Each of these processes can influence whether the law influences or marginalizes existing organizational processes to avoid interference with other organizational priorities. For example, in response to mandatory legal regulations, organizations may offer symbolic compliance in the form of policies and structures that are visible to actors outside the organization, but are only loosely coupled to actual practice within the organization (Edelman, 1992; Orton and Weick, 1990). Internally, organizations may interpret and implement legal mandates in a manner consistent with management objectives but inconsistent with legal mandates and norms (Edelman, 1992; Albiston, 2005). When legal requirements are ambiguous, organizations may look to others in their field to identify compliance strategies that confer legitimacy, even if these strategies have largely been determined by the organizations themselves rather than by legal requirements (Edelman, 1990, 1992). These strategies then extend to all organizational domains and are institutionalized as the sense of conformity (Edelman et al., 2001, 2011). Normative isomorphism works through professionals who learn common practices through professional trainings and associations, and then bring those practices back to the organizations where they work. Through this mechanism, professionals can help spread widespread but inaccurate myths that steer organizational behavior in a homogeneous but irrational direction. For example, Edelman (1992) found that human resources professionals exaggerated the risk of workplace discrimination lawsuits relative to their actual frequency in court. Over time, organizational definitions of what constitutes compliance often find their way into legal doctrine, as judges rely on widespread organizational practices as evidence of compliance without examining whether these practices have a tangible impact on life within the organization (Edelman et al., 2011). Organizational frameworks such as schools, prisons or employers are important goals of legal reforms, but the law does not automatically penetrate organizations, without costs or distortions. Neo-institutional organizational theory treats organizations as open systems that respond in complex ways to their environment, including law, which tend to establish homogeneity between organizations in the same organizational domain (Meyer and Rowan, 1977). Organizations tend to be isomorphic or similar in structure and practices because they operate according to a common system of rules—regulations, norms, and cognitive schemas—derived from a common social environment (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991). Legal institutions are part of this environment, and isomorphic processes are therefore a mechanism by which law changes society, or at least the organizations in society.

The law facilitates „coercive isomorphism“ by imposing similar, sanction-based legal requirements on organizations in the same field, such as: tax law rules governing the structure and activities of nonprofits (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983: p. 150). Isomorphic processes can also be „mimetic“ when organizations in the same field meet ambiguous legal requirements by adopting the practices of other organizations that they find successful (Edelman, 1990). A third mechanism, „normative isomorphism,“ occurs when similarly trained professionals, such as lawyers or human resource managers, propagate common practices through professional associations and then return those practices to the organizations to which they belong (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991). Legal values such as due process often provide normative guidance to professionals in determining which practices are legitimate and effective (Edelman, 1990). Another approach to anti-racist legal reform is that of non-subordination. The anti-subordination approach views racism as a set of practices that have the effect of systematically reproducing racial hierarchies, even when no identifiable decision-maker can be characterized as racial bias. Anti-subordination approaches therefore emphasize that practices that harm racial minorities should be subject to legal scrutiny, even in the absence of evidence of intent or bias. More importantly, anti-subordination approaches seek models and systems in which several distinct practices are combined to produce regular, predictable, and systematic racial subordination, even though each individual practice, considered in isolation, may not appear to be problematic (Crenshaw, 1995). Adults received during criminal proceedings.

On the one hand, these cases recognized the rights of young people. On the other hand, they pointed out the commonalities between adolescents and adults and argued that the two should be treated fundamentally differently in the legal system in a kind of double standard. Following In re Gault, the juvenile court was repeatedly confronted with challenges to the procedural clause as it concerned juvenile offenders (McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 1971; Related to Winship, 1970). As a result, Grisso (2000, 1996b) notes that legislators are increasingly supportive of retaliation and are less tolerant of efforts to rehabilitate young offenders. This trend continues today, as the prospect of „cracking down on crime“ is often used to attract voters, although it has been noted that retaliation is often more costly and less effective than rehabilitation approaches (Piquero & Steinberg, 2010; Scott and Steinberg, 2008; Seller and Arrigo, 2009; Zimring, 2005). Reforms to protect juvenile offenders` right to due process have been followed by initiatives to promote a specific sentence or sentence of imprisonment established by law (American Bar Association, 1980). Thus, this period of reform was intended to reduce the unpredictability inherent in the earlier era of juvenile justice, which allowed for discretionary sentences (sentencing by judges who order a sentence tailored to the needs of the accused and society) for juvenile offenders. The sentencing decision was temporarily supported by people with very different philosophies on the appropriate way to sentence minors. Grisso (1996b) notes that those who supported the philosophy of reprisal supported sentencing reform because, in their view, young offenders received their fair desserts. In addition, these individuals cite some clinical support for this approach because of the therapeutic effect of teaching adolescents responsibility for their actions. Because of these views, legal reforms in juvenile justice have focused on the prosecution of juveniles in criminal courts (Allard and Young, 2002; Granello and Hanna, 2003; Grisso, 1996b).

By renouncing the adult system by the youth, the juvenile faces essentially the same sentence as an adult accused of a similar crime. In addition, the procedure by which a juvenile is released in adult court has been reformed over the years. First, the juvenile court considered the individual characteristics of the young person and his or her potential for rehabilitation in the context of a waiver.