New Haven Independent

That vow came Friday at a gathering at Gateway Community College, a forum similar to one held before the last state legislative session. It brought together legislators (like Mike Lawlor, on the left), grassroots activists (like Sally Joughin, on the right), educators, and other youth-serving organizations.

The room was packed for the breakfast meeting sponsored by the Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance. Legislative sponsors included State Rep. Toni Walker and State Rep. Mike Lawlor, vice chair of the General Assembly’s Judiciary Committee. They pushed last year to raise the age to 18 from 16 at which youth in Connecticut are treated as adults in the criminal justice system. The bill passed the Judiciary Committee but went no further.

Connecticut is one of just three states where the cut-off for juvenile status is 16, and, according to data from the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, our little state leads the nation in the number of children under 18 in adult prisons and jails “” 383 in 2005 “” 71 percent of any other state. (Connecticut is the only state among the top six that lumps local jail inmates under 18 together with prison inmates, so it’s a little like comparing apples and oranges, but even then the numbers are shockingly high.)

The Alliance’s legislative agenda for next year is two-fold: raise the age for criminal status for juveniles, and keep children who have committed no crimes out of the juvenile justice system.

While the philosophy of the juvy system focuses on treatment and rehabilitation (at least in theory), the adult system focuses on punishment. But even the juvenile system is not where most of the kids currently in it should be, according to advocates. That’s because most of them have not committed any crime, but rather have exhibited behavior that is only illegal because of their age “” things like skipping school, running away, being “beyond control” or defying school rules.

“We did those things as kids ourselves,” said Barbara Fair of People Against Injustice, a grassroots reform group. “Imagine if they locked us all up if we didn’t go to school or ran away from home.”

Last year the legislature did pass a law taking 16- and 17-year olds out of the criminal justice system who have been determined to come from a Family With Service Needs (FWSN). It goes into effect in October 2007, and is supposed to provide services to the youth and his/her family to resolve the underlying problems that led to the unacceptable behavior.

Critics of treating middle teens as juveniles say building new separate facilities and providing treatment will cost more; advocates counter that in the long run it will cost less, since more effective treatment will reduce recidivism, thus lowering the number of people in the system.

State Rep. Richard Roy (pictured, behind New Haven Assistant Police Chief Herman Badger) said that with the explosion of deadly youth violence this past summer, that the proposed changes could give the impression of coddling wrong-doers.

“How do we address the perception that the youth are running amuck and we’re saying, ‘Let’s not send them to jail,’ when a good number of my constituents say, ‘Put ‘em away and keep ‘em away. Don’t put ‘em back on the street.’?”

Abby Anderson (pictured), senior policy fellow with the alliance, answered that last year in the state, 10,000 16- and 17-year-olds were arrested, 95 percent for nonviolent, minor offenses. Yet all went to the adult criminal court; studies show that youth treated as adults are more likely to re-offend and more likely to turn to more serious crime than young people handled through the juvenile system. The goal of the alliance is to move the vast majority out of the criminal system while keeping that small minority of violent offenders in the adult criminal system.

But that didn’t sit well with Sally Joughin, also of People Against Injustice. She said if advocates of the reforms argue that children’s brains are different from those of adults, that also applies to the violent youthful offenders.

“Just because a youth does a violent crime, they don’t become an adult either, so is it just a tactic on the part of the alliance to exclude those who do more serious crimes from the legislation so you can get something done for the majority of people? Because I don’t feel like violent youthful offenders should be in with adult criminals either.”

Hector Glynn, executive director of the alliance, answered, “If we’re successful with the 16- and 17-year olds who aren’t violent, then I think the argument can be made [about violent offenders], but I don’t think the state’s ready and I don’t think most people are ready to do things blindly. We want to make sure we’re doing things for kids and the entire community.”