Procedural Justice, Therapeutic Jurisprudence, and Reoffending: Adjudicating Palestinian Minors in the West Bank’s Military Court

The Juvenile Military Court (JMC), established in 2009 in the West Bank, handles offenses perpetrated by Palestinian minors, consisting mostly of security-related violations. With the establishment of the JMC, and a subsequent three-stage legal reform in handling juvenile offenders, Palestinian minor suspects and defendants have been accorded various procedural rights. This study addresses the impact of these rights on the criminal careers of Palestinian minors appearing in the JMC. It first reviews the demographic profile of 8,301 minors handled by the JMC between 2000 and 2018, describes their offenses, and offense transition between their initial and second arrest. Using trend analysis, the study compares minors’ reoffending level in the years before and after the reform. The findings suggest significant differences in minors’ reoffending level between the years preceding and following the legal reform. Possible explanations for the findings are offered, and the article concludes with policy implications and directions for future research.


Introduction
In 2009, Israel enforced the 109th amendment of the Security Provisions Order, and, for the first time, a Juvenile Military Court (JMC) was established in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria).One venue, referred to as the Samaria court, is located close to Salem in the north of Israel, near Jenin in the north of the West Bank; the other venue is the Ofer court, located in Judea in the north of the West Bank, on the border between Jerusalem and Ramallah.Before the establishment of the JMC, minors were sentenced in regular Military Court along with the adults, although with some age-related adjustments.Following the establishment of the JMC, in a three-stage legal reform, several significant legal amendments central to the rights of minors, detailed in the next section, were passed.It has been argued that these rights have the potential to increase the litigants' sense of procedural fairness and have therapeutic benefits for juveniles appearing in the JMC (Farber & Benicho, 2021).
Despite the significance of establishing a special Juvenile Military Court in the West Bank and granting procedural rights for minors processed therein, research on the reform's impact on the criminality and criminal career of the minor defendants processed in court is scarce (Ben-Naftali et al., 2018;Khen, 2014;Viterbo, 2018).Most research to date has focused on procedural rights' effects on adult litigants (e.g., Tyler, 1990Tyler, , 2003)).There are reasons to expect that providing procedural rights to minors, particularly rights incorporating elements of therapeutic jurisprudence, will affect juveniles' compliance with the law.
This exploratory study examines the offenses that bring minors to court and then addresses the question of the reform's impact on their criminality.The article first describes the profile of the juveniles prosecuted in the JMC in terms of their age at first prosecution, typical offenses, involvement in security-related offenses (e.g., stone throwing at soldiers, police, or cars; violence during protests; sheltering terrorists or providing material assistance to terrorists/terrorist organizations, etc.) and related violations (e.g., illegal entry to Israel or areas closed to the public) processed in the military court.It then compares the reoffending level of the juveniles processed by the court before and after the legal reform was implemented between 2000 and 2018.As the next section indicates, there are theoretical and empirical reasons to expect that these legal reforms will impact the level of reoffending and the criminal careers of the minors processed by the JMC.
The article first presents the history of the JMC in the West Bank.It then reviews the Procedural Justice (PJ) and Therapeutic Jurisprudence (TJ) perspectives and the motivations behind juvenile security-related crimes.The research findings follow, including a profile of the Palestinian minors processed by the JMC, their law violations, and the level of reoffending behavior before and after the reform.The article concludes with policy implications of the findings and directions for future research.

The History and Jurisdiction of the Juvenile Military Court
The Juvenile Military Court (JMC) is part of the military court system in the West Bank.Following the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel established the Military Court system as part of its obligation and authority to ensure an effective administration and safety in the areas it occupied (Shamgar, 1982).The founding of the Military Court system follows the 4th Geneva Convention (1949) on the protection of civilian persons in times of war.Article 64 states that the occupying power may apply laws and regulations in the occupied region to ensure its effective administration as well as the safety of its inhabitants (Benvenisti, 1993;Kretzmer, 2002).Article 66 of the Convention authorizes the establishment of Military Courts under the condition that these courts are apolitical and are situated within the occupied territory.Additionally, the Convention includes different substantive and procedural due process principles regarding court proceedings, such as no retroactive legislation, proportionality between crime and punishment, deduction of the arrest period from the sentence length, etc.all of which reflect international principles concerning a fair trial.
Following the Convention, at the end of the Six-Day War, Israel issued a proclamation regarding the enforcement of the Security Provisions Order [(Security Provisions Order (West Bank) (no. 3) (1967)].According to this order, Military Courts were authorized to adjudicate all offenses committed within their areas of jurisdiction, as well as violations committed outside its jurisdiction, if they were intended to interfere, or did interfere, with the safety of civilians (Article 10 to the Security Provisions Order).With the signing of the 1993 Oslo accords between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA), the PA assumed the responsibility for handling criminal violations in the areas under its control.With the 2005 Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, the Military Court has undergone further reorganization, consolidation, and relocation to its current venues of Ofer and Salem.
Since its establishment, the Military Court has handled only security-related offenses or acts of terrorism in the West Bank and criminal matters in the area when the victim is an Israeli citizen or resident or a foreign citizen. 1 The Security Provisions Order has incorporated significant parts of Israeli criminal law into West Bank proceedings, and the Military Courts have enforced these principles through case law (Benisho, 2005).With some required adaptations (Shamgar, 1971), the Military Court proceedings have adhered to the relevant principles of Israeli law.
On October 1, 2009, the 109th Amendment of the Security Provisions Order (hereinafter "the Amendment") came into force.Its main innovation was the establishment of the JMC, in which minors are judged by military judges who are specially trained to handle and judge juveniles, that is, those under the age of 18 (Clause 137).In addition to creating the JMC, the reform included provisions requiring the separation of minors' trials from those of adults; transferring the trials of minors from the regular Military Courts to the JMC; and setting the limitation period for the indictment to no more than one year from the commission of lower-level violations and two years of from the commission of serious offenses (Clauses 135-149 to the Security Provisions Order [Consolidated Version] [West Bank] [2009]).
The rules of the JMC mirror those of juvenile courts in other countries, including the Israeli juvenile court.To qualify as a juvenile judge and serve on the JMC bench, judges must undertake training about how to interact with juvenile defendants in a therapeutic and supportive manner, including, for instance, describing to minor defendants the purpose of the proceedings and explaining the implications of further legal involvement for their future.When suitable, judges may include the minor's parents in the discussions, who are usually present in the courtroom.As parents do not want to see their child go to prison, their dismay and expressions of pain or anger at their child's behavior are often a powerful disincentive for minors to re-offend, assisting young defendants in staying away from activities that would land them in prison (Berko et al., 2017).
Palestinian minors' security-related offenses are perpetrated for a variety of reasons, including ideological convictions about resistance to the occupation, peer pressure to join, avoiding problems at home by being arrested, or sheer boredom and lack of options for constructive use of time 2 (Berko et al., 2017;Hasisi et al., 2023).However, because the offenses are assumed to be motivated by ideological beliefs, and as the Palestinian Authority (PA) does not cooperate with the JMC recommendations for post-incarceration rehabilitation programs, the rehabilitative toolbox available to judges in the JMC is limited (Farber & Achai, 2020).Communications between the judge and the juvenile and his family during proceedings remain the primary tool to persuade a juvenile to desist.Further, acts of terrorism are often encouraged and even celebrated by some segments of the local Palestinian population, incentivizing the juveniles to continue with such activities.Lastly, research on rehabilitative programs offered in Israel for adult security violators (Ganor & Falk, 2013) and elsewhere (Horgan & Altier, 2012) have shown limited impact on those involved in terrorism cases, or their impact has not been established.
Consequently, the JMC does not apply practices routinely employed in criminal cases filed in civilian (i.e., non-military) courts, such as preparing and submitting a pre-sentencing report before imposing the penalty.Likewise, various alternatives to pre-trial detention and corrective options and forms of punishment available in the regular juvenile court, such as placement in a juvenile institution, signing a behavioral contract to refrain from reoffending in lieu of imprisonment, and probation supervision, are also not applicable in the JMC.

Procedural Justice and Therapeutic Jurisprudence as Frameworks
Two related theoretical perspectives may apply to the question of whether the legal reform and its associated rights affect minors' reoffending: First, procedural justice (PJ), which addresses procedural safeguards and litigants' participatory rights (Molaskey, 2021); second, therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ), which focuses on how substantive rules, legal procedures, and the roles of lawyers and judges produce therapeutic or anti-therapeutic effects on litigants (Wexler & Winnick, 1991, 1996).
Procedure justice theory submits that people expect that critical decisions affecting their lives or future will be made fairly, one that does not violate their basic sense of justice (Thibaut & Walker, 1975).Research on the effects of procedural justice on offenders has shown that litigants' beliefs about the fairness of their treatment carry significant implications for their future behavior, particularly within legal contexts (Tyler, 2008).Initially, the concept of procedural justice focused on the fairness and objectivity of the decision-making process-for example, whether it is based on acceptable and impartial criteria (Thibaut & Walker, 1975).The concept later expanded to include the following elements: voice-providing litigants the opportunity to be heard, participate, and voice their views or share their perspectives with decisionmakers; respect or fairness-treating litigants with respect and dignity; transparency or neutrality-authorities sharing processes and rationales behind their decisions with litigants to avoid being perceived as biased; and lastly, impartiality or trustworthiness-making decisions based on legal facts and objective evaluation of the situation, thereby conveying trustworthy motives.These practices are assumed to increase the perceived legitimacy of the institution and its processes, which in turn, enhance compliance with the law (Perlin, 2017;Tyler, 1990Tyler, , 2003)).
Procedural justice concerns receive special significance in the processing of juveniles compared with adult litigants.Juveniles are highly susceptible to perceptions of injustice (Murphy, 2015;Penner et al., 2014)-legal socialization theories and related research have confirmed that attitudes toward the legal system are developed and formed during adolescence (Fagan & Tyler, 2005;Lind & Tyler, 1988), and juveniles are particularly sensitive to issues of fairness and respect.
Recent studies have highlighted the significance of legitimacy in conformity to the law in various criminal justice contexts, such as police, court, or prison.They confirm a nexus between perceptions of legitimacy, law-abiding behavior, and cooperation with law enforcement by citizens, defendants, and prisoners, when officials follow procedural justice dictates (e.g., Bottoms & Tankebe , 2012).Litigants' or defendants' sense of procedural fairness enhances the justice system's legitimacy and defendants' willingness to obey the law (e.g., Bone, 2003).Research addressing juveniles has also shown that when they experience respectful and fair legal decision-making procedures, they are more likely to believe in the legitimacy of the law and, in turn, less likely to reoffend (e.g., Penner et al., 2014).
Therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ) is a multidisciplinary approach and practice that reinforces PJ theory and findings.Since its founding in 1987, TJ has become an established normative framework that recognizes the law as a social force and therapeutic agent with inevitable effects (intentional or unintentional) on individuals' psychological functioning.TJ approach encourages legal institutions and professionals to reach legal outcomes that advance psychological well-being and human dignity, while eschewing making laws and procedures, or reaching outcomes, that are harmful or anti-therapeutic (Wexler, 2008;Wexler & Winick, 1991, 1996).This perspective is equally relevant to legislative efforts, legal reforms, courts' opinions, lawyers' methods and strategies, and the work of judges, police officers, and other criminal justice agents.TJ's perspective complements procedural justice by adding substantive legal rules, processes, and outcomes as factors likely to enhance litigants' satisfaction with justice, reinforcing the importance of fair procedures for increasing compliance with the law.

Juvenile Reoffending, Desistance From Crime, and Conformity to the Law
Arab/Palestinian crime and delinquency, it has been observed that political violence and ordinary crime share much in common (Khoury-Kassabri et al., 2015), making social science research on delinquency relevant to the current study.
Studies of delinquency have identified biological and biosocial studies have identified various factors leading to delinquency or rule violations: increased aggression and violent behavior in adolescence; social group and peer pressure; destructive energy due to physiological changes; increased cognitive and verbal abilities that allow manipulative influence on others; consumption of psychoactive substances; family crises, etc. (Boisvert, 2021;Edens et al., 2007).The study of reoffending, often conceptualized as desistance from crime, also incorporates insights from desistance studies and compliance with law research (Boisvert, 2021), which document similar risks and protective factors.
Studies of youth reoffending have shown that a percentage of delinquents tend to continue with delinquency and crime following punishment or release from prison, and the younger the offender, the higher the likelihood of reoffending.With aging, the percentage of recidivism commonly decreases (Edens et al., 2007;Wolfgang et al., 1972).A recent comprehensive international review of factors associated with desistance from delinquency and crime (Farrall, 2021) identified personal, structural, social, and system-related factors.Besides aging, life events or situational factors associated with desistance include entering a committed intimate partnership, parenthood, employment, moving away from the area in which one grew up and committed offenses, religious conversion, making a decision or finding a reason to stop or become a different person, with broader institutions and individuals supporting the decision, and importantly for the current study, aspects of the criminal justice system that assist desistance from crime (Farrall, 2021).
Examining juvenile reoffending in the USA, a recent large-scale study of 25,000 defendants found that recidivism rates among youth and young adults under 21 is roughly 67% and that the tendency to re-offend decreases as defendants get older (Howard, 2014;Wolfgang et al., 1972).In Israel, the Israel Prison Service documented that around 75% of minors released from custody in 2008 had returned to prison by 2013 (Berman & Volk, 2015).A study of minors released in 2004 showed similar results-about 71% recidivism rates (Ben Zvi & Volk, 2011).
The impact of rehabilitation programs in closed institutions on youth desistance from crime and delinquency is a topic of ongoing debate.Some argue that institutional confinement of delinquents may lead to increased delinquency upon release, while others suggest that "time out" in a closed institution allows youth an opportunity to work through their life problems and social conflicts, resulting in crime avoidance upon release.The recidivism-reducing effects of closed institutions are found chiefly in settings in which rehabilitative programs are emphasized and practiced, although further research is needed to decipher the effects of incarceration on inmates, whether adults or juveniles (Farrall, 2021).In the context of incarcerated Palestinian minors (or adults) for involvement in security violations, however, rehabilitation is largely irrelevant for the above reasons.

Pathways of Palestinian Minors to the JMC
In the West Bank, as in other conflict zones, insurgent groups and terrorist organizations often recruit and enlist minors to assist in their military operations, as children and juveniles can provide practical, tactical, and strategic benefits to these groups (Erez & Berko, 2014;Homeland Security Institute, 2009).Palestinian juveniles have been used as lookouts, messengers, spies, recruiters, and photographers, providing "cover stories" for terrorist activities, smuggling or transporting weapons, and serving as "human shields" (Berko et al., 2017;Butler, 2015;Erlanger, 2004;Homeland Security Institute, 2009).Involvement in such activities, performing these roles, or being a member of a terrorist organization, are the paths that commonly bring Palestinian juveniles to the JMC.
The motivation behind Palestinian minors' involvement in security-related offenses is diverse and includes one or a combination of the following reasons: beliefs in the Palestinian cause and resistance to the occupation; peer and social pressure to join; a desire to appear "manly" or gain social status and respect; and a wish to resolve personal problems at home or in the community by being arrested and incarcerated and thus removed from the source of the problem (Berko et al., 2017;Berko & Erez, 2005).

The Database and Approach
The study's database consists of 8,301 cases of minors processed in military courts between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2018 (hereinafter "the database").In the first half of this period (up to 2009 inclusive), juvenile cases were processed by the adult Military Court, although juvenile defendants processed before the establishment of the JMC were handled with some adjustments due to their young age.In the second half of this period, from 2010 to 2018, juvenile defendants were processed by the new JMC, which applied the procedural rights granted by the legal reform.
The study first reports the distribution of the types of offenses the minors were first arrested for and the average age at their first indictment.Age at first offense is indicative of the likelihood of reoffending and the development of a criminal career (Gendreau et al., 1996;Wolfgang et al., 1972), and previous criminal involvement is often a predictor of future criminal activity (Cottle et al., 2001;Kennealy et al., 2010).
In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, stone-throwing-an activity particularly prevalent among juveniles-is a common form of protest and presumably non-violent resistance (Hasisi et al., 2023;Pressman, 2017).An open question in discussions surrounding this phenomenon is whether engagement in this seemingly minor security-related activity 3 leads to involvement in more severe acts of terrorism.The relationship between the first and second arrests and indictments of Palestinian minors appearing in the JMC will then be presented.Lastly, a trend analysis is conducted, comparing the level of reoffending in the period preceding the reform and the one following it.

Findings
Between 2000 and 2018, 85,013 criminal files were opened, and 53,645 defendants were convicted and sentenced.Figure 1 shows that 8301 (15%) defendants were minors, and 45,344 (85%) were adults.Of these groups, 2,967 minors and 9,258 adults appeared in the Military Court more than once, altogether 12,225 reoffending defendants.
The reoffending minors, comprising about 18% of the reoffending defendants, had 5,447 files, with an average of 2.7 files per person for the period examined. 4Before the legal reform, between 2000 and 2008, there were 4,101 cases in which the sentenced defendants were minors, whereas from 2009 (the year in which the JMC was established) until the end of 2018, there were 4,200 such cases.As detailed below, most Figure 2 presents the distribution of minor defendants by age at first arrest: Figure 2 shows that almost half (47%) of the offenses that bring minors to the Military Court are various forms and degrees of seriousness of terrorism-related activities (e.g., stabbing, shooting, killing, or injuring soldiers or Israeli citizens; membership in terror organization; trafficking weapons; killing Palestinian suspected of collaborating with Israel.Stone-throwing -a security-related offense by Clause 212 to the Security Provisions Order ([West Bank] (2009)-is the second highest violation for which minors are arrested and indicted (33%).Illegal entry or trespassing-a violation of security ordinances-is next in size (13%), and others that may or may not be security-related violations 5 comprise 7% of offenses that bring juveniles to the JMC.
Figure 3 presents the percentage distribution of minor defendants' age when first tried and convicted in court.Most offenses (82%) are committed between the ages of 15 and 17.Fewer offenses (17%) are committed by 13 to 14 years old minors, and below this age group, participation in violations is rare (less than 1%).These statistics are consistent with those documented in other countries (Farrington, 1986).
Examination of the transition from the minors' first to second arrest and conviction provides some preliminary evidence that minors are likely to move from a lesser security-related violation to a more serious one.Figure 3 shows that in almost half of those first arrested and convicted for stone-throwing, their second arrest/conviction involved more serious terrorist activities (46%), compared to only 38% who continued with stone-throwing.On the other hand, the majority (75%) of those whose first arrest and conviction were for serious terrorist activities were arrested/convicted again for similar terrorist activities.
To address the question of changes in the level of reoffending before and after the passage of the legal reform, a trend analysis was conducted.It compared the reoffending prevalence slope of 2000 to 2009 (inclusive) and the slope of 2010 to 2018 (Figure 4).
A t-test between the 2000-2009 slope (r = .865/+25cases per year) and the 2010-2018 slope (r = -.969/-30cases per year) shows a statistically significant difference between the number of cases adjudicated in these two periods (t[15] = 22.08, p < .001),suggesting that the legal reform has been associated with a reduction in the level of reoffending.

Discussion
The findings indicate that offenses that bring Palestinian minors to the Military Court are typically committed between the ages of 15 to 17; only a small minority of youth under 15 have been arrested and tried for legal violations under the jurisdiction of the JMC.The charges for which Palestinian minors are prosecuted in the Military court are limited to terrorism and security-related offenses, a significant portion of which were  throwing stones at Israeli soldiers, police, civilians, and moving Israeli cars.Stoneshowing-a "popular" crime that is easily committed and at times spontaneous or unplanned-is often perceived as a minor violation.Nevertheless, experience has shown that this activity, particularly when directed at moving cars, has led to severe injuries, burnings, and fatalities (Berko et al., 2017).
Stone-showing may also serve as an "entry ticket" to the world of terrorism, and the data show that those who were first arrested for this violation are likely to escalate in their next arrest to more serious terrorist acts.The data also show that most of those who were first arrested for perpetrating a severe act of terrorism were likely to continue with terrorist activity.
The terrorism cases before the JMC are motivated by various reasons and incentives.They range from prevailing beliefs about resisting the occupation, social and peer pressures to participate in the national struggle, or wish to prove one's loyalty to the Palestinian cause, to receiving the various tangible and intangible benefits that incentivize minors to participate-recognition, honor, and respect by peers, the community, and the recruiting terrorist organization, and eligibility to receive a generous salary from the Palestinian Authority if they are sent to prison (Farber, 2021). 6 The findings reveal lower reoffending rates of minors in the years following the legal reform compared to preceding years-whereas, between 2000 and 2010 an increase in the rate of minors' reoffending is evident, between 2010 (the year first-time convicted offenders were released from prison) and 2018, a decrease in reoffending is discernible.In the absence of alternative explanatory factors that may affect the level of terrorism and security-related offenses during this period, such as a lower level of incitement in the West Bank, improvement in its economic conditions, or other social and political factors affecting the level of terrorism (e.g., Bloom, 2004), the decrease in reoffending may be attributed to the legal reform, in line with PJ (Tyler, 2003;Tyler et al., 2007) and TJ (Stobbs, 2021) theories.
Procedural fairness and caring TJ practices are particularly relevant in processing juveniles, who are known to be susceptible to feelings of injustice and perceived unfairness (Murphy, 2015;Penner et al., 2014).When suitable, judges who, in the presence of parents or other family members, discuss with young defendants their harmful behavior and the implications of reoffending for their futures, may also lead minors to reconsider their actions and refrain from further violations (e.g., DesRosi ers, 2000).Research has noted the closeness and connectedness of Arab adolescents to their families (Dwairy, 2004;Dwairy & Achoui, 2006), and how Palestinian juveniles are troubled when the mother is visibly distressed when her child faces a prison term, or how fearful they are when facing the wrath of a father who is displeased with his son's legal entanglement (Berko et al., 2017).

Conclusion
In line with prior research on research, the current study provides indirect support to arguments that procedural justice and therapeutic jurisprudence principles and practices affect juveniles whose law violations are considered to be ideologically driven, findings with practical implications for addressing minor defendants in court.Although the study has limitations, including no testing of possible rival explanations for the results or a more extended follow-up period of the minors' arrest history, the current findings may point to the positive effects of employing procedural justice principles and therapeutic jurisprudence approaches in legal proceedings.
Future research should further explore the impact of such principles and approaches on reoffending patterns in different socio-political contexts with diverse populations or motivations to break the law.In the final analysis, however, the significance of practicing procedural rights and therapeutic principles in legal proceedings of defendants, whether minors or adults, should be judged and promoted on their merit, regardless of their impact on reoffending.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes
1.The rationale behind this rule is that in some cases with Israeli or other non-Palestinian victims, it is difficult to determine whether the act was intentional and motivated by ideological reasons and hence a security-related violation (e.g., running over a person with a car or other moving vehicles, which has been one way of harming Israelis in terrorist attacks), or a traffic or other offenses resulting from recklessness or negligence.Inter-Palestinian criminal offenses are handled by the Palestinian courts, see footnote 5. 2. A recent study of Palestinian children's stone-throwing suggests that about 15% of the behavior is due to calls by terrorist organizations to get involved in protests, and another 15% is related to specific inflammatory events (such as placing metal detectors on Mount Temple), and the remainder 70% of the incidents occur due to sheer boredom (Hasisi et al., 2023).3.There is a prevailing belief that stone-throwing is not a serious violation.However, experience has shown that stone-throwing can result in serious injury, life-long disability, and even fatalities.In many documented stone-throwing incidents at moving cars, the driver lost control, and passengers were killed as the vehicle overturned.In other cases, the overturned car caught fire, causing the driver and passengers severe burns, which led to a painful death.4.These numbers reflect officially reported crimes; they do not include what is referred to as the "dark figure of crime."Thus, they will likely underestimate the number of offenses perpetrated by the defendants.Detecting and arresting offenders engaged in stone-throwing is a particularly difficult task; stone-throwing is a crowd activity and mostly committed in groups.5.The Military Court handles crimes in which Palestinians in the territories have, intentionally or accidentally, victimized Israeli or foreign citizens/residents.Inter-Palestinian criminality is not handled by the military court but is under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian courts.Compared to a yearly average of 461 security-related offenses handled in the military court, in 2020, for instance, Palestinian courts in the West Bank processed 1,666 juvenile crimes.These reported offenses include violent crimes such as homicides, aggravated assaults, intimidation/threats, and large numbers of property offenses.See: https://www.pcbs.gov.ps/statisticsIndicatorsTables.aspx?lang=en&table_id=1244 6.The "pay for slay" is a well-known policy of the Palestinian Authority that pays those who participate in terrorist activities and end up in Israeli prisons a monthly salary.Salaries are paid on a sliding scale according to the number of years a person has served in prison.See "Financially Rewarding Terrorism in the West Bank" at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-114hhrg20651/html/CHRG-114hhrg20651.html

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Frequency distributions of one-time and reoffending minor and adult defendants convicted between 2000-2018.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Frequency distribution of minor defendants at first arrest by age.

Figure 3 .
Figure 3. Percentage distributions of minors' convictions for first and second offenses.

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. Reoffending prevalence slope before and after the legal reform.