Texas is one of seven states where the age of criminal responsibility is below 18, and other such jurisdictions are also reconsidering the policy. In North Carolina, Politifact evaluated claims that a short-term investment in raising the age would save money in the long run. They dubbed the claim "mostly true," concluding that:
other states have found juvenile justice reforms including taking teenage offenders out of adult prisons do lead to less crime and long-term savings – possibly as much as $10 for every $1 spent on reform. Yet despite all the evidence about long-term savings, there’s also no denying there would be short-term cost increases for state government.We're talking about systems, not static investments, and the idea that a small short-term expense may generate long-term savings is pretty typical in the criminal-justice field. For example, Texas' investments in treatment and programming on the adult side beginning in 2007 have prevented billions in prison spending. But many of the legislative leaders who pushed through that effort are gone now and it remains to be seen whether the Lege can be convinced to go that route for 17-year olds in a tight budget climate. It's the smart move from a good-government perspective, but good government isn't the sole or even main goal of every politician these days, readers may have noticed.
The Texas Tribune recently dubbed the Raise-the-Age proposal the top priority for juvenile justice advocates this session, providing this analysis:
The top issue for juvenile justice advocates this session will be pushing to raise the age of criminal responsibility from age 17 to 18. State law has considered 17-year-olds adults for criminal purposes for decades, but critics say the practice could do more harm than good to children, who they say have no business being locked up with adult offenders instead of being treated with 16-year-olds and younger people in the juvenile justice system.
Legislation to make the age change failed in the 2015 session, and supporters have vowed to try again. If Texas does not enact the change, lockups in the state would continue to risk being at odds with federal law – the Prison Rape Elimination Act, which bars 17-year-old inmates from being within "sight or sound" of inmates 18 and older. County jails have had issues being able to comply with federal law because of lacking resources.Concerns have been expressed whether the juvie system has capacity to handle 17 year olds, but the proposal comes at a time when juvenile incarceration AND crime have been plummeting for a decade, both in Texas and nationally. Texas incarcerates around 20 percent of the number of youth inmates compared to a decade ago, with juvenile crime continuing to drop as the state decarcerated. So capacity isn't Grits' biggest concern. Rather, I fear the relatively small sums required to implement the change may loom larger in a tight budget year than in a session where they have enough money to pay the bills.
Most Texans already think the age of criminal responsibility is 18 and typically only find out otherwise if their high-school-junior son is arrested and charged as an adult. But laws serve the public better if they match the public's perceptions, and most people don't consider kids "adults" before they can vote, much less drink. Treating a 17-year old as an adult is a legal fiction whose time has passed. Texas should change the law this year.
CORRECTION/UPDATE: This post originally said Texas was one of nine states treating under-18 kids as adults, a number I'd recalled from memory. LBJ School lecturer Michele Deitch emailed to say the total is actually seven. "Louisiana and South Carolina raised the age last year," she advised. Not exactly liberal bastions, those two states. Perhaps that momentum will help convince Texas legislators that it's politically okay to do this.
.jpg)
24 comments:
Noticeably absent from today's grandiose rally was representation from the true experts on juvenile justice, juvenile probation officers. The true experts were home working hard to rehabilitate more and more kids "close to home" and not being paid by special interest groups to push their interpretation of how things should be on unknowing legislators. the cost will defeat the measure this session. No one is denying that the concept is sound but until there is a partnership created between advocate groups and practitioners who actually know how to treat the juveniles this will be an adversarial issue. Community safety issues need to be considered also.
"No one is denying that the concept is sound" but probation folks want advocates to ... what exactly? ... do something BESIDES promote sound concepts to the Legislature? Kiss your ring? If you think the concept is sound, and 43 states find it to be workable, I'm not sure what you want from advocates. It seems to be your guys who aren't stepping up to the plate to support sound policies.
BTW - there was at least one chief juvevenile probation officer present today. Not all of of juvenile probation is using this issue as an opportunity to get additional funding for their pet projects.
it should be noted the grandiose event was supposed to be about the kids expressing their opinions not the stakeholders getting into pissing matches.
Two words: Unfunded mandate.
If there's an unfunded mandate here, 5:37, it came from George W. Bush's federal Prison Rape Elimination Act. The question now, all these years later, is whether those costs will be borne by adult jails or juvenile detention, as the federal law envisions. The Sheriffs support RTA for just that reason, and they're law enforcement professionals.
PREA was a national hot button way before W was president so don't stereotype.
You still have the issue of potentially 18 year olds in a juvenile setting with 17 and under so this doesn't even start to address PREA. Not all Sheriff's support RTA just like not all juvenile probation departments are against it so stop stereotyping.
5:20 I would like to see the list of kids that were at the rally and what 1 or 2 counties they were from, probably the same as the ONE juvenile probation chief. and 5:18 if you think there are any "pet projects" out there in juvenile or adult probation guess again. I am over both in a small county. We struggle to find any funding for any type of service other than just basic probation. I don't care either way but I can tell you detaining a juvenile is much more expensive than detaining an adult. And yes it would be a unfunded mandate if there is no state funding to follow the 17 year old. Grits your 5:14 post does not help those of us who really try to help the offenders, juvenile or adult.
You're wrong about PREA, 7:57, it passed on W's watch with his support and he signed it. And the Sheriff's Association endorsed RTA last session, so that's what I mean when I say the Sheriffs support it. They don't want 17 year olds in their jails, for reasons Mr. Akueir's story makes plain.
Finally, I'm more about helping the kids than helping you. If you want them to get an adult felony tag at 17, I'm not on your side, I'm on their side. Hence the 5:14 post.
Mr. Akueir was 6'4" in height and only a number of weeks from his 18th birthday. How do you propose protecting smaller and generally immature youth from larger young men about to launch into adulthood? There are many problems with raise the age concept.
Since drinking age is 21 I think we should raise it to age 21!
So, heard from the Gov that CPS needs to be fixed. Nothing about Raise The Age.
There really isn't that big a difference between the 17 and 18 year old mind and body. Not exactly sure why there's so much animosity towards the RTA supporters about this. It works in 42 of the 50 states, and in the territories, so what's the issue? The 17 yr old who find themselves on adult probation are not equipped mentally to handle the maturity it takes to organize, plan, and execute the conditions of probation that, honestly, were never designed for them in the same way our assessment tools were not designed for them. Unfunded mandate? All it will do is shift the money from one part of the county's coffers to another, and might force the county to start thinking of smarter ways to spend that money. ::le gasp:: #lifesamitt #bigly
It is shameful we would exploit the death of a young man to try to further any cause out there but point taken. I have a problem with a 17 or 18 year old "adults" being in with 10,11,12 year old children.
@10:14/4:52, of course, juvie facilities in the 43 states with 18 as the age of adulthood already segregate teenagers from younger kids, as do Texas facilities - both county and TJJD. These are already-solved problems being thrown out as red herrings.
You are sadly misinformed about the "Red herring". TJJD has been able to segregate the older population from the younger population at a greater cost per juvenile to do so. Large county departments who have many beds available can in some cases also segregate but when you get to the medium and small detention centers that capability is not easily accomplished. Everyone out there that think they know how to operate a juvenile probation department who have never even stepped foot into one are hypocrites and absolutely do not know what you are talking about. The very first post hit it on the nail head. Too many people who know NOTHING are trying to change a system and minimalize the true impact to the current system. Boots on the ground who work with juveniles need to be afforded the opportunity to provide input but the opinions of individuals who can't leave work and spend every waking moment in Austin end up suffering. Accurate editorials would go a long way to solving the road blocks to accomplish this movement but when people falsely repost how RTA will impact the system that does nothing but drive more wedges between the 2 sides. GH
So it's impossible to segregate youth by age, but "TJJD has been able to segregate" and "Large county departments who have many beds available can in some cases also segregate." I agree smaller faciilties are the ones who have trouble. But clearly it can be done, and typically is done.
What you're failing to acknowledge is that PREA mandates segregation of 17 year olds if they go to the county jails, and those are even less equipped to handle them, and in fact are much further from meeting compliance with juvenile standards than the juvie facilities. Texas now has to pick where that unfunded mandate from DC will fall - on the adult jails or juvie detention, as is the case in 43 other states and as the federal law intended. That's the policy debate going on here. Failing to choose dumps the costs on adult jails, which is why the Sheriffs Association supports RTA.
So yes, we all agree there is more cost. Can you agree that Texas taxpayers must bear it either way and the existence of a federal unfunded mandate - with which our Governor, the Legislature, and prison administrators have already agreed - isn't an argument not to comply with PREA? And if we can agree on that, in that context, please explain why 17-year olds should be prosecuted as adults, knowing that the taxpayers must fork over either way.
I think no one argues that 17 year olds can be handled in the juvenile justice field but we cannot ignore the FACTS that 1) there is a cost associated either way it goes and identify which side carries the most cost, 2) capacity in the current juvenile system is insufficient to handle the influx of another age group (see house interim report on number of 17 year olds in jails), 3) developing programs and services for this young adult group cannot happen overnight, 4) construction of/additions to juvenile facilities will be necessary, 5) commitments to the state facilities and certifications will increase.
@1:42, on cost, depends whether you mean short term or long term. Short term RTA costs the state more than doing nothing, since the unfunded mandate on adult jails falls to the locals. Medium to long term, failing to do so costs more, for reasons cited in the story from North Carolina.
On capacity, most 17 year olds in jail are there for minor offenses and wouldn't be incarcerated as juveniles at all. Because juvie crime and incarceration have declined so much over the last decade, I don't believe substantial new construction would be necessary for capacity, though there may be some that need modification to segregate older kids. And while certifications would increase, the overall number of 17 year olds in the adult system would plummet, so that's not a concern as far as volume, etc.
OTOH, at least you're now talking about real stuff and not just pretending that somehow what's possible in 43 other states can't be done here. That's a step in the right direction.
Grits I believe you said only two things that are correct in your last post. If passed “17 year olds in the adult system will plummet” and “Texas can do it”. On your other points you are just flat wrong. Look at other states where 17 year olds are in the juvenile system. They become the single largest incarcerated age group. This will become true in Texas as well. Can’t we trust that our adult judges will see a 17 year old and balance the protection of the community with that of a first time 17 year old offender? I agree, 17 year olds need their parents. However, the 17 year olds are the ones that need to step up and ask their parents to help them. Humility goes a long way when you’re entering into adulthood.
Display a valid operator license and proof of financial responsibility. Answer any question with your name, DOB, and address. Treat the encounter like a US POW: name rank, and serial number.
Food for thought... The LBB did a great job exploring both sides of this issue here:http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Documents/Publications/Staff_Report/3729_LBB_Staff_Reports.pdf
The Raise The Age and PREA issues are about page 387. Talking points for both sides are listed. Interesting that only 5 departments state they would need to expand facilities when a previous post made it sound like they all would. Give those 5 the expansion funds this session to take that argument away
@7:59. As the LBB report shows the new construction costs are only a small fraction of the cost of raising the age. The overwhelming cost of raising the age will be to the continued annual operation not only to TJJD but even more so for county governments.
Both last 2 posts make valid points. 1) provide funding to expand for those that need to be able to handle the influx of 17 year olds. Do that this session which will give 2 years to build. Then identify funding in the next legislature (maybe CPS will be fixed by then) that can provide for the increased costs of personnel, programs etc. Once funding is in place the juvenile probation departments won't have that argument. Make the raise the age effective September 1 2019 or January 1, 2020.
FUNDING is key though. If we don't have a clear cut set in stone funding stream we can't make appropriate plans.
Post a Comment