Editorial: 21 is old enough to vote, enlist and go to jail
In a controversial legislative move, Massachusetts Congressmen James J. O’Day and Manny Cruz have introduced a bill (H. 1923) that seeks to redefine the age of juvenile offenders by extending the jurisdiction of Juvenile Court from 18 to 21 years old. This proposal has sparked significant debate, as it aligns with a broader trend in Massachusetts toward more lenient treatment of young offenders. Proponents of the bill argue that the brains of individuals aged 18 to 21 are still developing, particularly the prefrontal cortex, which is critical for impulse control and decision-making. Rep. O’Day emphasized that the bill aims to break the cycle of delinquent behavior by providing education and rehabilitation rather than merely incarceration. He believes that this approach will address underlying issues rather than simply punishing young offenders.
However, critics of the bill argue that it could inadvertently lead to an increase in crime across the state. The Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association has voiced opposition, highlighting the inconsistency in holding individuals accountable for their actions at 18 when they are legally allowed to vote, serve in the military, and enter contracts. They assert that by classifying young adults as juvenile offenders, the bill undermines personal responsibility and could encourage criminal behavior by diminishing the consequences faced by this age group. The debate raises critical questions about the balance between rehabilitation and accountability in the justice system, particularly for young individuals who are on the cusp of adulthood.
The discussion surrounding this bill underscores a larger societal conversation about youth behavior and criminality. While it is essential to recognize the developmental differences in young adults, there is a growing concern that lenient policies could lead to a culture of impunity. As Massachusetts continues to grapple with crime and public safety, the implications of this bill will likely resonate throughout the community, prompting further examination of how best to support young offenders while ensuring that they are held accountable for their actions. The intersection of developmental psychology and criminal justice remains a complex and contentious arena, one that demands careful consideration as lawmakers navigate these challenging issues.
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)
