Editorial: 21 is old enough to vote, enlist and go to jail
In a controversial legislative move, Massachusetts State Representatives James J. O’Day and Manny Cruz have introduced a bill (H. 1923) that seeks to redefine the age of juvenile offenders by extending Juvenile Court jurisdiction from 18 to 21 years old. This proposal has sparked a heated debate about accountability and rehabilitation for young adults who commit crimes. Proponents, including O’Day, argue that the human brain does not fully mature until around the age of 24 or 25, suggesting that younger individuals often act impulsively without fully considering the consequences of their actions. O’Day emphasizes that the bill aims to break the cycle of delinquency by providing education and rehabilitation rather than merely incarceration, thereby addressing the underlying issues of criminal behavior.
Critics of the bill, however, raise significant concerns about the implications of such a change. They argue that granting juvenile status to individuals aged 18 to 21 could lead to an increase in crime rates, as the perceived leniency might embolden potential offenders. The Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association has formally opposed the bill, pointing out the contradiction in allowing individuals who can vote, serve in the military, and fulfill other adult responsibilities to evade full accountability for their criminal actions. This opposition underscores a broader societal debate about the balance between rehabilitation and personal responsibility, particularly when it comes to young adults navigating the transition to full adulthood.
The discussion surrounding this bill also touches upon neuroscience research, which indicates that structural and functional impairments in the prefrontal cortex—responsible for decision-making and impulse control—are more prevalent in individuals who engage in criminal behavior. While this scientific context may support the need for rehabilitative services for certain offenders, opponents argue that such support should not be limited by age. They advocate for a justice system that holds individuals accountable for their actions while still providing avenues for rehabilitation, particularly for first-time, non-violent offenders. As the bill progresses through the legislative process, it will undoubtedly continue to ignite passionate discussions about youth, crime, and the responsibilities of adulthood in Massachusetts and beyond.
They’re old enough to drive a car, vote, enlist in the military, and run for a seat in the state Legislature, but according to a pair of
Massachusetts Congressmen
, if a criminal is between 18 and 21, they are a “juvenile offender.”
State Reps. James J. O’Day (D-West Boylston) and Manny Cruz (D-Salem) introduced a bill (H. 1923) to raise the age of Juvenile Court jurisdiction from 18 to 21 years old.
Massachusetts is a soft-on-crime sanctuary in which some criminals aren’t prosecuted while others, though sentenced for egregious crimes, are out long before their time is up, thanks to a lenient parole board.
This latest move is par for the course.
“The brain doesn’t fully develop until around the age of 24 or 25. So, we have young people, and I sort of look at my own behavioral interactions when I was a younger person. You know, it was easier to make a snap, quick decision without thinking much about it,” Rep. O’Day told the Herald. “This bill is hopefully going to be able to break the cycle of juvenile behavior and delinquent behavior. Yes, you’re taken off the street, but you won’t just be put into a cell and forgotten about. You’re put into an environment where you’re going to be educated and rehabilitated.”
It’s the prefrontal cortex (the area of the brain associated with impulse control) that’s doing the slow walk to full development, but immaturity is not criminality.
The authors of “Biological Explanations of Criminal Behavior” published in the academic journal Psychology, Crime & Law and the National Library of Medicine write that “Conventional criminal behavior has typically been associated with prefrontal cortex (PFC) structural aberrations and functional impairment. The PFC is considered the seat of higher-level cognitive processes such as decision-making, attention, emotion regulation, impulse control, and moral reasoning. In healthy adults, larger prefrontal structures have been associated with better executive functioning. However, structural deficits and functional impairments of the PFC have been observed in antisocial and criminal individuals, suggesting that PFC aberrations may underlie some of the observed behaviors.”
Aberrations, impairments, structural deficits; in other words, abnormalities separate from simple developmental growth.
The not-fully-developed brain does explain youthful antics such as sledding down dormitory stairs on a mattress, but it’s more than a stretch to associate it with criminal activity.
Should first-time, non-violent offenders have access to rehabilitative services and education to prevent recidivism? Absolutely. But that shouldn’t be age-dependent.
Opponents of the bill argue it could potentially lead to an increase in crime statewide, citing lighter consequences as a potential motivator for reoffenders.
The Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association submitted written opposition to the bill.
“At 18, individuals can vote, serve in the military, sign contracts, and even sit on a jury to determine someone else’s guilt, yet under this proposal, they would not be fully responsible for their own criminal actions.”
Taking responsibility for one’s actions and facing consequences are a good fit at any age.
Editorial cartoon by Gary Varvel (Creators Syndicate)
