Rather than being tried in adult criminal court, Mass. Gov. Deval Patrick signed a bill into law on Wednesday that incorporates 17-year-olds into the juvenile court system.
Martin Healy, chief legal counsel of the Massachusetts Bar Association, said his organization is in support of the legislation because it gives 17-year-olds the ability to be looked at in a more rehabilitative setting rather than a punitive one.
“It’s been proven by science that juveniles can’t quite think like adults, so to try them in an adult court setting doesn’t make any medical sense and I think the courts are trying to catch up to that,” he said. “Their mind is still developing, they’re not as mature, they’re reckless in some instances, and they don’t fully understand the level of what their actions may bring upon them.”
Patrick said in a Wednesday press release that this legislation is a step towards his goal of closing the achievement gap.
“I am proud to sign legislation that creates a better balance of holding our most violent offenders accountable, while giving our young people the opportunity for rehabilitation and reform that they deserve,” he said. “But whether we like it or not, some children still fall through the cracks, and we must not give up on them.”
Although Massachusetts is a progressive state, Healey said when it comes to matters that are sentence-related, the Commonwealth is conservative. The evidence lies in the fact that 39 other states made the legal change before Massachusetts to include 17-year-olds in juvenile court.
“We are still strongly in favor of mandatory sentencing in certain areas when many other states, and even more conservative states, are moving away from that,” he said. “We should really be putting the breaks on that type of legislation and going in a different direction and allowing judges more discretion to look at a particular case.”
Mass. Sen. Karen Spilka, a sponsor of the bill, said in the release that she has been working to get this bill passed for many years.
“I have fought for many years to make this change a reality,” she said. “Our juvenile justice system plays a critical role in helping youth offenders get back on track. 17-year-olds are not adults. Raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction will provide teenagers with the age-appropriate rehabilitation and support services they need for future success.”
Despite a 50 percent decline in juvenile court cases over the past 10 years, members of the Bar Association were concerned that their caseloads would be overwhelming with the addition of 17-year-olds, Healy said.
“It’s not going to inundate their system, and judges that work within that particular branch are more geared to helping individuals,” he said. “The majority of cases involve property damage or low-level drugs, and the judges are well-equipped to get young adults on the right track and give them a second chance and allow them to straighten out.”
Healy said this law was influenced by a larger push from the federal government to decrease the number of juvenile prison rapes.
“There was a push from the federal government that said to a number of states that they should be doing this kind of legislation, because there is an act to eliminate prison rape of juveniles, and a lot of states are in violation of the provisions of that federal statue,” he said. “Massachusetts would be at risk of violating that federal statue, which could lead to cut backs on federal funding regarding higher education and transportation.”
David Rossman, a law professor at Boston University, said although Massachusetts is joining the majority of states with this legislation, he does not believe many people will be affected.
“Massachusetts is joining the majority of states, and the federal government, in treating 17-year-olds as juveniles,” he said. “It is a step in the direction of recognizing the scientific data about the formation of adolescent brains and impulse control, but it adds only one year to the prior cutoff date. I don’t know how many people it will affect — not many, I would guess.”
Still, Healy said more should be done in regards to mandatory minimum sentencing in Massachusetts.
“Some of our more conservative states like Texas are beating Massachusetts in this view point,” he said. “We’d like Massachusetts to go further and say, ‘Let’s look at the area of drugs, and look at it as more of a health issue than a crime issue.’”
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
