Tougher penalties or increased services? Debate on juvenile justice in CT intensifies
HARTFORD — Advocates for increased social services and diversion programming for juvenile offenders on Wednesday vastly outnumbered supporters of tougher penalties for crimes such as stealing cars at a time when such thefts have increased sharply, compared to earlier periods.
While dozens supported a bill aimed at investing millions of dollars in the expansion of the community-based diversion systems, only a handful spoke in favor of a proposal pushed by Republican lawmakers for those under-18 to submit to mandatory fingerprinting; require those at least 15 years of age to be charged as adults for certain crimes; and develop individual reentry plans.
“If the goal is to punish them, it gets five gold stars. If the goal is to return children to their families for them to be your neighbors, wouldn’t you want them to receive the effective care they need?” said Christina Quaranta, executive director of the Connecticut Justice Alliance, during a morning news conference in the Legislative Office Building. “Treating children as adults is bad policy. It does nothing to help young people, nor improve public policy. Mass incarceration, surveillance and over-policing will not solve any of the issue Connecticut is seeing in terms of violence.”
“For far too long the judicial system has focused on incarcerating juveniles for offenses instead of making more options for them,” said state Rep. Anthony Nolan, D-New London, a police officer who supports the proposal to expand social-service programming. “We watch people say they want to help youth, but we take too long to help them. We must change the system. We have a system that does not do enough diversion for our kids.”
Michael Lawlor, a nationally recognized expert on the criminal justice system who teaches at the University of New Haven, stressed that there are two things to look at when it comes to the creation of criminal justice policy in the General Assembly. “Is it to reduce crime and fix problems, or is it just to add more punishment?” asked Lawlor, a former
state lawmaker who currently serves on the New Haven Board of Police Commissioners.
“Sounds like everybody is in agreement about how we have to spend a lot more money dealing with juveniles, except some people want to spend it running prisons,” Lawlor said, adding that while adults cost the state about $70,000 a year to incarcerate, it’s costs hundreds of thousands a year per juvenile. “If your goal is just punishment for the sake of punishment, by all means start building and operating and paying for prisons.”
He described the two bills in the Judiciary Committee as “rival” pieces of legislation. He recalled being a member of the state House of Representatives in the 1990s, when there was a tough-oncrime attitude that created record population levels in state prisons. Starting about 15 years ago, the age that young teens were be treated as adults in the justice system began to rise from 16 to 18, resulting in record decreases in crime.
“Crime came down, juvenile crime came down, far fewer children ended up being incarcerated,” Lawlor recalled. “In fact, Connecticut was held up as a national model on how to get it right.” That was interrupted by the
pandemic, which has resulted in national increases in crime.
“We know that those states, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, Georgia, Mississippi, they have all had a much larger increase in all of the categories that I am discussing,” Lawlor said. “If you compare Connecticut to other states, with the variety of policies they have implemented, some of which are very tough on crime, you’ll see that we fare better. People focus on auto thefts, which is a real problem. But it’s important to keep in mind that in the early 1990s, and I’m not exaggerating, there were four to five times as many stolen cars in Connecticut as there is today.”
At the height of the stolen car problem, organized thieves were dismantling vehicles for sale. “That’s not what’s happening now,” Lawlor said. “People are joy-riding in cars because, and the police chiefs will tell you this, people keep their cars unlocked with the key fobs in. If anybody thinks the solution is sending more children in the adult criminal justice system, I can tell you, based on experience, you will get the opposite of the intended result. We know they will get almost no attention in the adult system.”
There were at least 75
pieces of prepared testimony in opposition to the proposal for tougher penalties for youthful offender, but there was only three in support, including remarks filed by House Minority Leader Vincent Candelora, RNorth Branford.
“We acknowledge that these crimes are generally being committed by a small group of reoffenders that, at a young age, are unfortunately very aware that there are no lasting consequences if they are charged with larceny or possession of a firearm,” Candelora wrote. “To address these reoffenders, we give our trial court judges the ability to conclude that releasing a juvenile offender back into the custody of a parent or guardian will not be effective at preventing the child from reoffending.”
He spoke in favor of fingerprinting children charged with a serious juvenile offense and allowing officials to order the Department of Children and Families to investigate their home lives. “By ascertaining the underlying cause of the criminal behavior, we may be better equipped to address it and reform the criminal conduct before it gets worse,” Candelora said.