Crime, Youth, and Neuroscience A Reflection on Correctional Measures for Juvenile Offenders in China’s Specialized Schools

Juvenile delinquency is a significant judicial challenge worldwide. In China, adolescents have such behaviors are typically sent to specialized schools for correctional education. This intervention occurs during the developmental period of “storm and stress,” when the adolescent brain is undergoing dramatic remodeling, which is fundamentally different from the adult brain in the capacity for cognitive and behavioral control [10]. The “dual systems model” from developmental neuroscience offers a framework for understanding this period. In the adolescent brain, the limbic system responsible for emotions and reward develops rapidly, while the prefrontal cortex for rational control develops relatively slowly. This developmental mismatch forms the physiological basis for their natural propensity for risky behavior [5]. Importantly, the adolescent brain exhibits a high degree of plasticity, which means that a stressful and negative environment could cause profound harm. From a neuroscience perspective, this paper investigates how well China’s specialized correctional schools accommodate adolescent brain development.

Adolescence represents a sensitive period of neuroplasticity, during which environmental inputs profoundly shape brain structure and function [9]. The closed environment of specialized schools, with its potential for chronic stress, social deprivation and punitive modes, may directly harm the developing brain of adolescents. For instance, long-term stress has been shown to damage the hippocampus, which is vital for learning and memory, and impair the prefrontal cortex that regulates executive functions [2,8]. Isolation from family and prosocial peers can also hinder the development of the “social brain” network that responsible for empathy and trust [1]. Moreover, fear-based punishment modes primarily activate defensive responses dominated by the amygdala, a mechanism that conflicts with the goal of fostering higher cognitive and self-control abilities [2,6]. Overall, such correctional environments may weaken the biological foundations necessary for healthy adolescent development at the neural level.

According to the Law on the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency（ 《预防未成年人犯罪法》）, China’s specialized schools aim to implement “education-first, punishment-secondary” protective measures, which align with principles from neuroscience [7]. However, there exists a significant gap between legislative principles and practical implementation. The broad legal mandates have not been operationalized into uniform standards, generating substantial discrepancies in admission assessment procedures across regions [11]. Resource misallocations are reflected in acute shortages of qualified teachers, monotonous curricula, and undifferentiated “mixed management and teaching” modes. Such structural barriers foster negative socialization patterns and compromise environmental enrichment essential for typical brain maturation [11]. As a result, this kind of management often devolves into high-pressure control, compounded by societal prejudices and stigmas against specialized schools, posing ongoing risks to students’ psychological and neural development.

From a neuroscientific perspective, China’s current correctional measures exhibit three core deficiencies. The first concerns a behavioral correction paradox wherein impulse suppression through intensive external control contradicts established evidence that authentic self-regulation depends on prefrontal cortex maturation [8]. Such high-pressure environments impair prefrontal functioning, promoting punishment avoidance rather than internalized self-control. Secondly, moral education demonstrates ineffectiveness through a persistent knowledge-behavior dissociation. Didactic instruction devoid of authentic socioemotional experiences fails to activate the social brain network essential for empathy and moral judgment, thereby impeding stable prosocial behavior development [1]. Thirdly, the overall environment exerts detrimental effects. Given the brain’s continuous neuroplastic responsiveness to environmental stimuli [9], sustained exposure to negative contexts diminishes the efficacy of isolated interventions like psychological counseling. Consequently, without systematic environmental restructuring, any singular corrective approach remains fundamentally compromised.

This study systematically identifies fundamental misalignments between prevailing correctional approaches in China’s specialized schools and contemporary developmental neuroscience principles. The findings necessitate evidence-based reforms that prioritize neurodevelopmentally-informed strategies, transitioning from reliance on external behavioral regulation to fostering endogenous self-regulatory capacities. Specifically, correctional interventions should prioritize establishing low-stress, socially enriched environments that provide positive neurobiological reinforcement. This requires systematic implementation of evidence-based programs targeting specific neural mechanisms, particularly emotion regulation through prefrontal cortex engagement and social-cognitive training for empathy development.

None.

No Conflict of interest.

1. Andrews JL, Ahmed S, Blakemore SJ (2020) Navigating the social environment in adolescence: The role of social brain development. Biological Psychiatry 89(2): 109-118.
2. Arain M, Haque M, Johal L, Mathur P, Nel W, et al. (2013) Maturation of the adolescent brain. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 9: 449–461.
3. Benda BB, Corwyn RF, Toombs NJ (2001) Recidivism among adolescent serious offenders: Prediction of entry into the correctional system for adults. Criminal Justice and Behavior 28(5): 588–613.
4. Caulum MS (2007) Postadolescent brain development: A disconnect between neuroscience, emerging adults, and the corrections system. Wisconsin Law Review 2007(4): 729-758.
5. Cavanagh C (2022) Healthy adolescent development and the juvenile justice system: Challenges and solutions. Child Development Perspectives 16(3): 141–147.
6. Cauffman E, Steinberg L (2012) Emerging findings from research on adolescent development and juvenile justice. Victims Offenders 7(4): 428–449.
7. Li J (2021) Improve the application procedures for specialized correctional education. Supreme People's Procuratorate of the People's Republic of China.
8. Monahan K, Steinberg L, Piquero AR (2015) Juvenile justice policy and practice: A developmental perspective. Crime and Justice 44(1): 577-619.
9. Scott ES, Duell N, Steinberg L (2018) Brain development, social context, and justice policy. Washington University Journal of Law Policy 57: 13-74.
10. Steinberg L (2009) Adolescent development and juvenile justice. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 5(1): 459-485.
11. Zhang H, Sheng C, Sun P (2023) Breaking through practical difficulties, improving the system, and promoting the construction of specialized schools. Supreme People's Procuratorate of the People's Republic of China.