Holding accountable without excluding: adolescents in conflict with the law and the possibility of rebuilding

Neither response is sufficient.

A young person may have caused real harm and, at the same time, be carrying a history of abandonment, violence, exclusion, substance misuse, peer pressure, school failure or a lack of opportunities. Understanding these circumstances does not mean excusing what they did. It means recognizing that a serious intervention must address both the harm caused and the conditions that made that behavior more likely.

Understanding an adolescent's history does not erase their accountability. It allows us to build a response that goes beyond punishment.

A serious act does not define an entire identity

When an adolescent is labeled exclusively as a "delinquent," "troublemaker" or "dangerous," there is a risk of turning a single act of behavior into a permanent identity.

This has consequences. If the young person constantly receives the message that nothing different is expected of them anymore, they may end up relating to themselves through that label. Exclusion stops being merely an external consequence and starts becoming part of how they understand who they are and what place they occupy in society.

Recognizing their capacity for change does not mean minimizing the seriousness of what happened. It means distinguishing between two very different ways of naming what occurred.

The first statement condemns the whole identity. The second holds the person accountable.

Accountability is more than punishment

Punishment can impose a consequence, but on its own it does not guarantee understanding, reparation or transformation.

Holding an adolescent accountable means helping them recognize:

• What happened.
• Who was affected.
• What consequences it produced.
• What decisions they made.
• What alternatives they could have considered.
• What they need to learn to avoid repeating it.
• What safe and possible reparative actions exist.

This requires more than obedience. It requires developing an awareness of the impact of one's own actions.

A young person may complete a sanction without truly understanding the harm. They may also mechanically repeat that they're sorry simply because they know that's what adults expect to hear.

Genuine accountability begins when they can look at what happened without denying it, without placing all the blame on others, and without becoming paralyzed by shame.

Understanding the context does not mean excusing the harm

When people speak of poverty, family violence, abandonment, exclusion from school or peer pressure, some interpret it as looking for an excuse.

That is not the case.

Understanding allows us to identify the factors that increased the risk and to design more precise interventions. If only the visible behavior is punished, but nothing is done about what made it more likely, the risk of it happening again may remain untouched.

Reparation cannot be imposed on victims

Restorative approaches can help the person who caused harm understand its effects and take part in reparative actions. However, they should never become a new form of pressure on the person who was harmed.

A victim is not obligated to meet with the person who harmed them, listen to their explanations, forgive them, or take part in a reconciliation.

Their safety, their wishes and their wellbeing must remain central.

Reparation can take different forms:

• Formally acknowledging the harm.
• Fulfilling verifiable commitments.
• Restituting something when possible.
• Taking part in community actions.
• Collaborating with truth-telling processes.
• Building a plan that reduces the risk of repetition.

The goal is not to produce an emotionally moving scene. It is to generate real accountability, protection and sustainable change.

The family can be part of the solution

Families of adolescents are also often judged in overly simple terms. It is assumed that every behavior of the young person is a direct result of "bad parenting," ignoring much broader economic, social, community and relational contexts.

The family can be part of the difficulty, but it can also become a fundamental part of the solution.

Reintegration does not mean pretending nothing happened. It means learning to live with the truth of what occurred without turning it into a daily sentence.

Adolescents need to take part in decisions

Programs designed for young people often talk about them, decide for them and evaluate their progress without allowing them to participate in any meaningful way.

Listening to their voice does not mean letting them set every condition. It means recognizing that any plan has a much better chance of working when the young person understands its purpose, can express their difficulties, and takes part in building concrete goals.

1. 1What do you think would need to change so this doesn't happen again?
2. 2What situations increase the risk of you making an impulsive decision?
3. 3What kind of support would you genuinely accept?
4. 4How would we know in three months that you're making progress?
5. 5What commitment can you make and keep?

These questions do not remove institutional authority. They turn it into an intervention that is easier to understand and potentially more effective.

The community also has responsibilities

It is not reasonable to ask a young person to rebuild their life while, at the same time, closing every door to them.

Education, training, access to opportunities, the rebuilding of networks and the presence of trustworthy adults are concrete parts of a prevention strategy.

Individual accountability is essential, but it should not be used to hide the social conditions that increase exclusion.

What can PACTO contribute?

PACTO does not replace judicial systems, psychosocial teams or the institutions responsible for protecting minors.

It can offer a structure for difficult conversations among adolescents, families, professionals and institutions, provided conditions of safety and voluntary participation exist.

• Distinguishing facts, interpretations and needs.
• Translating opposing positions into concrete issues.
• Building understandable commitments.
• Recording agreements and reviewing them.
• Preparing family reintegration processes.
• Identifying when a conversation should stop and move to specialized care.

Technology can help organize communication, but it should not decide who deserves a second chance or unilaterally determine who is right.

Conclusion

The real challenge is not choosing between punishing and supporting. It is making sure the consequence also produces learning, reparation and a lower risk of repetition.