fb-pixelShould Massachusetts raise the maximum age for juvenile court jurisdiction? - The Boston Globe Skip to main content
THE ARGUMENT

Should Massachusetts raise the maximum age for juvenile court jurisdiction?

YES

Frank G. Cousins Jr.

Former Essex County sheriff, former state representative, Newburyport Republican

<b>Frank G. Cousins Jr.</b>

As a sheriff, I hated seeing a young person come right back to jail after being released. Like all citizens, I hate to see our tax dollars going to support ineffective government programs. I am therefore distressed at Massachusetts’ policy of automatically prosecuting 18-year-olds as adults. Currently, our adult justice system spends more on its youngest prisoners than on older inmates, yet young adults tried in our adult system have the highest recidivism rate. What we are doing now simply does not work.

Juvenile justice systems historically have much lower recidivism rates; in fact the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends keeping youth under age 18 out of the adult system as a strategy to prevent community violence. After Massachusetts raised the age of juvenile court to include 17-year-olds in 2013, we saw crime drop and costs come in way below projections. It worked.

Extending juvenile jurisdiction to 18-year-olds makes sense, particularly since Massachusetts has young adult programs that are national models, such as UTEC in Lowell, and Chelsea-based Roca, where I am proud to serve as a board member.

Advertisement



As the Legislature hammers out the specifics of its criminal justice package, it should include a provision to treat 18-year-olds as juveniles. The Senate, to its credit, included that reform in its version of the bill. There are legislators in both branches who have done a fine job of listening to their communities and looking at the facts.

If we raised the age of juvenile court jurisdiction, young people accused of the most serious crimes would continue to be prosecuted as adults, though 18-year-olds are not commonly arrested for such offenses. The most common charges they face are for alcohol and drug-related offenses. The juvenile system is not a free pass; young people are held accountable for their crimes. But they also are required to go to school and participate in counseling. They are treated as young people we expect to have a future.

Advertisement



We need them to have a future. These young people will be returning to our communities, where we want them to take their places as responsible neighbors and coworkers. Raising the age makes that outcome far more likely.

NO

Brian A. Kyes

Chelsea Police Chief; President, Massachusetts Major City Police Chiefs Association

<b>Chief Brian A. Kyes</b>

As the sitting president of the Massachusetts Major City Police Chiefs Association and the Legislative Committee chairman for the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, I have had ample opportunity to discuss the issue of raising the juvenile court age with my fellow chiefs. No state has yet raised the age of an adult for the purposes of criminal law above 18 years old. Massachusetts is one of four states actively considering it. We would be exploring relatively uncharted waters here in the Commonwealth. I share with many of my fellow chiefs the belief that this is not an experiment we should be undertaking now.

I have yet to hear a viable argument that individuals who are at least 18 years old do not know and understand the difference between what is right and what is wrong, what is moral and immoral, what is legal and illegal, and cannot fully comprehend the consequences of their own voluntary actions.

Advertisement



All of us in the police community stand united in collaborating with others in our criminal justice system and our community-based partners in finding innovative solutions to decreasing recidivism rates among our young people. However, the danger here is that we do not have any specific data that demonstrates that raising the age of juvenile court jurisdiction to 18 – as we did four years ago — has decreased crime and recidivism rates amongst this specific cohort — 17-year-olds — or 18-year-olds.

We cannot rush to judgment without having a viable action plan based on specific measurable data to ensure that we are attaining the desired outcomes we have sought to achieve. As President John F. Kennedy once stated, “Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan.” It would be irresponsible and impractical for us to look at current recidivism and crime rates in juveniles and attempt to attribute any apparent aggregate successes in these outcomes to solely raising the age of majority to 18 years of age and excluding all the other existing best practices that have attributed to this success.

Rather than rushing to enact changes where the effects on public safety are uncertain, let’s continue working together on initiatives to help prevent young people from reoffending.

Last week’s argument: Should the state expand tolling to additional Greater Boston roads?

Yes: 64.52% (20 votes)

No: 35.48% (11 votes)


As told to Globe correspondent John Laidler. He can be reached at laidler@globe.com.

Advertisement