Research Paper: Discussion of the Juvenile Courtroom Actors Assignment
Pablo Valdez
Liberty University
CJUS 702 Advanced Juvenile Justice Policy D02
Dr. David Conn
November 16, 2025
THE JUVENILE COURTROOM ACTORS 2
ABSTRACT
The juvenile court system is a joint responsibility of the prosecutor, the defense attorney,
and the judge. They represent the legal system that largely influences the juvenile's future life
path. In the extended essay, the court actors are closely related, though they are separate. The
prosecutor's function is to protect public safety, which is exercised through discretion. The role
of the defense attorney is essential in due process, juvenile rights, and treatment, as they
advocate for developmentally appropriate care for court-involved juveniles (Defense attorneys'
concerns about the competence of adolescent defendants, 2010; National Juvenile Defender
Center, 2017). The third actor, the judge, acts as the lawgiver, child saver, and parent surrogate
through their judicial discretion (Abrams, 2019). This discretion either helps or hinders the
juvenile's rehabilitation and affects how the case might play out, as it is wide and causes
disparity (Zane & Welsh, 2018). This paper uses a Christian worldview to explain how biblical
principles, justice, mercy, advocacy for the vulnerable, and human dignity relate to juvenile
courts' rehabilitative focus (Holy Bible, New International Version, 2011). This paper strongly
maintains that when judicial proceedings, discretion, development, and Christian values are
balanced, the juvenile justice system can be closely related to justice, compassion, and hope for
change (Effectiveness of the implementation of restorative justice in the juvenile criminal justice
system, 2025; Ready et al., 2021).
DISCUSSION OF THE JUVENILE COURTROOM ACTORS
THE JUVENILE COURTROOM ACTORS 3
Introduction
Juvenile courts were created to uphold a fundamental truth: children are not just
miniature adults. They think differently, mature at different rates, and use different
decisionmaking processes (Steinberg, 2017). Neuroscientific research has demonstrated that
adolescent brain development continues into early adulthood, particularly in areas such as
impulse control, risk assessment, and future orientation (Steinberg, 2017). Because of these
factors, the juvenile justice system must incorporate rehabilitation, proportional accountability,
and procedural fairness (Ready et al., 2021; Effectiveness of the implementation of restorative
justice in the juvenile criminal justice system, 2025). Prosecutors, defense counsel, and judges
not only serve the Constitution in the courtroom but also serve youth by providing
opportunities for growth and restoration (Marder & Forde, 2023; Ready et al., 2021). This paper
discusses the actors in the courtroom and their impact on the juvenile court. In addition, the
biblical worldview is interwoven throughout the paper to show how the justice system serves
the rehabilitative aspect of juvenile justice (Holy Bible, New International Version, 2011).
The Role of the Prosecutor in Juvenile Court
The prosecutor is the state's agent and a community's watchdog. However, juvenile
court is not an adult criminal court. The prosecutor must find the balance between holding
youth accountable for their actions and keeping the juvenile justice system focused on
rehabilitation (Abrams, 2019; Mowl, 2000). Prosecutorial discretion largely determines the
course of most juvenile cases. Prosecutors decide whether to file a petition, divert a youth,
recommend detention, or transfer a youth to adult court (Mowl, 2000).
THE JUVENILE COURTROOM ACTORS 4
Prosecutorial Discretion and Youth Outcomes
Prosecutors can turn a young person's misstep into a chance for redemption or a ticket
deeper into the system. When they use diversion ethically and with an understanding of
development, prosecutors can reduce recidivism and enhance public safety (Ready et al., 2021;
Restorative justice and juvenile recidivism, 2021). However, that same discretion can increase
inequity and bias. Minority youth are more likely to face formal charges and harsher
recommendations (Abrams, 2019; Zane & Welsh, 2018).
Ethical Considerations and Developmental Science
Prosecutors need to understand and apply developmental science. Adolescents often act
on impulse, give in to peer pressure, and misperceive consequences. These are behaviors linked
to development, not a fixed criminal mindset (Steinberg, 2017). Prosecutors who use a
traumainformed lens and are sensitive to adverse childhood experiences can help reduce harm
and promote rehabilitation (Associations between adverse childhood experiences and trauma
among young people who offend, 2021).
The Role of Defense Counsel in Juvenile Court
Defense counsel safeguards the rights of young people in a system that leaves them
vulnerable and easily misunderstood. The right to counsel embodies the notion that children
need advocates to counterbalance the state's power (National Juvenile Defender Center, 2017).
THE JUVENILE COURTROOM ACTORS 5
Protecting Due Process
Most adolescents have an incomplete understanding of plea agreements, legal
terminology, or their own rights. Defense attorneys help youth understand legal concepts in
developmentally appropriate ways and protect youth from coercion or undue influence
(Defense attorneys' concerns about the competence of adolescent defendants, 2010).
Advocacy Inside and Outside the Courtroom
Defense counsel advocates for mental health services, educational assessments,
traumainformed care, and culturally appropriate interventions. Most of the court-involved
youth are also dealing with challenges such as poverty, instability, or learning disabilities.
Defense attorneys are mindful of these contextual factors and ensure they are part of
disposition decisions (Associations between adverse childhood experiences and trauma among
young people who offend, 2021).
Counterbalancing State Power
Without effective defense counsel, the rehabilitative mission of the juvenile court is
threatened. Defense attorneys ensure that decisions are grounded in evidence, fairness, and
developmental appropriateness rather than assumptions or punitive impulses (National Juvenile
Defender Center, 2017).
Why Balanced Legal Representation Matters
Balanced representation by prosecutors and defense counsel ensures:
THE JUVENILE COURTROOM ACTORS 6
Procedural fairness: Youth and families have a constitutional right to counsel, a right against
self-incrimination, a right to a meaningful hearing, and more. Balanced representation provides
the support needed to safeguard these rights and the youth's liberty (National Juvenile
Defender Center, 2017).
Reduction of disparities: Racial and socioeconomic disparities continue to plague the juvenile
justice system. Balanced representation helps level the playing field by holding decision-makers
accountable for their actions and requiring that all court decisions be well-reasoned and
evidence-based (Abrams, 2019; Zane & Welsh, 2018).
Legitimacy of the system: Youth who perceive the court process as fair and respectful are more
likely to accept court orders and desist from future crime (Ready et al., 2021).
Long-term rehabilitation: Balanced representation promotes developmentally appropriate,
individualized interventions that are known to decrease recidivism and foster youth
development (Ready et al., 2021; Effectiveness of the implementation of restorative justice in
the juvenile criminal justice system, 2025).
The Juvenile Court Judge as Lawgiver and Parental Figure
The juvenile court judge has one of the most diverse, complex, and challenging jobs in
the justice system. Judges in adult criminal courts focus primarily on the application and
interpretation of law. Juvenile court judges, on the other hand, function within a more
specialized philosophical and historical context (Abrams, 2019). The juvenile court was initially
established under the parens patriae doctrine. It was accepted that the state has a right, and
even an obligation, to intrude on the child's life for the child's own good. Juvenile judges are,
THE JUVENILE COURTROOM ACTORS 7
therefore, not only the exponents of the law but also surrogate parents who must act in the
best interests of the children who appear before them. Juvenile court judges must internalize
this dual role, and it influences every decision they make. It has both benefits and potential
hazards (Abrams, 2019).
Advantages of the Dual Role
One of the primary strengths of this dual function is that it allows the judge to draw on a
much wider, more holistic array of information when deciding on the disposition most
appropriate for a youth. As we have already discussed, juvenile judges are not limited to using
the facts of the offense in making their determination of what is needed to promote the youth's
long-term best interest. Many juvenile judges also look at developmental, psychological, social,
and environmental factors when crafting dispositions (Steinberg, 2017; Associations between
adverse childhood experiences and trauma among young people who offend, 2021). This means
the judge may also consider a youth's mental health history, trauma exposure, school
attendance patterns, peer groups, family situation, and community supports when crafting a
disposition. This broad perspective allows for dispositions that can be more finely tailored to the
youth's needs and more likely to support positive development over the long term.
In many cases, this latitude can allow a juvenile judge to focus more on rehabilitation
than on punishment. Judges can often assign youth to educational services, therapy or
counseling, some form of structured supervision, substance use treatment, or restorative justice
practices as part of a disposition (Effectiveness of the implementation of restorative justice in
the juvenile criminal justice system, 2025; Marder & Forde, 2023). Adolescents are still
developing cognitively and emotionally, so research has shown that interventions that address
THE JUVENILE COURTROOM ACTORS 8
behavior change, skills development, emotion regulation, and accountability are more effective
than punishments alone. The judge's ability to craft individualized responses can therefore be a
critical factor in preventing recidivism and promoting positive life outcomes (Ready et al., 2021).
Another strength lies in the interaction between the juvenile judge and the young people before
the court. The judge who takes the time to speak with youth directly, who makes clear what is
expected of them, and who reinforces positive action with encouragement can have a positive
therapeutic effect. This influence stems from the authority unique to the juvenile judge.
Suppose adolescents in the juvenile justice system feel that an adult in authority respects and
understands them. In that case, they are more likely to follow the judge's orders, reflect on their
choices, and take away meaningful lessons about accountability and self-control.
Additionally, many youths who find themselves in front of juvenile judges are coming
from chaotic or unstable home situations. For some youth, the courtroom may be one of the
few settings with clear boundaries, expectations, and accountability. A judge who calmly models
respect, authority, and fairness can help to provide stability for a youth. This authoritative, but
supportive presence can make a youth feel that change is possible and that adults in society
care about their future. At the system level, the judge's discretion also allows for less reliance on
confinement. Suppose a juvenile judge is familiar with community resources, trauma-informed
practice, and adolescent development. In that case, the judge can often divert youth to services
that will help address the root causes of delinquency rather than simply locking them up. This
has the dual benefit of preventing the harmful consequences of detention or
institutionalization, while reducing court congestion and promoting a more efficient and
humane system overall (Effectiveness of the implementation of restorative justice in the juvenile
criminal justice system, 2025; Marder & Forde, 2023).
THE JUVENILE COURTROOM ACTORS 9
Disadvantages and Risks
In addition to its advantages, the overlap between the lawgiver and parent also carries
risks. One issue is the potential arbitrariness inherent in the juvenile court's broad discretion.
For example, two young people who commit similar offenses and have identical histories could
experience markedly different treatment from different judges, even in the same jurisdiction.
Decisions could turn on the judge's personal philosophy, the individual's subjective views about
rehabilitation, or the judge's implicit bias and stereotypes. The outcomes of youth who share
similar demographic characteristics may differ because of race, social class, gender, or other
factors (Abrams, 2019; Zane & Welsh, 2018). A second risk is that a judge may have good
intentions, but the parental framing may ultimately cloud due process rights. The parens patriae
posture is, by definition, protective. A judge's protective instincts may lead them to overstep a
young person's rights or, in the judge's view, to minimize a young person's voice. The
assumption of this protective role can also unintentionally weaken defense counsel's role by
rendering objections or disagreement with a judge's stated logic as somehow inappropriate or
unprofessional, even when the judge is arguing from a position of parental authority (National
Juvenile Defender Center, 2017). A third problem is that, in some cases, parental framing may
undermine youth agency. Adolescents need to be heard and feel they have a voice and a role in
their decisions.
Judges taking too strong a hand in determining a youth's course can lead to
disengagement on the youth's part. The court outcomes may be seen as something that is done
to them, rather than something in which they have a say or with which they can engage. This
could negatively impact rehabilitation, which depends on youth engagement. A fourth
THE JUVENILE COURTROOM ACTORS 10
consequence of the dual role is that it may set up judges to have more power or responsibility
than is realistic. Crime among children and adolescents is deeply tied to structural conditions.
When youth encounter the juvenile court, the problems they present may be symptoms of
larger, systemic issues like poverty, community violence, housing instability, school inequality, or
family trauma. A judge, no matter how well-intentioned, is only one part of the system and has
limited capacity to address the larger, structural issues that are the root cause of a young
person's problems. When the justice system places too much faith in judicial authority, it can
ignore the need for community-based intervention and systemic reform (Zane & Welsh, 2018).
A fifth issue is that when judges interact with youth and engage in a parental role, they may lose
emotional boundaries. Carrying the hopes, aspirations, and sometimes the failure of parents
can take a toll on judges who may be exposed to difficult family situations, histories of trauma,
and to tough decisions about confinement or removal of a child from a home. In addition, this
personal approach to decision-making may lead some actors (probation officers, defense
counsel, prosecutors) to perceive decisions as more arbitrary or less grounded in law. A sixth
and final issue is that the responsibility to care for and rehabilitate youth and the responsibility
to hold youth accountable for behavior can sometimes conflict. Some conduct may warrant
consequences to ensure public safety or to show victims that their harm was not condoned. Too
much flexibility or leniency may ignore a community's needs, the seriousness of an offense, or
victims' rights. Empathy and responsibility are not always easy to balance, and the judge's
parental role may muddy the application of the law.
Christian Worldview
A Christian worldview provides a valuable ethical and theological framework for
understanding the purpose and role of the juvenile justice system (Holy Bible, New International
THE JUVENILE COURTROOM ACTORS 11
Version, 2011). While the legal system concerns itself with issues of responsibility, public safety,
and rehabilitation, Scripture offers insights into more profound truths about the nature of
humanity, the importance of compassion and justice, and the possibility of redemption and
transformation. These biblical principles closely align with the goals of the juvenile justice
system and help us understand why young people deserve both justice and a chance at new
beginnings (Holy Bible, New International Version, 2011).
Human Dignity
At the core of a biblical view of juvenile justice is the notion that all people are of value.
Genesis 1:27 NIV states, "So God created mankind in his own image." This is as true for
offenders as it is for the faultless. Troubled teens and delinquents do not lose their status as
image bearers because of their destructive choices. Since young offenders are made in the
image of God, they are entitled to the full measure of grace and dignity. Their sin does not
define them or their ultimate worth. What their choices do is remind the justice system that
every youth has worth, value, and a purpose. This view of the offender can transform how
judges and courts view these cases. It is to protect and nurture, not eradicate, the problem
(Holy Bible, New
International Version, 2011).
Justice and Mercy
Scripture keeps justice and mercy in tension, and both are critically important to an
accurate theology of juvenile courts. Micah 6:8 NIV says, "He has shown you, O mortal, what is
good. Moreover, what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk
THE JUVENILE COURTROOM ACTORS 12
humbly with your God." There is a beauty in how the biblical mandate requires justice and
mercy in equal measure. Juvenile courts, at their best, function to do just that. To act justly is to
ensure that young people are held accountable and that justice is served by addressing harm
done. To love mercy is to remember that youth are limited by their development, trauma
histories, and the adverse environments that have often shaped their life experiences. A
juvenile judge, probation officer, or practitioner who lives this biblical tension will have firm
boundaries and clear expectations, but will also be tough on accountability issues, never harsh
on the child. The justice system can address wrongs done and provide consequences for
youthful behavior while still being kind to the child. Part of that merciful kindness is found in
restoration (Holy Bible, New International Version, 2011).
Restoration
The heart of the gospel is restoration. Jesus continually teaches about the lost being
found and returned home. Luke 15 is a series of parables about restoration. When a sheep goes
missing, it is the job of the shepherd to seek out the lost sheep until it is found. The parable of
the lost sheep is the story of God. It perfectly aligns with the juvenile court's idea. When we
commit to programs of restoration and rehabilitation, individualized and family counseling,
efforts to help children heal and communities to rebuild, when we look for resources to address
trauma, and when we connect with youth who have been lost, our juvenile court system reflects
the heart of a God who restores, who does not throw people away. This does not mean
restoration is without accountability. It is there to hold youth accountable for their actions and
to help right the wrongs in any way they can. Restoration work rebuilds what has been broken,
THE JUVENILE COURTROOM ACTORS 13
repairs relationships, helps the young person find a better path, and gives them a chance to
return home (Holy Bible, New International Version, 2011).
Advocacy for the Vulnerable
Justice requires that we speak for those who are too weak to speak for themselves. This
principle is biblical (Proverbs 31:8-9, NIV). Children often lack the language skills, social maturity,
emotional regulation, or self-confidence to present themselves meaningfully in the justice
system. Defense attorneys exercise this virtue, giving young people a voice in a process they
could not otherwise navigate. However, this is more than a technical requirement of due
process. It is a moral matter. Attorneys fight for the rights of youth to be treated as human
beings. They ensure that their story is told and that their needs are considered. The Christian
worldview gives us reason to say that advocacy is justice, and care for the weak reflects God's
character (Holy Bible, New International Version, 2011; National Juvenile Defender Center,
2017).
Transformation
Change is the gospel story. Romans 12:2 NIV tells us that if we renew our minds, we will
be transformed by the renewing of our thinking. There is something about the gospel that
changes lives. This is also true for juvenile justice. Adolescents are works in progress. They are
figuring things out and learning how to be adults. Given discipline, education, training,
counseling, and spiritual guidance, the lives of young people can be radically changed. When
juvenile courts place youth with mentors, send them to school, offer counseling and mental
health treatment, and work to secure a stable and structured life, they are following this
THE JUVENILE COURTROOM ACTORS 14
theology of change. They are creating the circumstances that make change possible, allowing
youth to reevaluate their decisions and create new futures. From a Christian worldview, no
young person is unredeemable. Change is always possible (Holy Bible, New International
Version, 2011).
Conclusion
Juvenile judges, state's attorneys, and defense counsel each have critical roles in creating
a fair and effective juvenile justice system that protects youth and the public. Prosecutors have a
duty to make ethical and developmentally appropriate charging decisions (Mowl, 2000; Ready
et al., 2021). Defense attorneys are obligated to ensure their clients' rights are protected and to
advocate zealously for vulnerable youth (Defense attorneys' concerns about the competence of
adolescent defendants, 2010; National Juvenile Defender Center, 2017). Judges are responsible
for maintaining the authority and dignity of the court, providing young people with
opportunities for rehabilitation, and upholding due process (Abrams, 2019). When the juvenile
justice system is informed by the law and developmental science and shaped by Christian
principles of justice, mercy, and human dignity, it can provide accountability for youth, protect
the public, and afford every young person the chance for redemption and transformation (Holy
Bible, New
International Version, 2011; Steinberg, 2017; Ready et al., 2021).
REFERENCES:
THE JUVENILE COURTROOM ACTORS 15
Abrams, L. S. (2019). Review of the book The evolution of the juvenile court: Race politics and
the criminalizing of juvenile justice, by B. C. Feld. Contemporary Sociology, 48(2), 168–169.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0094306119828696k
Associations between adverse childhood experiences and trauma among young people who
offend. (2021). Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 23(2).
https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380211013132
Defense attorneys concern about the competence of adolescent defendants. (2010). Behavioral
Sciences and the Law, 28(5), 630–646. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.954
Effectiveness of the implementation of restorative justice in the juvenile criminal justice system.
(2025). Rechtsnormen Journal of Law, 3(1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.70177/rjl.v3i1.2068 Holy
Bible. New International Version. (2011). Zondervan.
Marder, I. D., & Forde, L. (2023). Challenges in the future of restorative youth justice in Ireland:
Minimizing intervention, maximizing participation. Youth Justice, 23(2), 201–225.
https://doi.org/10.1177/14732254221122568
Mowl, T. (2000). The changing borders of juvenile justice: Transfer of adolescents to the criminal
court. https://doi.org/10.1086/681553
National Juvenile Defender Center. (2017). Access denied: A national snapshot of states’ failure
to protect children’s right to counsel. https://njdc.info
Ready, J., Cullen, J., & Harding, D. (2021). Restorative justice and juvenile recidivism. National
THE JUVENILE COURTROOM ACTORS 16
Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 29150. https://doi.org/10.3386/w29150
Steinberg, L. (2017). Adolescent brain science and juvenile justice policy. Psychology, Public
Policy, and Law, 23(4), 410–420. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000132
Zane, S., & Welsh, B. (2018). Juvenile justice and disparities in delinquency outcomes. Crime and
Delinquency, 64(7), 832–854. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128717743779
