In the 1990s, juvenile crime – especially violent crime – decreased, although policies remained the same. [ 4 ] Schools and politicians adopted zero tolerance policies with regard to crime, and argued that rehabilitative approaches were less effective than strict punishment. [ 4 ] The increased ease in trying juveniles as adults became a defining feature of “tough-on-crime” policies in the 1990s. As Loyola law professor Sacha Coupet argues, “[o]ne way in which "get tough" advocates have supported a merger between the adult criminal and juvenile systems is by expanding the scope of transfer provisions or waivers that bring children under the jurisdiction of the adult criminal system”. [ 17 ] Some states moved specific classes of crimes from the juvenile court to adult criminal court while others gave this power to judges or prosecutors on a case-by-case basis. Still others require the courts to treat offending youth like adults, but within the juvenile system. In some states, adjudicated offenders face mandatory sentences. [ 12 ] By 1997, all but three states had passed a combination of laws that eased use of transfer provisions, provided courts with expanded sentencing options and removed the confidentiality tradition of the juvenile court. [ 12 ] Juvenile courts were transformed to more easily allow for prosecution of juveniles adults at the same time the adult system was re-defining which acts constituted a “serious crime.” The “three strikes laws” that began in 1993 fundamentally altered the criminal offenses that resulted in detention, imprisonment and even a life sentence, for both youth and adults. [ 4 ] “Three strikes laws” were not specific to juvenile offenders, but they were enacted during a period when the lines between juvenile and adult court were becoming increasingly blurred. The War on Drugs and “tough-on-crime” policies like Three Strikes resulted in an explosion in the number of incarcerated individuals. [ 18 ]
Implementation of the Gun Free School Act (GFSA) in 1994 is one example of a "tough on crime" policy that has contributed to increased numbers of young people being arrested and detained. [ 19 ] It was intended to prosecute young offenders for serious crimes like gun possession on school property, but many states interpreted this law to include less dangerous weapons and drug possession. [ 19 ] Many schools even interpreted GFSA to include “infractions that pose no safety concern, such as 'disobeying [school] rules, 'insubordination,' and 'disruption”. [ 20 ] These offenses can now warrant suspension, expulsion and involvement with juvenile justice courts. [ 6 ] Schools have become the primary stage for juvenile arrest and the charges brought against them and punishments they face are increasing in severity. Today this is frequently referred to as the School to prison pipeline .