Youth Court Function Program Model

Differences also exist in the functions and designs of youth court programs. First of all, it should be noted that a large majority of youth court programs in the United States serve a sentencing function only. That is, prior to participating in the program, most require the juvenile offender to admit guilt or agree not to contest the charges. The primary function of these youth court programs is to determine a fair and appropriate sentence. 

However, there are a few programs that will allow defendants to plead "not guilty." If the defendant pleads not guilty, the youth court program conducts a hearing to determine guilt or innocence. If the defendant is found "guilty," then an appropriate sentence is rendered by the youth court. Regardless of the function and design of the program, when there is no formal arrest made in the referral of a case to youth court, most programs provide for the dismissal or expungement of charges against the defendant if s/he successfully completes the program. 
The manner in which youth or youth courts conduct hearings or trials also varies. The following section summarizes the four primary youth court program models currently in operation. 

Adult Judge Model
The Adult Judge Model has youth volunteers serving in the roles of:

• defense attorneys; 
• prosecuting attorneys; and 
• jurors. 

Most programs that operate as an Adult Judge Model also use youth volunteers to serve as court clerks and bailiffs. However, in this model an adult volunteer serves in the role of judge. The judge is typically the only adult involved directly in the proceedings, and the judge's role is to rule on courtroom procedure and clarify legal terminology. This appears to be the model most widely used throughout the United States.

Youth Judge Model
The Youth Judge Model differs from the Adult Judge Model in that youth also serve in the role of judge. Qualifications of youth judges typically include a minimum level of service as youth court attorneys, and minimum age requirements.

Youth Tribunal Model
The primary difference in the Youth Tribunal Model, when compared to all other youth or youth court program models, is that there are no youth jurors. The case is presented by the youth attorneys to a youth judge(s), who determine the appropriate sentence for the youth court defendant. Most programs that use the Youth Tribunal Model employ a panel of three youth volunteer judges. The youth volunteer judge with the most experience sits in the middle of the panel and can counsel the other two youth judges, if needed. For those youth court programs that adjudicate cases, this model typically is used for arraignment proceedings.

Peer Jury Model
The main distinction between programs operating under the Adult Judge, Youth Judge or Youth Tribunal Models versus Peer Jury Models, is that peer jury model youth court programs do not use youth in defense and prosecuting attorney roles. Instead, the facts of the case are read by a case presenter and a panel of youth jurors question the defendant directly. Most have an adult volunteer serve in the role of judge. Depending on the program, the case presenter could be the youth court coordinator, a probation or law enforcement officer, or a youth or adult volunteer. Some programs use the peer jury model exclusively, while other programs use this model for certain types of cases being heard or for cases involving younger youth court defendants.