Last week, Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy proposed raising the juvenile justice age from 17 to 20, and the evidence suggests that this smart-on-crime proposal not only serves a number of practical government interests, but is a realization of fairness and justice.
The first (of many) reasons raising the age from 17 to 20 makes sense is almost purely scientific. Neurologists and biologists have recently started to discover that human brains do not mature until 25. In fact, the idea that a human brain, save incredibly rare circumstances, could be anywhere near full development at age 18 has no scientific basis. The historical purpose of a juvenile justice age has been to prioritize rehabilitation over punishment in dealing with adolescents. Why? Because adolescent brains are simply not as developed as adult brains. Adolescents are more likely to be emotionally unpredictable, succumb to peer pressure, and are less likely to make decisions based on long-term consequences.
Interestingly, many other practices of age restriction recognize this disparity: 18-year-olds can’t buy alcohol, gamble, rent a car, or serve in either chamber of Congress. Many states restrict an 18-year-old’s ability to buy cigarettes as well. Is there really much sense in saying somebody can’t buy alcohol, gamble, or serve in national government, on the basis of a lack of mental maturity, yet they can still be tried as an adult in criminal court? Having a juvenile justice age of 17 essentially negates the original purpose of having a juvenile justice system because the state will still try adolescents with less developed mental faculties and reasoning skills.
The practice also doesn’t do the legal system much good. 78 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds released from prison are rearrested and about half return to prison within three years, the highest recidivism rate of any age cohort. Germany, the only government in the world with a 20-year-old juvenile justice age, recognized these scientific and legal discrepancies. Since raising the age, they have seen no rise in youth crime, and study after study shows that more punitive sentences for minors do not serve as deterrents. Rather, punitive sentencing for adolescents works counterproductively, creating career criminals and increasing recidivism rates. In Connecticut, since raising the juvenile justice age from 15 to 17, the state has seen a 20% drop in its prison population, resulting in the lowest prison population Connecticut has seen in 17 years. Last year, 11,000 people aged 18, 19 or 20 were arrested in Connecticut, and in nearly three-quarters of those cases a misdemeanor was the most serious offense. A low juvenile justice age unnecessarily diverts much needed resources from trying more heinous crimes to prosecute mostly non-violent crime committed by those 18-20.
The question as to who we consider a juvenile is a difficult one, but, a juvenile justice age of 20 is a much more logical bar to set. We know this by studying science, examining inefficiencies, and pointing out inconsistencies in our judicial philosophies when we see them. It is certainly easy to ignore these conclusions and posit, as 18th-century English lawyer William Blackstone once did, that “malice supplies the age.” But, as in all matters of public policy, we ought to consider the facts. To succumb to our worst instincts, to ignore science and expert research and logical conclusions, and in doing that, to eliminate the opportunity of a second chance so many young offenders seek, is not justice. Justice is to recognize scientific ability and sound reasoning as the better angels of our nature, and to shape our system based on knowledge, as Governor Dannel Malloy is attempting to do by raising the juvenile justice age to 20.