Edited by Zara Jamshed, Mashal Natha, and Samra Khan
Abstract
The fragmented landscape of juvenile sentencing in the United States leaves many youths vulnerable to disproportionate and punitive treatment, despite clear constitutional and scientific grounds for reform. This paper traces the historical evolution of the juvenile justice system, analyzes Supreme Court doctrine, and presents empirical evidence demonstrating the superiority of rehabilitation over retribution. It argues that only a federal statutory mandate can establish uniform, developmentally appropriate, and constitutionally sound sentencing standards for juveniles across all states. By proposing a national rehabilitative model, this paper offers a principled solution to persistent disparities, ensuring that all youth receive individualized consideration and a meaningful opportunity for redemption.
