North Carolina is just one of two states in the nation that prosecute all 16 and 17-year-olds charged with a crime in the adult criminal justice system, regardless of the severity of their alleged crimes.
Nearly 86 percent of crimes committed by 16 and 17 year olds were misdemeanors, and more than 28,000 youth misdemeanor cases were judged in the adult system, according to the Council for Children’s Rights.
There is no valid reason as to why these teenagers cannot be placed within the juvenile justice system, preserving adult courts for the more severe, violent offenders. The juvenile system delivers age-appropriate adjudication, services, punishment and treatment while simultaneously offering young people time to mature. It has been long overdue for North Carolina to follow the other 48 states and revise state law to ensure that adolescents are treated fairly according to their age.
A recent ordeal suffered by Raleigh teenager Selina Garcia highlights the absurdity of this law and why the age limit needs to be raised. The 17 year old spent three weeks in jail because the foster-care system could not find a place for her after she was arrested for allegedly fighting on a school bus. She served her time among adult women accused of selling drugs, stealing and even attempted murder. I doubt there are many people who can say they made it through high school without the desire to punch a classmate and to enforce someone to serve among criminals for such an offense is extremely unreasonable.
Proponent of the legislation argue that there are greater costs associated with raising the age limit. In addition to this, there is the claim that the current age limit is an effective deterrent for 16 and 17 year olds as there is a more severe punishment awaiting them.
However, these rationalizations are not sufficient enough to subject teenagers to dangerous environments full of violent offenders. According to The Vera Institute of Justice, “While raising the age will add to the workload of juvenile-justice agencies, it will reduce the workload of other criminal-justice agencies and reduce future criminal-justice expenditures.”
Furthermore, there could be benefits for the adult prison capital budget from increasing the age of juvenile jurisdiction. The Vera Institute of Justice about 43 prison beds would become available because of a reduction of crime in the future, and because 16 and 17 year olds would get out of the adult prisons.
Most importantly, raising the age limit will prove advantageous for the person in question. The U.S. Department of Labor Statistics reports that having a criminal record reduces a person’s employment opportunities. Therefore, 16 and 17 year olds under juvenile justice jurisdiction will have much improved employment prospects because they will not have gained a criminal record, as they would if they remained in the criminal justice system. Additionally, the absence of a felony-criminal record means that a person may vote, obtain financial aid for college, secure public housing and avoid other collateral consequences of a criminal conviction. They would have access to additional services within the juvenile system, such as mental health treatment and vocational programs, which will enable young people to develop skills and abilities to succeed in the future. Finally, because the policy change will likely reduce recidivism rates among 16 and 17-year-olds, it will enable young people who might have otherwise re-offended to avoid future criminal justice involvement and thus lead more satisfying and productive lives.
Send your thoughts to Sophie at technician-viewpoint@ncsu.edu.
