Kids, Cars, Crime: Part Two
Understanding the who and why behind Connecticut’s latest juvenile crime trend
by Meghan Peterson, PhD
Editor’s Note: This is the second installment in a series examining juvenile involvement with auto-related crimes in Connecticut and the local impacts of this trend.
Part Two: Changes in Juvenile Law
Before we can address questions about the “whys” and “hows” of juveniles and auto crimes we are seeing in our state, it is important to be aware of the various juvenile justice system reforms that have been implemented. Connecticut’s legislative body, the General Assembly, has passed laws expanding the juvenile justice system’s jurisdiction to include individuals age 16 and 17 charged with criminal offenses as well as placing restrictions on post-arrest and pre-trial detention of juveniles.
Then-Governor Dannel P. Malloy made juvenile reforms (colloquially known as “raise the age”) a signature component of his tenure. In 2018 Malloy encouraged the state legislature to consider passing a law that would expand the juvenile system’s jurisdiction to cover individuals to the age of 21. Although it did not make its way out of legislative committee (meaning that it never reached the full General Assembly for discussion and passage), State House Bill 5040 An Act Concerning Adjudication of Certain Young Adults in Juvenile Court proposed the creation of a “new category” for individuals “between the ages of 18 and 20 called ‘young adults.’” According to a press release from the Connecticut Governor’s Office, “young adults would fall under juvenile justice jurisdiction in most circumstances, and – where appropriate – would benefit from the protections and services provided by the state’s juvenile justice system.”[1] This would have built on previous state legislation, which to date have incrementally expanded the age range of juveniles within the juvenile justice system.
The other juvenile reform bill State House Bill 5042 An Act Concerning Prosecution of Low-Risk Offenders in Adult Court also did not make it into law. Nonetheless, it is helpful to understand what was being suggested at the executive and legislative levels in this state. As touted by the Governor’s Office, the legislation would have expanded the legal status of “youthful offender” to individuals up to their 21st birthday. The Governor’s Office press release did note at the time, however, that “the youthful offender” status “may not be used by individuals charged with the most serious crimes, including Class A felonies, sexual assault and rape.”
The first law mentioned above would have expanded the juvenile justice system’s jurisdiction to include individuals up to the age of 21. The second law would have permitted individuals up to the age of 21 to plead guilty to a “youthful offender” charge in the adult criminal court, affording them many of the same protections afforded to children whose cases are handled in the juvenile court such as confidentiality of proceedings and records, limited maximum period of incarceration and possible erasure of records
According to Francis Carino, Supervisory Assistant State’s Attorney, “[t]here have been four major changes in the Connecticut juvenile justice system in recent years: the impact of the “raise the age law’; changes in pretrial detention of juveniles charged with crimes; dispositional (sentencing) options available in juvenile court; and transfers of serious offenders from the juvenile court to the adult court.”
Carino explains, “Going back a little more than nine years, the “raise the age law” made a major change in the juvenile laws of Connecticut. On January 1, 2010, sixteen-year-olds became “children” and, for the most part, subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. The same thing happened to seventeen-year-olds on July 1, 2012. Sixteen and seventeen-year-olds charged with minor offenses classified as violations or infractions, as well as motor vehicle offenses found in Title 14 of the General Statutes, along with certain other charges, are still handled as adult matters.”
Still, youth who commit serious juvenile offenses (SJO’s) can be transferred to the adult court system, depending on judicial and prosecutorial discretion. SJO’s range the gamut from sale, possession with intent to sell drugs to manufacture of bombs to arson murder. Manslaughter in the 2nd degree with a motor vehicle, misconduct with a motor vehicle, and robbery involving occupied motor vehicle are the only vehicle-related offenses designated SJO’s within the Connecticut General Statutes. These are offenses for which a juvenile’s case can be transferred to the adult court. But again, such a transfer to the adult criminal justice system is not automatic. Moreover, a transfer is contingent on decisions by the judge and prosecutor. For informational purposes on each of these vehicle-related SJO’s, the statutory language is provided below:
Connecticut General Statute section 53a-56b – manslaughter 2nd degree w/motor vehicle:
“A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree with a motor vehicle when, while operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug or both, he causes the death of another person as a consequence of such liquor or drug.” It is a Class C felony.
Connecticut General Statute section 53a-57 – misconduct with a motor vehicle:
“A person is guilty of misconduct with a motor vehicle when, with criminal negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle, he causes the death of another person.” It is a Class D felony.
Connecticut General Statute section 53a-136a – robbery involving occupied motor vehicle:
“Any person who commits robbery by taking a motor vehicle from the person of another knowing that such motor vehicle is occupied by such other person shall be imprisoned for a term of three years which shall not be suspended and shall be in addition and consecutive to any term of imprisonment imposed for such offense.”
In sum, juveniles who commit manslaughter with a motor vehicle, misconduct of a motor vehicle causing another person’s death, or robbery of an occupied motor vehicle may or may not see their cases transferred to the adult justice system. In some instances, juveniles may await the outcome of their cases in pretrial detention facilities, which may or may be not be secure. In general, the pretrial detention facilities do not offer extensive rehabilitation or treatment programs for juveniles. In other instances, juveniles may be released back into the community pending a transfer hearing in the juvenile court. If juveniles are transferred, they may await the outcome of their case in an adult lockup facility; or, they may be released on bond.
Other vehicle-related offenses – among them, vehicle break-ins and thefts of items from unlocked vehicles, however, are not classified as serious juvenile offenses. Under Connecticut law, they are not classified as serious juvenile offenses. Consequently, youth who commit such vehicle-related offenses do not face the more stringent consequences that would accrue to a SJO.
What happens, then, when a youth breaks into a vehicle or otherwise steals money/other valuables from a person’s car?
Carino answers this inquiry by explaining that “In some locations, community-based diversion programs, such as juvenile review boards are available to handle the cases of first offenders charged with minor offenses where the juvenile acknowledges responsibility for the offense. If a juvenile satisfactorily completes such a diversion program, the charges are dismissed and the juvenile has no juvenile record because they never entered the juvenile court system.” Otherwise, juvenile cases are heard in the juvenile court that serves the youth’s town of residence. A juvenile in Haddam, therefore, would go to Middletown Judicial District Courthouse to have a case heard.
While a case is pending before the juvenile court, law enforcement has the legal authority and discretion to place youths in one of the two juvenile detention centers in Connecticut: the Bridgeport Juvenile Detention Center or the Hartford Juvenile Detention Center.[2] These are secure pretrial housing locations run by the Court Support Services Division within the Judicial Branch. These facilities do not provide comprehensive treatment or rehabilitation for juvenile offenders. Finally, juveniles age 15+, transferred from the juvenile court and charged as adults who cannot post bond orre convicted as adults, and subsequently given incarceration time can also be housed at an adult correctional facility for individuals under 21 – the Manson Youth Institute (MYI) in Cheshire, according to Carino.
After years of political debate, the Connecticut Juvenile Training School (CJTS), located in Middletown, closed in April 2018. Run by the Department of Children and Families (DCF), CJTS was the only secure (locked) treatment facility for male juvenile offenders. A January 2019 report released from the state Office of the Child Advocate found that male juveniles incarcerated in the state – especially those who have “complex” mental health needs and who are “imprisoned in the adult correctional system, are the most likely to lose meaningful access to education, rehabilitative services and visits with family…” The report investigated the state of the juvenile justice system between July 1, 2016 and June 30, 2017.
As CT Mirror noted, “this report is released as the state grapples with how to handle youth who break the law. In April 2018, the state closed its lone prison for youth who were convicted of offenses not serious enough to land them in the adult correction system – CJTS – which has left more youth lingering in pre-trial detention facilities not equipped for long-term stays.”[3] To a certain degree, the legal situation in which Connecticut juvenile offenders are now stuck appears to be this unclear area between juvenile pre-trial detention, criminal penalties, and adequate state mechanisms to address these matters.
Prior to changes to juvenile laws in Connecticut, Carino describes how the placement of juveniles in detention used to proceed: “the police simply brought the juvenile to the center with an affidavit establishing probable cause to believe the juvenile committed the offense charged and the center would admit the juvenile. The juvenile would be presented before a judge the next business day. If remanded back to detention after that hearing, there would be a hearing every two weeks to determine if the juvenile needed to remain in detention.”
This process, Carino explains, changed when “the law changed and required a court order to place a juvenile in detention if the center was full and juvenile was only charged with a minor offense. A few years later, the law changed again and the police were required to get a court order to place any juvenile in detention, at any time, regardless of the seriousness of the charge. Around that time the New Haven detention center was closed, leaving only the Hartford and Bridgeport centers. That resulted in the police, especially those in outlying towns, having to take one or more officers out of service for a significant period of time in order to transport a juvenile to detention. Requiring the police to obtain a court order to place a juvenile in detention, which often meant going to the judge’s home in the middle of the night, and closing the New Haven center, served to discourage the police from placing juveniles in detention. For some juveniles, placing them in detention upon arrest was the only immediate consequence they saw for their misconduct.” Furthermore, Carino notes that Public Act 16-147 (effective October 2016) deleted references to punishment of juveniles in previous legislation and substituted them with the following language: “…provide individualized supervision, care, accountability and treatment to such a child in a manner consistent with public safety.” The relevant passage in the law is below, with bolded phrases and words indicating deletions of the previous statutory language:
In addition, with respect to proceedings concerning delinquent children, the Superior Court shall have authority to make and enforce such orders as the court deems necessary or appropriate to [punish the child] provide individualized supervision, care, accountability and treatment to such child in a manner consistent with public safety, deter the child from the commission of further delinquent acts, [assure] ensure that the child is responsive to the court process, ensure that the safety of any other.[4]
For the crimes of auto theft, break-ins, theft of items from unlocked vehicles, Carino says that “the juvenile age fifteen or older would not be eligible for automatic transfer (from juvenile to adult court). If they have accumulated a substantial juvenile record, they could be transferred using the discretionary transfer procedure if the court determines that it would be in the juvenile’s best interests to have the case heard in the adult court. That would be a very unusual outcome.”
So, what legal tools are available for state authorities to help remedy the issue of juvenile involvement with vehicle offenses specifically, and crime more broadly? What can be done to effectively address issues within a juvenile justice system that may not yet be fully equipped to deal with the repeat serious offender? We seek answers to these questions later in the series.
In Part Three we will examine in more detail the effects of legal changes within the Connecticut juvenile justice system are having in the state. For this ongoing series, many thanks are in order for their expertise and assistance: Chief State’s Attorney Kevin T. Kane; Supervisory Assistant State’s Attorney, Francis J. Carino; Haddam Resident Trooper Enrico Milardo; Killingworth Resident Trooper Scott Wisner; William H. Carbone, Executive Director of the Tow Youth Justice Institute (University of New Haven).
[1]https://portal.ct.gov/Malloy-Archive/Press-Room/Press-Releases/2018/03-2018/Gov-Malloy-Introduces-Juvenile-Justice-Reform-Legislation.
[2] Bridgeport Juvenile Detention Center is located at 60 Housatonic Avenue, Bridgeport, Conn. Hartford Juvenile Detention Center is located at 920 Broad Street, Hartford, Conn.
[3] https://ctmirror.org/2019/01/16/child-advocate-releases-scathing-report-on-conditions-for-imprisoned-and-detained-youth/.
[4] “Public Act No. 16-147.” p. 9 of 36. cga.ct.gov. Words in bold text are the deletions from prior legislative language.
