NY State Juvenile Age of Criminal Responsibility

Introduction

The juvenile age of criminal responsibility generally refers to the minimum age in which a child can be prosecuted and reprimanded by the law for a punishable offence committed (Urbas, 2000). In criminal justice reform, the age for criminal responsibilities has been an issue of major discussion. Majority of the states in the U.S have been forced to raise the age bills that allow juveniles to be treated on their own entity unless they commit serious crimes such as murder, armed robbery and rape. In such offences, the offender can be tried in adult courtrooms. Juvenile system introduces the rehabilitation opportunities which involve counselling classes. In this paper we evaluate the effects of New York State’s Juvenile law on raising the age of criminal responsibility.

New York and Juvenile Justice

In justice related issues, New York is falling behind other states on the issue on the age of criminal responsibility. For decades, the question of jurisdiction age for juveniles has been left open in New York. In 1962, a family court Act was passed which now established the jurisdiction age as 16. The state treats its 16 and 17 year olds as adults for criminal responsibility contrary to other states where they are treated as juveniles. At this ages, they are taken to adult courts, do local adult jails or even detained for some time. However, youth aged 13, 14, 15 accused of serious crimes are treated as juvenile offenders. Juvenile cases can be transferred to the adult system unless they are to be determined in family court. A snapshot of youth involved in adult courts in New York states that during 2009, 47,339 youths aged 16 and 17 were arrested in the state having more than half of the arrests occurring in New York city (Governor’s Children’s Cabinet Advisory Board, 2011). Serious juvenile offenders should be prosecuted on an original jurisdiction which is more beneficial and equitable. A judge with experience in juvenile cases should determine the status of criminal responsibility basing on the particular circumstances of the offense. However, in 2018 the New York amended the age law adjusting the age of criminal responsibility to 17, which will later be adjusted to 18 in 2019. 

 According to the general population of New York, youths number representation in the justice system is disproportionately greater than other ages thus high difference in offending rate. The exposure to harsher treatments in the adult criminal system put youths at a major risk of getting disadvantaged on missing lifelong chances of education, employment and housing. Development researches define adolescent brain as not fully developed compared to the adult brain. This state limits critical decision making, impulse control and ability to resist peer pressure of the youths. The research aims in suggesting valid punishment of juvenile offenders that is equivalent to their weakened culpability. Youth charged and prisoned in adult facilities are likely to suffer emotional and physical abuse making the criminal justice system an ineffective and short-sighted. Studies show that in adult prisons, youth face sexual assaults, being beaten by staff or attacked with a weapon. These damages the physical health, mental health and development of youth resulting to the probability of committing suicide.   Establishment of family courts has led to a different youth treatment as they provide age-appropriate and rehabilitation services. 

Prosecuting youth using the adult system is at sometimes not an effective way of preventing future violence. Using a 2007 study carried on 15 and 16 year-olds that were charged with violent offences using the adult system were twice likely to be rearrested compared to the juvenile system, 46% and 26 % consecutively were likely to be rearrested for property crime and confined in future than in other states (Hahn et al. 2007). Based on the study a recommendation on charging youths in juvenile system was made with the objective to reduce violence. Juvenile system serves as the best way to prosecute youth so as to ensure public safety. Facilities designed for youth implement the child welfare model thus are safer and way better than adult centers. In adult confinements the young learn behaviors of more adult offenders and criminal mores which cause a disproportionate impact of negative influences. In compliance to the federal mandate confined in the Youthful Inmate Standard of the Prison Rape Elimination act, New York has taken steps in putting 16 and 17 year-olds in separate housing in the adult jails. This however doesn’t guarantee the protection and rehabilitation of the youth. Referring youth offenders to community-based supervision and treatment is likely to ensure no other offences are done in the future.

Critical questions are raised amid the society on the attempts to treat social deviance. To enact prevailing norms among the youth often reveal on uncertainties, fears and values of those in control of the society rather than getting the actual source of juvenile misconducts. Social problems emerge from the social structure which fail to have institutionalized behavior patterns contrary to the results caused by mysterious society evil forces. The misery in creating organization is a major challenge faced by New Yorkers as they consider the Society for Reformation of Juvenile wrongdoers as an institution to fight the existing social and economic evils. The New York House of Refuge, an institution formed in 1825, deals with the juvenile wrongdoers by rehabilitating these adolescents (Pickett, 1969).  Administrators of this institution keeps record and track characters under the program uses the historical attempt od “taming the deviant.” Such records are used to analyze ethnic origins, family status and living arrangements by sampling young inmates. This move is used to discourage crime activities by increasing risk of criminal punishment thus separating legal systems for juveniles and adults.

The New York’s Juvenile Offender (JO) Law of 1978 states that violent offenses of juveniles should be tried in a criminal court and penalties comparable to the adult system (Singer & McDowall, 1988). Under the law. 13 year-olds are considered legally as adults and are tried directly. According to Smith et al. the law is considered the most corrective offenders’ law. It uses two approaches; judicial contract that allows allow judges in making decisions on accused offenders according to criminal court; legislative exclusion which eliminates juvenile court jurisdiction on certain offenses. On the extreme range of violent crimes, a legislative exclusion is automatically used. The JO law defines crime such as burglary, kidnapping, rape and arson as serious crimes for any 13 to 17 year olds. Moreover, sentences carried by the young offenders were to be served in secure facilities. In addition, the law states that if offender gets to 21 years he or she to be transferred to an adult prison. In implementation of the JO law, serious efforts in creating its awareness have been made to ensure its existence and its constituents. Analyzing the effect of the law, the decrease in New York Juvenile arrest upon the law enforcement but no decrease in control series is experienced leads us to a conclusion that the crime rates have been adversely affected. This explains using arrests as a crime measure since the arrest data clearly gives age-specification on crime patterns. In dealing with juveniles, risk assessment tools must be valid in order to modify services for combat racial, individual needs and ethnic disparities. 

The juvenile justice system is a very suitable setting for accused youths. The reforms in juvenile justice system that New York should enact include; first change the law to raise the age of criminal responsibility from 16 to 18 and also set rehabilitation services such as education and health care opportunities. Raising the age addresses issues on mental health challenges and eradicates post-adjudication confinement. Juveniles under the age of 18 should be placed in their own facilities far from adult prisons as they should be protected from “sight and sound.” New setups should be built for youths who have committed serious crimes and expand services. This reduce the likelihood of broadening eligible crimes and reoffending. Supporting juveniles leaving the system to avoid their return is also essential. Lastly members in the society should be educated on youth issues, concerns and solution according to the juvenile justice system. This involves creating campaigns to advocate juvenile justice system reforms. Using the amendments, the high rates of rearrests and reoffending in the current New York system will be reduced.  

Findings and Observations

Given the ways in which juvenile laws vary in terms of their scope and operation, the New York state should be more cautious about the effects.  So far the law on the juvenile age of criminal responsibility is aimed at deterring youth crime and thus preventing future criminal behavior. However, recent studies generally indicate failure in establishing the law effectiveness. Despite the transfer of law proving not to work, we cannot conclude that this applies equally to other laws. To support the juvenile justice system, I recommend adequate funding of community based programs to reduce the juvenile crime rates.

                                                      References

Governor’s Children’s Cabinet Advisory Board. (2011). Advancing a fair and just age of criminal responsibility for youth in New York State. Retrieved from https://www.ccf.ny.gov/files/1613/8074/3358/AgeCriminalResponsibility.pdf

Hahn, R., McGowan, A., Liberman, A., Crosby, A., Fullilove, M., Johnson, R., … & Lowy, J. (2007). Effects on violence of laws and policies facilitating the transfer of youth from the juvenile to the adult justice system: A report on recommendations of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report: Recommendations and Reports, 56(9), 1-11.

Pickett, R. (1969). House of refuge: Origins of juvenile reform in New York State, 1815-1857. Syracuse University Press.

Singer, S. I., & McDowall, D. (1988). Criminalizing delinquency: The deterrent effects of the New York juvenile offender law. Law and Society Review, 521-535.

Urbas, G. (2000). The age of criminal responsibility (Vol. 181). Canberra, Australian Capital Territory: Australian Institute of Criminology.