Editorial: 21 is old enough to vote, enlist and go to jail
In a controversial move, Massachusetts State Representatives James J. O’Day (D-West Boylston) and Manny Cruz (D-Salem) have introduced a bill (H. 1923) aimed at raising the age of Juvenile Court jurisdiction from 18 to 21 years old. This proposal has sparked significant debate, particularly as it suggests that individuals aged 18 to 21, who can vote, enlist in the military, and even run for office, would be classified as “juvenile offenders” when it comes to criminal accountability. Proponents of the bill argue that the brain continues to develop into the mid-20s, particularly the prefrontal cortex, which is crucial for decision-making and impulse control. Rep. O’Day emphasized the potential for rehabilitation rather than punishment, advocating for an approach that focuses on education and support to break the cycle of delinquent behavior.
However, the proposal has drawn sharp criticism from various quarters, including the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, which argues that it could lead to an increase in crime by providing lighter consequences for criminal actions. Opponents highlight the inconsistency of allowing 18-year-olds to participate fully in civic duties while simultaneously suggesting they are not fully responsible for their criminal actions. They argue that accountability is essential, regardless of age, and that individuals should face appropriate consequences for their behavior. The debate underscores a broader discussion about how society views youth and crime, particularly regarding the balance between rehabilitation and accountability. As Massachusetts navigates these complex issues, the implications of such legislative changes could have lasting effects on the state’s criminal justice system and its approach to young offenders.
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)
