Although a FASD can be a mitigating factor in determining criminal intent and the degree of criminal responsibility in a juvenile case, an FASD is rarely detected in adolescents or adults due to systemic barriers to screening and diagnosis, including a lack of training among health providers, educators, and social workers. In cases in which an FASD is suspected but has not been diagnosed, the justice system must identify reliable ways of determining the presence and nature of a FASD. Individuals with a FASD generally fare better in the juvenile justice system if they have received a diagnosis of FASD; however, in People v. Arias (California, 1996), the defendant was convicted and sentenced to death after the trial judge denied a motion to consider FASD as a mitigating factor. Similarly, in Brown v. State (Indiana, 1996), the defendant was convicted of two murders and sentenced to 50 years in prison on each after the judge failed to consider FASD as a mitigating factor. For justice to be rendered for defendants with a FASD, systemic changes must include the following: increased FASD training among system professionals; incorporation of FASD training at all system entry points; increasing the number of referrals for diagnosis; recognizing FASD as a mitigating or exculpatory factor; and developing alternative sentencing options. 8 notes and 7 references