Matt Hoyt Senior Assistant State’s Attorney Ms. Mary Murphy Glenelg High School

1. Homicide, Rape, and RobberyReducing Juvenile Serious/Violent Crime through LegislationIntern/Mentorship Program2007-2008 County Mission Statement:“The High School Gifted and Talented Research courses empower students to contribute to the larger community by applying, creating, and evaluating knowledge in a specialized area of study.” Matt Hoyt Senior Assistant State’s Attorney Ms. Mary Murphy Glenelg High School Contact Info: (410)-489-7379 matthyt@gmail.com Ms. Murphy mmurphy@howardcountymd.gov

2. What’s Justice to a Juvenile? "Travis" turned 16 years old in February, 1996. After getting high on crack on the night of March 15th, Travis decided to go out and "cause a little trouble." Travis went to the park and happened on another teenager. Travis, without provocation, hit the other youth in the face with a small flashlight attached to a key chain. The other teenager required stitches. He pressed charges against Travis. Travis already had previous referrals to the juvenile court for criminal mischief and fighting. Because Travis was 16 years old at the time of the crime, he was charged with second degree assault. He was tried and convicted in criminal court. Travis‘s sentence: 5 years, 10 months behind bars. No chance of probation. No chance of early release.

3. Adult crime? Adult mind? Adult time? • Age • Mental/physical condition • Amenability to treatment • Nature of crime committed • Participation • Public safety

4. Serious and Violent Crime • Lines that separate a juvenile delinquent from an adult offender blur • Debate concerning recidivism • Recurring offense record • Persistent delinquency • Standards of arrest, detention, and treatment

5. Maryland’s problem • Maryland continues to bare witness to a proportion of repeat offenders • Offenses culminate into a serious or violent crime

6. Introduction of the juvenile system • First juvenile court: Chicago in 1899, rehabilitation replaced punishment, less culpability • By 1925, a majority of states had adopted a distinct juvenile court • Age and mental/physical condition dictated court placement/adjudication

7. History until today • Reform during 1960s/70s • Kent v. United States (1966) • Gault v. United States (1967) • Winship v. United States (1970) • McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971) • Breed v. Jones (1975) • Established safeguards, while allowing independent focus • 1990’s: juvenile violent crime and recidivism soared • Legislative response emphasizing public safety, nature of the crime committed, and participation

8. Maryland Juvenile Court and System • 1855: House of Refuge for Juvenile Delinquents • 1960s: Juvenile Service Administration created • 1989: JSA became a state department • Present: Department of Juvenile Services envelopes community based and secure residential programs • Today: Scrutiny towards secure residential programs

9. Juvenile versus adult court • Language differences: • Adult ‘defendant’ > juvenile ‘respondent’ • Criminal court ‘trial’ > juvenile court ‘adjudicatory hearing’ • Criminal ‘sentencing’ > juvenile ‘disposition’ • Emphasize: • Juveniles lack the same culpability and criminal responsibility as adults • Juvenile court’s standard of rehabilitation

10. Juvenile System Adult System Arraignment, bail review, discovery processes, preliminary hearings, an arraignment in trial court, pretrial conferences, motion hearings, jury selection processes, peremptory challenges, trial, sentencing Entry and pretrial services, intake hearing, pretrial motions, adjudication, disposition Prison Residential placement

11. Discussion • Four main transfer and waiver standards: • Statutory exclusion • Reverse waiver • Once/always transfer • Discretionary judicial waiver • Maryland transfer laws: open ended provisionary oversight

12. The Country • Varying standards of transfer and waiver law • Direct file transfer • Blended sentencing • Presumptive judicial waiver • Mandatory judicial waiver • When juvenile violent crime rates peaked during the 1990s, lawmakers responded • Every state allowed adult criminal prosecution of juveniles

13. Waiver • Discretionary: judge’s judgment • Presumptive: suggests waiver • Mandatory: automatic waiver • Direct file: prosecutor’s decision • Statutory exclusion: automatic criminal jurisdiction

14. Blended Sentencing • Emphasizes correctional system and jurisdiction flexibility • Juvenile blended: authorizes juvenile court to impose adult injunctions • Criminal blended: authorizes adult courts to impose juvenile injunctions

15. State breakdown • Direct file – 15 • Statutory exclusion – 9 • Reverse waiver – 25 • Once/always – 34 • Blended sentencing: • Juvenile blended – 15 • Criminal blended – 17 Waiver: • Discretionary juvenile waiver – 46 • Presumptive juvenile waiver – 15 • Mandatory juvenile waiver – 15 • Combination – 23 • Without any – 5 Maryland and Mississippi share the same standards

16. Differences Approach towards juvenile offenders and efforts to reduce juvenile recidivism • Deterrent? • Rehabilitative? • Cost?

17. Juvenile Serious/Violent Crime A population responsible for a disproportionate percentage of all crime, but poses the greatest challenge to policymakers

18. Progress? -Long-term decline • -Juvenile serious and violent crime rates have increased in recent years • -Growing population of serious and violent juvenile offenders

19. Maryland’s case load • Total juvenile population in Maryland: 541,357 11-17 year olds • 53,507 total referrals, 34,632 youth • Juvenile case intake up 4% - above national standard • Nearly 1,000 juvenile referrals out of 100,000 youth • Approximately 255 for violent crimes

20. Specific court dispositions • 22,610 cases: most not threatened by criminal court • 470 cases initiated in juvenile court, move to adult court • 1,787 committed to DJS for placement • 4,939 disposed to probation • 3,850 cases dismissed • Only 2% juvenile court intake transferred and waived: divide between criminal and juvenile jurisdiction

21. Juvenile offense breakdown • Person-to-person and property offenses outweigh CINS offenses, alcohol and drug, and uncategorized offenses • Person-to-person offenses: 25.8% of intake (majority assault) • 2.8% total increase, increases in almost every violent crime

22. Juvenile system glitch? Court placement V Ineffective treatment from instate services V Released, high recidivism V Burden the state (cost, danger) V Overwhelms the Maryland DJS

23. Recidivism Continued, habitual or compulsive commission of law violations after first having been convicted of prior offenses Juvenile and criminal

24. Recidivism • Criminal escalation: • 66% of released youth returned to justice system within a year • 27% of those youth were re-committed/incarcerated • Secure residential programs: • 76.8% of committed youth re-encounter the justice system within two years of release

25. Court, facility, or law? High rates of recidivism: who’s the instigator? • Issue of placement in juvenile facilities (regardless of amenability)? • Juvenile offenders not provided rehabilitation, therefore recidivate? • Law as an ineffective deterrent?

26. Social impact • A juvenile entering the adult justice system costs between $1.7-$2.3 million • Juvenile recidivism coincides with crime rates and serious/violent crime

27. Recommendation • Address the cost and public safety issues behind juvenile recidivism and serious/violent crime • Revisit the source: transfer and waiver provisions • Achieve the middle ground: amenability to treatment

28. Assessing juvenile offenders • Risk assessment: predicting accurate intervention, risk of re-offense • Many young offenders cease offending • Sometimes juvenile delinquency precedes persistent and serious criminal behavior

29. New standards • Flexible standard • Deterrent effect • Case by case management • Accurate risk assessment • Provide the court and prosecution more credence

30. Conclusion • More suitable placement of high-risk juveniles • Superior consideration of amenability to treatment • Improved public safety • Decreased costs to maintain and care for juveniles who re-offend