Frequently Asked Questions
What does the Raise the Age legislation do?
This legislation will gradually raise the age of juvenile jurisdiction to include 18-20 year olds. The bill proposes a five-year implementation period to allow the various agencies to adjust to the programming and staffing to accommodate this newer population. Raising the age to 21 refers to the age at which an individual is subject to the (adult) criminal justice system.
What about public safety?
This reform will improve public safety and decrease crime. Since Massachusetts raised the age to include 17-year-olds in the juvenile system in 2013, juvenile crime has declined significantly in the Commonwealth – outperforming national trends in property and violent crime reductions. See most recent analysis here.
Our current system- sending older teens into the adult system- is making things worse. Most young people can be held accountable and be on track for rehabilitation, particularly with developmentally appropriate interventions. However, exposure to toxic environments like adult jails and prisons can actually increase offending. The Pathways to Desistance study conducted a seven-year study of young people who have been adjudicated for serious, violent offenses to identify the factors that are tied to their desistance or persistence in offending and found that of all the factors they studied two stood out: (1) belief in the legitimacy of authority and (2) meeting adolescent developmental milestones on time.
CDC research has shown that similar adolescents had a 34 percent lower recidivism rate when they were in the juvenile v. adult system. And, young people discharged from DYS commitment have lower recidivism rates that young adults formerly incarcerated in the adult system (46% of formerly DYS committed youth were rearraigned compared to 76% of 18-24 year-old’s discharged from Houses of Corrections; and the re-conviction rate is 26% compared to 55%).
Why should we treat 18-20 year olds differently from other adults?
First, because we already think about this age group as separate from other adults – think about how the legal drinking age and age to legally use marijuana and tobacco is 21.
Involvement in the justice system also prevents this age group from achieving milestone that we, as a society, view as signs of maturity, like holding a steady job, having a home, and finishing one’s education, encouraging more criminal activity.
Additionally, Massachusetts already recognizes older teens as a distinct population and serves “transition age youth” through child- and adolescent-serving agencies and divisions: DCF, healthcare, DESE, DMH, DDS, labor and other state agencies have created dedicated policies and programs to support young adults' transition to independent adulthood.
Transition age youth in the child welfare system, who are most at risk of legal system involvement, may receive Department of Children and Families services up to age 23. However, if they enter the adult criminal legal system those services, especially those from child-serving agencies, can be severed. Adult legal system involvement becomes a serious impediment for these support systems to offer continuity and keep youth connected to service providers and mentors.
What if an older teen commits a serious, violent crime?
This legislation does not change the statutes pertaining to the prosecution and sentencing of youth charged with the most serious offenses (first or second degree murder) who are automatically tried and sentenced in (adult) Superior court.
Approximately 10% of 18- to 20-year-olds are charged with a serious felony that leads to Superior Court charges. The juvenile court currently handles almost all of these cases, including the cases of young people under the age of 21 who are indicted on serious offenses.
The court has the discretion to impose more severe, adult sentences in “youthful offender” (YO) cases. Prosecutors can seek a “Youthful Offender” indictment if the felony offense (1) resulted in or threatened to cause serious bodily injury; (2) involved a firearm; or (3) is a felony and the young person was previously committed to DYS for another offense. If a young person is adjudicated as a Youthful Offender, the Judge has the discretion to impose (1) commitment to DYS (until age 21); (2) an adult sentence; or (3) a combination of a DYS commitment and adult sentencing past the 21st birthday.
TThe juvenile system typically imposes more supervision and intensive programming while in confinement than the adult criminal justice system. Educational, counseling and independent living programming are difficult-to-impossible to access on the adult side. The adult system yields predictably worse outcomes for young adults.
What about intermingling with younger teens?
DYS has a strong history of preventing the mixing of older and younger youth. DYS has been handling youth up to their 21st birthday for over two decades. In 2017, DYS served 357 youth ages 18 and over. Slightly over half were young people serving Youthful Offender sentences in DYS until their 21st birthday. The other half are youth receiving one year of voluntary services through DYS after the end of their commitment, which could be up to their 22nd birthday.
DYS does not generally mix 20-year-olds with younger teens today. The department has a thorough evaluation process to ensure that placement is appropriate. It is not one-size fits all. DYS has many small programs that range from locked facilities to community-based programs, creating many options to separate older and younger individuals.
An 18-year-old can vote and enlist in the military. Doesn’t that make them an adult?
Even though state laws set legal rights and responsibilities of adulthood defined by a person’s age, there is no one age at which a person achieves adulthood. Instead adolescents transition into adulthood and throughout this transition our society and our laws grant young people access to positive and pro-social activities and then gradually allow access to more risky and dangerous activities:
A 14-year-old is eligible for a partial work permits; but can’t get a driver’s license until age 16, when they can also pre-register to vote. An 18-year-old can sign contracts, go to the military, give medical consent but can’t be a firefighter before age 19. A young person can’t drink alcohol, smoke tobacco or marijuana, gamble or serve as a police officer in Massachusetts until age 21, when they are also allowed to purchase any firearm or ammunition. Child support is owed to the custodial parent up to age 21 if the child is living with that parent. Age 21 is the earliest the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends a child move out of pediatric care. Students with special education needs are eligible for DESE educational services until age 22. By age 25, a young person can rent a car without underage fees and by 26 they are required to acquire their own health insurance.
Will this violate federal requirements requiring the separation of juveniles and adults?
Raising the age of Juvenile Jurisdiction will not violate federal core requirements under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) and the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA). Federal law defines a “juvenile” as someone who is charged in court as a “juvenile” and therefore a young adult charged as a “juvenile” would not be considered an adult for PREA and JJDPA purposes. Read Columbia University’s response to states considering raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction past the 18th birthday.
Is there a role for parents in the juvenile court whose children are 18 or older?
The juvenile system already deals with 18- to 21-year-olds (those who went to court before their 18th birthdays and whose sentence extended some time up to the maximum age the juvenile can order a sentence), and it’s already involving the parents of these individuals as part of its rehabilitative process. This is not the only system in Massachusetts working with the parents of emerging adults who are 18 and older – for example, the public school system still sends report cards and communicates information about health and behavior to the parents of students who are older than 17.
A better question is: Is it appropriate to place an 18-year-old, often a high school senior, in a system where parental involvement is close to impossible?
Are other states considering raising the age past the 18th birthday?
Yes! Vermont passed in 2018 a law raising the age to include 18-year-olds by July 2020 and 19-year-olds by July 2024. Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Nebraska Virginia, Washington have legislation pending to raise the age to include 18- to 20-year-olds in their juvenile systems.
Is this bill retroactive?
The bill does not provide any opportunity for the expansion of the juvenile justice system to be applied retroactively. This was also true of the enactment of earlier legislation raising the age of juvenile court jurisdiction in 2013, from the 17th to the 18th birthday when the Supreme Judicial Court held:
This case requires us to decide whether St.2013, c. 84(act), which extended the Juvenile Court's jurisdiction to persons who are seventeen years of age at the time of committing an offense, applies retroactively to persons who were seventeen years of age when they committed an offense and against whom criminal proceedings had begun and were pending on September 18, 2013, the effective date of the act. We conclude that the act is not retroactive to criminal cases begun and pending before September 18, 2013, against persons who were seventeen years of age at the time of the alleged offense.
Watts v. Commonwealth, 468 Mass. 49 (2014)
Will this bill extend the ban of juvenile life without parole sentences of youth 18- to 20-years-old?
The sections in the statute pertaining to juvenile life and parole sentencing are excluded from this legislation. It is possible that the SJC will find that it is unconstitutional to sentence older adolescents to life in prison without the possibility of parole, but that litigation is entirely independent of this legislation. This matter was decided by the SJC Commonwealth v. Mattis and Commonwealth v Ullman, upholding a lower court’s decision that juvenile life without parole for youth under 21 constituted "cruel and unusual punishment” under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. In making this decision, the judge stated that "the imposition of non-discretionary (i.e. mandatory) life-without-parole sentences for defendants who were age 18 to 20 at the time of their crimes constitutes 'a sentencing practice based on mismatches between the culpability of a class and of offenders and the severity of a penalty."