Are we safer treating young offenders like adult criminals?

NPR did a great story recently on the differences between the Missouri and Texas juvenile justice systems. Missouri treats young offenders differently than adult criminals, recognizing there is a greater chance at rehabilitating someone young who is just starting down the wrong path than there is with hardened criminals. And Missouri's results? A 7% recidivism rate in their juvenile system, almost unheard of elsewhere. Meanwhile, the recidivism rate in the Texas system is over 50%. It doesn't take a genius to realize that when you reduce the recidivism rate that much, you have actually prevented crimes and saved lives (perhaps literally through lower homicide rates, and also redeeming the life of a young person who was previously headed toward crime). If you want to see a visual contrast between the two systems, look at these pictures taken at facilities in...

Missouri:

And Texas:

In the 1990's, as we as a society grew more concerned about crime, we decided to get more punitive, saying that if we just had harsher punishment, it would serve as a deterrent (because we all know that teenagers frequently think through the consequences of their actions). Yet the data show that the Missouri system, which actually treats kids like kids, reduces crime and keeps society safer. The Texas system has harsher conditions, and it is a crime factory. Worse still, we decided in Arizona in the 1990's that many offenders under 18 should go to adult jails, again with the idea that the punishment would be harsher and that would serve as a deterrent and teach them their lessons. Yet studies show that young people sent to the juvenile system have a lower recidivism rate than kids who are sent to prison with the big boys, who really know how to steal and kill. Is this surprising?

Photos courtesy of National Public Radio. They are used without permission, given that it is PUBLIC radio. (If I could afford a lawyer, I might be disabused of such a silly idea).