small advances in a much broader need for systematic reform.    

---

[1] Washington Judicial Colloquies Project, Team Child (Oct. 2012), https://juvenilecompetency.virginia.edu/sites/g/files/jsddwu411/files/2020-09/MfC_Washington_Judicial_Colloquies_Project.pdf [https://perma.cc/M7DL-ZPKJ].

[2] Id.

[3] Jennifer L. Woolard et al., Power, Process, and Protection: Juveniles as Defendants in the Justice System, 51 Advances in Child Dev. and Behavior 171 (2016).

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Convention on the Rights of the Child, Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3 (1989); United Nations Standard for Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, Nov. 29, 1985, GA.RES. 40/33; United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, Dec. 14, 1990, GA.RES. 45/113.

[7] Woolard, supra note 3.

[8] Id.  

[9] The Juvenile Court Process, Mowrey Law (April 2024), https://www.mowreylaw.com/the-juvenile-court-process/ [https://perma.cc/LY8S-NCXC].

[10]Id.

[11] Woolard, supra note 3.

[12] Jackson Lanier, Plea Problems and Diversion Dilemmas: Protecting Juvenile Rights Through Pragmatic Means, 14 Ark. J. Soc. Change & Pub. Serv. 31 (2024).

[13] Id.

[14] Id.

[15] Paul Bergman, How Plea Bargains Get Made, Nolo, https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-plea-bargains-get-made.html [https://perma.cc/8J6T-R4YQ] (last visited Nov. 4, 2024).

[16] Allison D. Redlich et al., Guilty Plea Hearings in Juvenile and Criminal Court, 46 Law and Hum. Behavior 337, 340 (2022).

[17] Woolard, supra note 3.

[18] Id.

[19] Id.

[20]Automatic Expungement of Juvenile Records, NCSL (Updated January 04, 2024), https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/automatic-expungement-of-juvenile-records#:~:text=Juvenile%20records%20are%20sealed%20automatically,records%20are%20not%20automatically%20sealed.

[21] Federal Probation, NAT’L INST. OF JUST. (June 1988), https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/112948NCJRS.pdf [https://perma.cc/93EA-5ZU8].

[22] Id.

[23] Woolard, supra note 3.

[24] Id.

[25] Jean J. Cabell & Shawn C. Marsh., Swing and a miss: Reflections on the “voluntariness” of pleas in juvenile court, 117 Child. And Youth Services Rev. 1 (2020).

[26] Woolard, supra note 3.

[27] Id.

[28] Id.  

[29] Judge Steven Teske, Plea Bargaining Hurts Both Guilty and Innocent Kids, Juv. Just. Info. Exch. (Jan. 13, 2020), https://jjie.org/2020/01/13/plea-bargaining-hurts-both-guilty-and-innocent-kids/ [https://perma.cc/3G7S-CY57].

[30] Id.  

[31] Id.

[32] Id.

[33] Id.

[34] Id.

[35] Woolard, supra note 3.

[36] Id.

[37] Redlich, supra note 16.

[38] Id.

[39] Woolard, supra note 3.

[40] Cabell., supra note 25, at 3.

[41] Woolard, supra note 3.

[42] Id.

[43] Id.

[44] Id.

[45] Id.

[46] Id.

[47] Cabell, supra note 25, at 2.

[48] Teske, supra note 29.

[49] Id.

[50] Id.

[51] Id.

[52] Woolard, supra note 3.

[53] Id.

[54] Id.

[55] Id.

[56] Adrienne Winney, Juvenile Defense Attorneys Badly Need Specialized Training, Higher Fees, Center for Sustainable Journalism (Oct. 28, 2015), https://jjie.org/2015/10/28/juvenile-defense-attorneys-badly-need-specialized-training-higher-fees/#:~:text=Since%20its%20decision%20in%20Roper,up%20a%20juvenile%20defense%20specialization. [https://perma.cc/5BM6-WJWX].

[57] Id.

[58] Woolard, supra note 3.

[59] Id.

[60] Cabell, supra note 25, at 1.

[61] Id.

[62] Cabell, supra note 25, at 4.

[63] Id.

[64] Id. at 6.

[65] Id.

[66] Id.

[67] Get Involved: Advocates for Change in Juvenile Justice, ANNIE E. CASEY FOUND. (Mar. 29, 2017), https://www.aecf.org/blog/get-involved-advocates-for-change-in-juvenile-justice#:~:text=Coalition%20for%20Juvenile%20Justice,youth%20enter%20the%20justice%20system. [https://perma.cc/L94G-ANV4].

[68] Id.

[69] Id.

[70] Redlich, supra note 16.

[71] Id.

[72] Id.

[73] Id.

[74] Lanier, supra note 12.

[75] Id.

[76] Richard Mendel, Effective Alternatives to Youth Incarceration, The SENTENCING PROJECT (June 28, 2023), https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/effective-alternatives-to-youth-incarceration/ [https://perma.cc/KBW9-2JXG].

[77] Juvenile Justice: Rehabilitation vs. Disciplinary Action, Wilson College (Jan. 3, 2024), https://online.wilson.edu/resources/juvenile-justice-rehabilitation-vs-disciplinary-action/ [https://perma.cc/P3DE-6VVW].

[78] Id.

[79] Restorative Approach to Youth Justice Contributes to 60% Drop in Incarceration, Prison Fellowship, https://www.prisonfellowship.org/2019/06/restorative-approach-to-youth-justice-contributes-to-drop-in-incarceration/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=MW_PFM_990-50650_googlegrant-fy23_20220701_GNWAAG230104000&utm_content=nil_nil_nil_nil&ms=GNWAAG230104000&mwm_id=295776850205&mwsc=PFM-990-GNDCKA2501000&sc=WB1710B10&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwm5e5BhCWARIsANwm06j1nJuooY8lXdpHiws-E6yvbFSZ4OYj7kvvLUagNXGioKiZON1u6-0aAnw0EALw_wcB [https://perma.cc/L7U4-LUGH] (last visited Nov. 4, 2024).

[80] Restorative Justice for Juveniles, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/model-programs-guide/literature-reviews/restorative-justice-for-juveniles [https://perma.cc/HM3F-5LBC] (last visited Nov. 4, 2024).

[81] Restorative Justice Community Courts, State of Illinois Circuit Court of Cook County, https://www.cookcountycourt.org/division/restorative-justice-community-courts [https://perma.cc/DK6R-PSLC] (last visited Nov. 4, 2024).

[82] Id.

[83] Id.

---

Cover Photo by Srqpix on Flickr.