More youth recidivism after “raise the age”

I don’t know how NY manages to mess up things other do OK. Things like bail reform, legal marijuana, hot dogs, and raise the age.

I don’t get this. Really. Not being facetious. Advocates pushed for “raise the age” (moving 16- and 17-year-old offenders down to “family court”) to benefit them. It was supposed to be better (victims be damned, but whatever). But it hasn’t been. Shouldn’t advocates care?

In 2015 the president of the Vera Institute promised recidivism and juvenile crime rates can be lowered: “The benefits of raising the age are real, not theoretical.”

In 2017 there was the ideal of less recidivism.

In 2017 the Brennan Center for Justice said “raise the age” was commendable, but didn’t go far enough. Loopholes need to be closed because it is still possible for a mass-murdering (my words, not theirs) 17-year-old to be criminally charged in NY.

Why can I find nothing at any of these “non-patician” centers about raise-the-age since it was passed? If it’s working, shouldn’t they take a well earned victory lap? If it’s not working, don’t they care?

Here is good data and analysis by W. Dyer Halpern, former chief tax prosecutor at Bronx DA. Youth recidivism and gun violence are up. And all those advocates who pushed for this—”for the kids” whose “brains aren’t fully developed”— where are they now? mean other states have done raise the age. So why can’t NY? My point isn’t to lock up every kid forever for every minor offense. But let’s figure out what part isn’t working… and fix it! But NY reform advocates seem to enjoy breaking the parts, and then moving on.

The article is detailed and goes into the weeds with recommendations. That’s good. That’s his field (and not mine). But why not more honest critique of raise the age? It doesn’t seem to be working by any metric I can see, except few criminals jailed. It’s also simply a good primer on how our juvie justice system works. Unlike criminal court, there are very few people (myself included) who aren’t working in the system who understand it enough to explain it accurately.

A few points: victims should know what happens in their case. Imagine being robbed, rudely and at gunpoint, by a large 17-year-old and being told you can’t be told anything because he’s just a kid. You’d think the restorative justice crowd would be all over this. Nope.

Judges should be able to know and use the knowledge of recidivism for an individual repeat offender. Why not? This is the part where I get cynical. Maybe advocates really are just pro-crime. It’s not even pro-criminal to let a kid re-offend! It’s bad for the kid!!!

Not letting a judge know the full story of a child is like passing a law a pediatrics doctors are not allowed to look at a kid’s medical chart. And if they’ve treated the kid before, they have to pretend like they never has. I mean really, who is behind this? Who actively put this into law? Under what possible logic would one say, “This raise-the-age is good reform we’re going to get passed when we can, but… I don’t like how a judge will be able to see if a kid failed a program previously [or a program failed a kid, let’s consider]. Can’t have that!” Somebody said that. And other people nodded their heads agreement. I’d love to know who and why.

And finally we need better assessment. It’s a subjective and when “success”: “a probation officer assessed that the juvenile completed the terms of a program into which he was placed.” Whatever that means, “success” is down every year, from 32% to 24%.

OK, but let’s say everybody had the best intentions. And this was supposed to keep kids out of jail, lower recidivism, help the kid, and improve public safety. Win-win, I was promised. It hasn’t. Well, it has kept violent 16 and 17 year olds out of jail. And maybe that’s all that matter to advocates. Supporters of raise the age haven’t said a word. But kids (formerly young adults) are committing more crime, shooting and getting shot more, and getting caught more. And the progressive left is, best I can tell, silent.

Everything above is about or from W. Dyer Halpern’s Reforming “Raise the Age” over at the Manhattan Institute.