Who Deserves Diversion? A Theoretical Critique of Mitigation, Consequentialism, and the Juvenile Court

Abstract

The juvenile court was created as a means of diverting youth from the criminal justice system, and, in turn, diversion within the juvenile court has been used for a variety of purposes. This paper argues that an understanding of diversion, and its implications, requires distinguishing deservingness and consequentialism. Analysis of the former goal entails a focus on mitigation and draws attention to a critical gap in scholarship—namely, how do juvenile courts decide which youth deserve diversion? While risk and needs assessments likely play a role, so, too, may mitigation assessments about which youth are more deserving of interventions that may impose less punishment and more rehabilitation. In advancing this argument, we discuss ways in which a focus on diversion, and on mitigation, help to illuminate fundamental tensions in juvenile justice. We discuss, too, ways in which this focus can help to advance research and policy.