NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION submitted in accordance with Assembly Rule III, Sec 1(f)
BILL NUMBER: A3668A
SPONSOR: Lentol (MS) TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the criminal procedure law, the execu-
tive law, the family court act and the penal law, in relation to raising
the age of criminal responsibility; and to repeal certain provisions of
the criminal procedure law, relating thereto
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:
The bill amends and enacts various provisions of law to raise the age of
adult criminal responsibility from sixteen to eighteen so that youth who
are charged with a crime may be treated in a more age appropriate
manner. The changes implemented in the bill reflect the evidence that
the current system has not been effective in deterring and preventing
future crime, while maintaining a mechanism that youth, on a case by
case basis, may be tried in adult criminal court when the circumstances
warrant.
SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS:
Sections one through fifteen amend the Criminal Procedure Law. These
amendments make conforming changes necessary to raise the age of adult
criminal responsibility in New York from 16. years of age to 18 years of
age. Section one provides that a youth age 13, 14 or 15 may still be
prosecuted for certain serious crimes as a "juvenile offender" in adult
court; amendments provide that 16 and 17 year olds charged with these
crimes, now charged as adults, would be subject to prosecution as "juve-
nile offenders" in adult court, with the option to be "waived down," in
appropriate circumstances, by court order to Family Court.
Section nine amends CPL § 330.25 concerning removal after verdict to the
Family Court The amended statute would allow the adult court to order
post-verdict removal to the Family Court -- except where the 13 - 17
year old stands convicted of murder after hearing from the parties, but
would not require prosecutorial consent.
Sections eleven through thirteen make related changes to CPL Art. 725
regarding "youthful offender" adjudications. These changes raise from
nineteen to twenty the maximum age at which an eligible youth may have a
youthful offender adjudication substituted for an eligible conviction in
the adult court.
Section fourteen creates a new Article 726 of the Criminal Procedure
Law, "Removal of Proceedings.Against an Alleged Juvenile Delinquent from
Family Court to a Superior Court" Under the bill, "juvenile offender"
proceedings against children age 13-15 would originate in Family Court
and be subject to a court-ordered "waiver up" to adult court. This brief
new article provides procedures for the adult court to follow when such
a "waiver up" to adult court has been ordered. To assure that the trans-
ferred proceeding will be handled promptly by a court of record, the
case upon transfer will be heard by a superior court (i.e., County Court
or, Supreme Court).
Sections fifteen and sixteen amend the Executive Law to authorize juve-
nile detention centers and facilities maintained by the Office of Chil-
dren and Family Services to maintain custody of youths under age eigh-
teen
Sections seventeen through twenty-five amend Article Three of the Family
Court Act. These changes include: (a) providing that all charges against
13-15 year olds will originate in Family Court subject, in the case of
"juvenile offender" crimes, to a court-ordered "waiver up" to adult
court; (b) authorizing the Family Court to hear, by original petition,
charges alleging crimes and offenses that are not "juvenile offenses"
and are brought against persons who were 16 or 17 years of age at the
time of the alleged unlawful acts; (c) authorizing the Family Court to
hear "juvenile offender" cases against 16 and 17 year olds waived down
("removed") from adult court, in the same mariner that Court may pres-
ently hear removed and original cases against 13-15 year olds; and (d)
authorizing the Family Court to impose fines, surcharges and driver
license sanctions against youths under age 18 in the same manner as may
presently be done by the adult courts. Bill section seventeen provides
for the designation of one or more "violation and traffic infraction
parts" where such cases involving youths could be heard in the Family
Court.
Bill sections twenty-six through thirty-two make conforming changes to
the Penal Law. These amendments include: (a) providing a defense of
infancy in the adult courts except for (i) "juvenile offender"
proceedings against 16-17 year olds; and (ii) "juvenile offender"
proceedings against 13-15 year olds whose cases have been removed to the
adult court from the Family Court; and (b) maintaining maximum indeter-
minate sentences, including available life sentences, for 16-17 year
olds but adjusting minimum indeterminate terms and non-class A consecu-
tive-sentencing provisions to conform to those currently applicable to
13-15 year olds.
Section thirty-two is the severability clause; section thirty-three
provides that the bill will take effect eighteen months after it is
signed into law.
JUSTIFICATION:
New York is one of only two states (New York and North Carolina) to
mandate that all youth aged sixteen and seventeen, charged with any
offense, be prosecuted and sentenced in adult criminal court. While many
other states have reconsidered this issue in light of new evidence on
child development and cognitive thinking (including North Carolina which
has taken steps to begin the process of reform), New York's very young
age of adult responsibility has remained unchanged for decades. Addi-
tionally, youth as young as thirteen or fourteen in some cases are tried
in the adult criminal court system under New York's "Juvenile Offender"
law.
Several studies have shown that treating minors as adults in the crimi-
nal justice system is often counter-productive in rehabilitating the
youth and ineffective in preventing future criminal acts. Research has
shown that children's brains do not fully develop until after the age of
eighteen, and youths who engage in criminal conduct often do not have
the same level of understanding of their actions as adults.
In 2005, the United States Supreme Court ruled that states may not
impose the death penalty for crimes committed by persons under the age
of eighteen, citing evidence that minors are less mentally culpable for
their actions than adults and further, that minors have a greater chance
of rehabilitation. Additionally, studies have shown that the penalties
and longer sentences often imposed by adult criminal courts do not
reduce the recidivism rate of youth who commit crimes, compared to simi-
larly situated youth who are adjudicated in a juvenile court system. The
services and alternative to detention programs available in Family Court
can help meet the specific needs of each youth, including treatment for
mental health and substance abuse, often at lower cost.
There are significant and sometimes lifelong implications for young
people adjudicated in the criminal court system, which extend into the
areas of education and employment, including earning potential. Only
about one-third of young adults returning from prison in New York return
to school, and studies have shown that those who do not have a high
school diploma are more likely to be unemployed and more likely to be
recipients of public assistance. Further, the ability to obtain and keep
employment can be difficult for those with criminal records. Addi-
tionally, studies have shown that youth who were adjudicated in the
criminal court system see a much lower earning potential than youth who
were adjudicated in the juvenile court system.
In addition to potentially improving the lives and future of New York's
troubled youth, the state could also realize real cost savings in treat-
ing many of those under the age of eighteen as juveniles as opposed to
treating all persons sixteen and older as adults. Many states that have
shifted younger persons out of criminal court and into the juvenile or
family court system have seen tremendous savings due in part to the
lower cost of community-based alternatives, as well as the reduced reci-
divism rate of these youth. Of course, fewer victims in the future also
means a safer society, and less spending on victim services.
New York should adjust this aspect of its juvenile justice system to
reflect the better understanding we now have of youth accused of crimes.
We now know the potential that some of these youths have for redemption
and the possibility to become productive members of society.
This bill preserves the jurisdiction of the adult courts to try persons
13, 14, 15, 16 or 17 years old for "juvenile offender" crimes. But for
less serious crimes, and for "JO" crimes that can best be handled in
Family Court, this bill brings about a necessary reform.
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
None.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
There will be additional costs to the Family Court but these will be
offset by savings in the criminal courts.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect 18 months after it shall have become a law.
