There's a reason they call it juvenile

The "Raise the Age" law, signed in 2018, was to take effect on Jan. 1, 2021. The Raise the Age law states that if a juvenile under the age of 18 committed a crime, they would go into the custody of the juvenile system. If the offense is severe enough, the juvenile could undergo a transfer hearing for a judge to decide if the juvenile would be tried as an adult. The Raise the Age bill kept 17-year-olds from being automatically charged as adults for some crimes and ensuring their due process rights.

The expanded juvenile certification bill, HB12, taints the spirit of Raise the Age by mandating adult certification hearings for some children as young as 16. This bill was introduced during the governor's special session now taking place in Jefferson City. The Raise the Age law protects the due process rights of juveniles and limits the abuse that juveniles face in adult jails; the expanded bill provides for solitary confinement for juveniles versus placing juveniles in therapeutic, rehabilitative placements."

The Raise the Age law embodies the characteristics of a juvenile as defined by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2005. In Roper v Simmons, the Supreme Court of the United States changed the juvenile justice system as we knew it. The Supreme Court of the United States relied on available brain science and outlined three fundamental differences between juveniles under 18 and adults. This was unique in that, prior, the court had only made procedural rulings, but this opinion outlines three critical differences between juveniles under the age of 18 and adults.

In that opinion, the first point the court outlined was the lack of maturity and irresponsibility found in youth. It is more understandable in young people than it is in adults and often renders juveniles reckless. This is important as it does not mean that one does not know the difference between right and wrong, but does speak to whether young people consider the most extreme consequences when acting recklessly or impulsively. Often they do not.

Juveniles perform a vastly different type of risk analysis. The analysis often starts and stops at whether they are going to get caught, not if they will be tried as an adult or serve a lengthy prison sentence.

The second factor the Supreme Court of the United States established in Roper was that juveniles are more vulnerable and susceptible to negative influences, especially peer-pressure, than adults.

The final recognition by the Supreme Court of the United States in that case was that juveniles have personalities that are still developing, and even if they have done something heinous. There may be more time for rehabilitation; juveniles are more malleable.

The process of remanding juveniles directly into the transfer court is a reactive measure that does not rectify the factors that contribute to criminality. Regarding youth violence, these factors include negative peer interaction, substance use, dysfunction within the living environment, and having criminally-involved family members. Each of the aforementioned can be addressed through proactive measures such as access to substantive counseling, substance use/abuse treatment programs, and medical care. We should also consider positive peer interaction outlets designed for older youths and equitable community education programs.

Policies such as the one proposed during the Special Session are only designed to make the public feel safe, not truly make the public safer. The Supreme Court of the United States recognizes the futility of lengthy sentences for juveniles. I think we can, too.

It costs over $100,000 per day to host the special session. If we took one week's worth of that and invested it in preventative services, we could accomplish much good!

Kenya Brumfield-Young is assistant professor of criminology/criminal justice at Saint Louis University.