Sponsored by Senator Carter, new legislation is being proposed that will directly impact the juvenile justice system. Senate Bill 93 is repealing a series of sections in the following articles in the Annotated Code of Maryland: Courts and Judicial Proceedings, Criminal Procedure, and Education.
Senator Carter hasn’t publicly stated the objectives she seeks through the changes but she is part of the Juvenile Justice Reform Council which has:
…developed a statewide policy framework of strategies to increase public safety and reduce recidivism of young offenders. To treat juveniles who come in contact with the criminal and juvenile justice systems, best practices were researched by the Council. Ways to limit contact of juveniles with the criminal and juvenile justice systems or otherwise mitigate the risk factors that lead to such contact were to be identified and recommended by the Council. (link)
In 2020, this council also put forward a policy paper entitled Youth Justic and Diversion in Maryland: Issue Brief and Joint Recommendations. This paper, and we quote, stated:
Maryland legal system contains many laws that unnecessarily bring young people, and disproportionately youth of color, to the attention of the justice system. Most often, this is for behaviors that are either typical adolescent behaviors or a reflection of how we have marginalized large segments of Maryland’s youth.
Studies show that formal interventions by the juvenile justice system do more harm than good for a large percentage of youth.
Research has told us time and time again that diverting these youth away from arrest and court involvement gets better public safety outcomes and better results for the young people themselves.
Under current law, the adult court has original jurisdiction over any child 16 years or older that has committed the following acts:
- Abduction
- Kidnapping
- Second Degree Murder
- Robbery under 3-404
- Third degree sexual offense
- A crime in violation of 5-133, 5-134, 5-138 or 5-203
- Use, wearing, carrying or transporting a firearm
- Carjacking or armed carjacking
- Assault in the first degree under 3-202
- Attempted murder in first degree
- Attempted rape in second degree
- Attempted robbery under 3-403
- A violation of 4-203, 4-204, 4-404 or 4-405
What this means is that if a minor is 16 years old or older and has committed one of these crimes they will be charged as an adult initially. There is a mechanism that allows a case to transferred down to juvenile that has started in the adult system. The new bill would eliminate the adult court jurisdiction for these offenses.
On its face it might appear that this is a good thing – “to treat kids as kids.” Unfortunately, things are not so simple. This maxim belies the many pitfalls inherent in the juvenile justice system that Senator Carter’s bill does not address.
Before getting into the weeds it is helpful to understand the differences between the adult and juvenile systems. In the adult system, every crime carries either a fine, a period of incarceration or both. The penalties are punitive in nature. The aim of the juvenile system is rehabilitation. There are no set penalties. Instead of being sentenced for a particular period of time, a juvenile offender (called a “respondent” vs a “defendant” in the adult court) is ordered to complete a particular program or receive certain services. There is also a mandate to use the “least restrictive means” in carrying out those services. This could mean getting services while living at home. It could also mean being removed from your home and sent to a placement to receive those services or work through a program. Theoretically, the sentence (called a “disposition”) is tailored to the particular child and circumstances, including their offenses, record, home life and needs.
In the last session, the Maryland Legislature made dramatic changes to way courts deal with juveniles, arguably making rehabilitation more difficult. For example, it used to be that a child could be sent to a placement for misdemeanors and felonies assuming that a placement was appropriate. Now, under Courts and Judicial Proceedings section 3-8A-19 “a child may not be committed to the Department of Juvenile Services for out-of-home placement if the most serious offense is: 1) possession of cannabis under section 5-601(c)(2)(ii) of the Criminal Law Article; 2) an offense that would be a misdemeanor if committed by an adult, unless the offense involves a firearm; or 3) a technical violation, as defined in section 3-8A-19.6”
What this means is that if your child is assaulted at school by another student there is no chance that aggressor can be placed since second degree assault is a misdemeanor. But you might say “well fights happen all the time and the judge can still put the respondent on probation and order services.” All true, but it ignores a serious flaw. Say the judge puts the respondent on probation and orders anger management and counseling and the respondent decides not to comply. Those would be “technical violations” under the new laws. Under Courts and Judicial Proceedings 3-8A-19.7 “a child may not be placed in a facility used for detention for a technical violation.”
Certainly, most kids who get in fights should not be removed from the home. However, these new laws seem to make only possible to “rehabilitate” those that are willing to be rehabilitated because it has eliminated a court’s ability to do much else than sit by and watch. Whether intended or not, it has created a system that forces the everyone to wait for the juvenile to commit an offense with a gun or a felony before all of the services and programs in the juvenile system can be used.
Setting all of this aside, Senator Carter’s bill also seems to not address another key difference between the adult and juvenile system. The jurisdiction of the juvenile court ends at 21 years of age. That means that a juvenile charged with murder is no longer under any form of supervision once they turn 21. They are in fact “free.” In addition, because the juvenile system is not punitive, when a respondent is sent to a placement it is to complete a “program” that does not carry a set period of time. Thus, once they complete that program, whether it takes 6 months or a year, they are discharged from that program. So juvenile murders will be back on the streets in months not years.
Imagine your surprise when you receive a call that your 16 year is in the hospital because they have been beaten severely at school and you learn the penalty for this is……the perpetrator does a report on the history of violence in school. In Senator Carter’s attempt to have less children in “the court system” she decides the best method is to strip oversight of the court system for offenses. As a result, all cases would start in Juvenile and then the burden would be on prosecutors to “waive” them up. Your spouse is the victim of a teen drunk driver? Better hope a prosecutor has the time and desire. Through past and current legislative sessions there has been a clear and deliberate dismantling of effective juvenile oversight.
Another example is that Senator Carter’s bill also makes major changes to the definition of a “delinquent act”.
Under current law, the court also has jurisdiction over any child that is at least 13 years old and alleged to be delinquent. But with Senator Carter’s new bill, this too would be very limited. That means that acts that would be a crime if committed by an adult would not be considered a crime for a child over 13 years old unless. We do not know what Senator Carter qualifies as ‘acts that violate public safety’ vs ‘acts of minor misbehavior’, but what she is do is setting juveniles up to a rude awakening once they turn 18. Is ‘misbehavior’ theft of $1,500 in goods? We also know that from the same report published by the Juvenile Justice Reform Council there is a belief that “creating a strong presumption that behaviors of young children are not criminal” is a positive step forward in Juvenile justice. I would disagree.
I encourage you to read Senate Bill 93, as it proposes a large number of repeals to the current legal framework. It also specifies “reenactments and amendments” to the current legal framework, but fails to specify what these would be. Also make your voice heard and contact Sen Carter’s office directly.
We do not do the minors in our community a favor by loosening oversight and corrective measures. This is not restorative. And we certainly do not do a favor to potential victims.
