This afternoon, the state Legislature’s joint Judiciary Committee will take up a bill from Ipswich state Rep. Brad Hill that would raise from 17 to 18 the age where young offenders could be prosecuted as adults.
The bill deserves a full, fair hearing, as does a similar one from state Rep. Kay Khan.
While no one wants to be seen as being “soft” on crime, a persuasive argument can be made that treating 17-year-olds as full-grown adult criminals leaves them vulnerable to abuse and more likely to reoffend.
Hill, for example, has cited a Northeastern University study that showed youths placed in the adult system are 34 percent more likely to be rearrested for a violent offense than those placed in the juvenile system.
“The juvenile system is designed to get at the root causes of delinquency,” Hill wrote in a column published earlier this year. “Risks such as gang influence, family problems and school issues often contribute to delinquent behavior. These youth-specific issues are recognized more quickly and addressed more skillfully in the juvenile justice system.
“To be successful, kids need things the adult system simply is not designed to deliver, including age-appropriate education, such as high school or vocational training and the special education services that so many young inmates need,” Hill continued. “The Department of Youth Services is focused on maintaining family and community ties, which are correlated with positive outcomes for kids leaving the justice system.”
It should be noted that we’re not talking about major crimes here. Local district attorneys would still be able to seek adult charges in serious crimes, especially those involving violence. And youthful offenders would still answer for their transgressions; they would just do it in a more appropriate setting.
Most 17-year-olds arrested in Massachusetts, for example, are charged with nonviolent offenses. According to the nonprofit Citizens for Juvenile Justice, the top two charges that 17-year-olds faced in 2008 were drug offenses (often marijuana) and larceny. The state’s juvenile justice system is certainly better equipped to handle such cases; there’s a better chance that these high school-age offenders will stay in class and have access to effective treatment programs.