Accountable to what?

Abstract

Formal philosophical and procedural aspects of American juvenile justice have been transformed over the past half-century by `accountability' movements. Yet the meaning of accountability in juvenile justice — specifically who is to be held accountable and to whom — has varied over time making its present application unclear. In this article, we first describe two models of accountability ideals and how each developed. We discuss how traditional rehabilitative ideals were first displaced by `system accountability' reforms emphasizing fairness and youths' rights, followed by `juvenile accountability' reforms emphasizing punishment and victims' interests. We then explore how juvenile court judges, lawyers and probations officers in four states prioritize these accountability principles. While decision makers in our sample prioritize a system accountability perspective, especially as this relates to rehabilitative ideals, there is considerable diversity in orientation. Professional roles and racial identities of decision makers significantly shape their prioritization of various accountability goals.