The juvenile system is an important aspect of any country's criminal justice system, tasked with the responsibility of handling young offenders who were previously under the purview of criminal law courts. The concept was introduced in the late 19th century in America and adopted by many US states before spreading globally. The juvenile system differs greatly from criminal courts in its methods, ideology, and eventual outcomes of those interacting with it. While some countries use informal methods, the system has evolved globally, with each region approaching it differently. This article assesses the juvenile systems of Germany and the United States, highlighting their similarities and differences.

Germany's juvenile justice system emphasizes diversion, education, and minimal intervention. The system settles 70% of youth cases using informal diversionary measures, such as social training courses, rather than resorting to court prosecution. The court proceedings are different from those in the United States, with hearings conducted in an interview-style manner between the judge and prosecutor. Police officers refer cases to prosecutors who must select professionals committed to ensuring justice prevails. While a lawyer is present, their role is to help the defendant give their account, not to argue a case. Youth welfare and community agencies work with courts to prevent late trials and to prepare information about the defendant's background and follow court directions after cases are decided. Judges interview witnesses, and in cases requiring more judges, they are randomly selected to oversee the trial. The approach focuses on understanding the youth offender, assessing their educational needs, and creating a suitable individualized plan with sentencing to help individuals avoid committing similar offenses in the future. The approach has led to Germany's low incarceration rate, resulting in three outcomes: diversion without sanctions, diversion with measures taken by the involved government agencies, and intervention.

The German system caters to individuals up to 21 years, with individuals below 18 being sentenced if rehabilitation is deemed helpful. For those above 21, harsh sentencing can be considered in the context of public harm and the enforcement process's credibility. Emerging adults, those between these ages, are assessed to determine whether they acted as juveniles or adults before sentencing. However, usually, they are perceived to act as juveniles and sentenced per juvenile law. Additionally, they are only allowed to file one appeal to a higher court, raising concern over limited legal and human rights for youth.

In this particular system, whenever a juvenile is taken into custody by law enforcement, he or she shall remain in custody until a detention hearing is conducted by the judge. If the case proceeds to a hearing in court, the petition should be filed by an attorney. This hearing, commonly known as an adjudication, is different from a traditional court hearing in terms of privacy and the fact that charges are often dismissed or a defendant is sentenced to imprisonment in a secure facility. However, for certain offenses deemed beyond its range of sentencing, the juvenile court conducts formal proceedings. In these circumstances, juveniles sentenced to detention were observed to have higher relapse rates than those who chose community-based programs. In most instances, the least prohibitive choice, such as probation or community treatment, was selected in managing the cases.

Although both countries may have adopted diversion as a feasible approach to sentencing, the United States continues to have a high rate of incarceration. Germany, on the other hand, emphasizes education and rehabilitation as the primary strategies, leaving incarceration as a last option. Also, both nations have autonomous court proceedings that are distinct from the crimes committed by adults in each nation. However, Germany's approach places faith in specialists and emphasizes rehabilitation. In comparison, America's technique reflects little trust in the rehabilitation of these young people while promoting detention, which is often linked to higher recidivism rates. Thus, implementing reforms such as education, social involvement, and better rehabilitation policies is necessary to lower recidivism rates and enhance the general public's welfare.