April 5, 2010 – Moving most 17-year-olds out of adult courts and into the juvenile justice system is “the right thing to do,” Atty. Rändi Othrow, chair-elect of the State Bar’s Children & the Law Section told members of the Assembly Committee on Corrections and the Courts on April 1 in testimony supporting enactment of Assembly Bill 732.
The legislation, proposed by Rep. Fred Kessler and co-sponsored by Sen. Lena Taylor, would increase the age at which a person would be subject to the procedures and sentencing outlined in the adult criminal code from age 17 to age 18. The proposal would retain the option for courts to waive a person under the age of 18 into adult court, and juveniles alleged to have committed certain crimes would be under the original jurisdiction of the adult court for criminal proceedings. Under the proposal, the changes would be phased in over a one-year period beginning on July 1, 2010.
Othrow told committee members that the Children & the Law Section, which includes members from a variety of practice backgrounds, including prosecutors, defense attorneys, and guardians ad litem, draw from a range of experiences in reaching the conclusion that moving juveniles back to juvenile court jurisdiction is in society’s long-term interests. “We know from our experience and training that 17-year-olds, no matter how big and tough they may appear to be, still have the minds of children,” she explained.
The State Bar’s Board of Governors adopted an official position that notes, in part, that “the best way to protect society against further crimes by 17-year-olds is to treat them in the juvenile justice system, not the adult criminal justice system.”
In her written testimony, Othrow emphasized that “more and more national research demonstrates that juveniles who are treated in the juvenile justice system are less likely to recidivate than those who are tried in the adult criminal justice system. The experience of practitioners, including me and other members of the Children & the Law Section who routinely work with children, is that the research seems to be true here in Wisconsin, too. The adult criminal justice system is simply not equipped nor designed to handle 17-year-olds, and as a state, we are essentially abandoning these children once they enter that world.”
Othrow stressed that the State Bar is not advocating the elimination of the ability of the court to try truly dangerous and mature 17-year-olds in adult court when appropriate or to change the existing original jurisdiction in adult court for juveniles who have committed a homicide or certain other serious offenses.
She reminded committee members that from at least 1955 to 1995, “Wisconsin drew the line between juvenile and adult court at age 18; only since 1995 has that line been rolled back to age 17. Ironically, what we have learned since 1995 is that our previous law was correct. New brain research, including the use of MRIs to actually observe brain functions, has demonstrated scientifically what we already knew observationally – that adolescent brains are immature – especially in the areas of the brain that govern control of impulsivity, judgment, planning for the future, foresight of consequences and other characteristics that allow people to make sound judgments.”
Other testimony presented at the hearing reinforced this view. Jim Moeser, deputy director of the Wisconsin Council on Children and Families, outlined the historical background of Wisconsin’s current law. He explained that beginning in the late 1980s through the mid 1990s, state legislators in Wisconsin and most other states responded to rising juvenile crime rates by moving 17-year-olds to adult court. Ironically, research since then has demonstrated that placing 17-year-olds in the adult criminal justice system makes it more likely that they will go on to reoffend. “There is nothing to be gained,” he concluded, “by treating all 17-year-olds as adults in this one area of their lives.” He also reminded committee members that Wisconsin’s juvenile justice system has also been substantially improved since the decision was made to move 17-year-olds out of that system in the mid-1990s.
Othrow told committee members that the State Bar has concerns about the logistics of the “phase-in” provision in the bill (during the first year the proposed change in jurisdiction applies only to misdemeanor charges with felony charges to be included the following year). “This split poses significant problems for law enforcement and prosecutors in the areas of charging, negotiating and simply determining where to ‘hold’ the juvenile. Illinois is currently operating under this scenario and anecdotally we understand this is causing them major problems. We believe it makes more sense from a practical standpoint to simply make the change in jurisdiction apply to all charged crimes.”
She and other supporters of the legislation acknowledged that moving 17-year-olds back into the juvenile system will require substantial additional funds and that the funding issue is unlikely to be resolved during the current legislative session. Several committee members indicated that the matter may be more effectively addressed by the full Legislature as part of the biennial budget process.
Video and audio records of the hearing are available on WisconsinEye.
Related Article:
"Raise the Age" - Return 17-Year-Olds to Juvenile Court – June 2007
Rotunda Report is the State Bar of Wisconsin’s Government Relations e-newsletter that highlights legislative, judicial, and administrative developments that impact the legal profession and the justice system. It is published twice a month and is distributed free to attorneys, public officials and others who help shape public policy in Wisconsin. We invite your suggestions to make the Rotunda Report more informative and useful and we encourage you to visit our Web site for the most current information about justice-related issues.
© 2009, State Bar of Wisconsin
