Balancing accountability and rehabilitation in juvenile justice

Nebraska lawmakers are considering LB556, a bill that would lower the minimum age for prosecuting juveniles as adults from 14 to 12 and allow detention for youth as young as 11. The proposal responds to concerns about rising violent crime among younger offenders, but it also raises questions about how best to balance public safety with rehabilitation.

Juvenile crime in Nebraska has followed a national pattern—declining significantly since the 1990s but showing a recent uptick in serious offenses. In Omaha, violent crimes involving minors, including homicides, have heightened fears that the current juvenile system lacks the tools to handle the most extreme cases. Proponents argue that LB556 provides flexibility for law enforcement and the courts to address these rare but serious threats while ensuring public safety.

Nebraska’s current law is more protective of young offenders than many states, where 12-year-olds can already face adult charges for violent felonies. Some states, like Missouri and Colorado, allow children as young as 10 to be tried as adults in extreme cases. While Nebraska has previously prioritized juvenile rehabilitation, LB556 would bring the state in line with those that allow earlier intervention.

However, the question remains: Does prosecuting younger juveniles as adults reduce crime? Decades of research suggest that placing minors in the adult system often increases recidivism rather than preventing future offenses. Youth processed as adults are more likely to reoffend than those who go through rehabilitation-focused juvenile courts. They face higher risks of abuse, trauma, and long-term negative consequences that can turn early mistakes into lifelong patterns of criminal behavior.

Yet, Nebraska cannot ignore the reality that some young offenders commit serious crimes and pose an immediate risk. The challenge is ensuring that LB556 is applied judiciously. The bill does not mandate adult prosecution for all 12-year-olds but allows for judicial discretion in the most severe cases. This distinction is crucial. Adult charges should be reserved for repeat violent offenders, not first-time youth who make a tragic but isolated mistake.

If Nebraska moves forward with LB556, lawmakers must also maintain investment in rehabilitation efforts. The juvenile justice system should still be the primary avenue for addressing youth crime, with interventions focused on education, mental health support, and family involvement. Increased penalties for repeat offenders should not come at the expense of rehabilitation programs that have proven effective in reducing crime long-term.

LB556 presents a difficult but necessary conversation. While we support the bill’s intent to ensure accountability for violent youth offenders, Nebraska must ensure that its implementation does not lead to a broad criminalization of young children. The state should continue prioritizing rehabilitation for first-time offenders while using stronger penalties only in cases of repeated or severe violence.

A justice system that balances public safety and second chances is the right path forward. Nebraska must get the balance right.