Should Children Be Held Accountable? Rethinking Responsibility, Harm and Justice
Few questions generate more debate in youth justice than whether children should be held accountable for their actions. When a child causes harm, particularly serious harm, the public conversation often becomes polarised. On one side are calls for punishment and personal responsibility. On the other are concerns about exploitation, trauma, and the circumstances shaping children's behaviour. At Ending Coercive Offending, we believe this is the wrong question. The more useful question is: What does meaningful accountability look like for children?
Accountability Is Not the Same as Punishment
Too often accountability is treated as a synonym for punishment. Yet punishment alone tells us very little about whether harm has been repaired, whether victims have been heard, or whether future harm is less likely. A child can be punished without understanding the impact of their actions. A child can be punished without changing their behavior. A child can be punished while the underlying factors that contributed to the harm remain completely untouched. True accountability requires something deeper. It requires children to understand the consequences of their actions, acknowledge harm, take active steps to repair that harm where possible, and develop the capacity to make different choices in the future.
What Can Restorative Justice Teach Us?
One of the most compelling examples comes from the work of Common Justice, a restorative justice programme in New York - established by Danielle Sered
Rather than defaulting to incarceration, Common Justice offers an alternative process where victims, responsible parties, and their wider support networks participate in a structured restorative process.
The model includes:
Careful preparation with all parties.
Exploring the impact of the harm caused.
Bringing people together in a facilitated restorative circle.
Developing a collective accountability agreement.
Monitoring progress and supporting reintegration.
What is striking about this approach is that accountability is not reduced to punishment. Instead, those responsible are expected to actively engage with the consequences of their actions, listen to those they have harmed, and undertake meaningful actions to repair damage and rebuild trust. In many respects, this demands more of an individual than simply receiving a punishment imposed by a court.
Research consistently demonstrates that children are still developing cognitively, emotionally, and socially. Their decision-making, impulse control, susceptibility to peer influence, and ability to assess risk differ significantly from adults. This does not mean children should be excused from responsibility. It means accountability must be developmentally appropriate. When we hold children accountable as though they possess the capacities of mature adults, we risk misunderstanding both the child and the behaviour. Equally, when we remove all responsibility from children, we deny them agency and the opportunity to learn, repair relationships, and develop. The challenge is to find approaches that recognise both realities simultaneously.
Accountability Must Also Include Systems
At Ending Coercive Offending, much of our work focuses on children who have experienced exploitation, coercion, neglect, exclusion, racism, poverty, or other forms of adversity. What we are clear about is that children who cause harm have also experienced significant harm. Recognising this does not remove accountability. However, it does raise another question: Who else should be accountable? If a child has been groomed into criminal activity, failed repeatedly by services, excluded from education, exposed to violence, or left without meaningful support, accountability cannot rest with the child. Communities, institutions, and systems also have responsibilities. An approach that focuses exclusively on individual blame risks missing the wider conditions that helped create the circumstances in which harm occurred. The debate should not be between punishment and no accountability.
Instead, we should ask:
How do we help children understand the impact of their actions?
How do we support victims to have their voices heard?
How do we repair harm where possible?
How do we reduce the likelihood of future harm?
How do we recognise the wider conditions shaping children's behaviour?
The work of Common Justice shows that accountability can be rigorous, meaningful, and focused on repair rather than punishment alone. For children, this may offer a more effective route towards responsibility, healing, and safer communities. The question is not whether children should be held accountable. The question is whether we are prepared to create forms of accountability that genuinely work.
Common Justice. Restorative Justice Diversion Model. New York: Common Justice. Available at: https://www.commonjustice.org
Written by: Sherry Peck