Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Raise The Age topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Judiciary reopens debate on 'raise the age' amid capacity and resource concerns
Summary
Committee members debated proposals to delay, repeal or modify the state's 'raise the age' policy. Lawmakers cited data showing limited workload impact from adding 19‑year‑olds, but expressed concern about adding 20‑year‑olds and about agency capacity and jail overcrowding.
Senate Judiciary members used an informal committee discussion to weigh options over the governor’s proposed approach to the state’s ‘raise the age’ policy and related family‑court jurisdiction.
Lawmakers said testimony last year showed adding 19‑year‑olds to family court did not substantially change court workload, but there was more concern about extending juvenile‑track protections to older (20‑year‑old) defendants. Several senators asked whether alternative proposals from the House or elsewhere could create a middle ground short of repeal.
Members repeatedly pressed the administration to explain what steps it has taken to address resource constraints. Committee members said corrections facilities are operating above capacity and that some inmates are housed out of state; they said that reality factors into whether the state can accept a broader shift of cases into family court.
Supporters of keeping or advancing the policy pointed to research cited to the committee — including a Columbia report and data that, according to a committee member’s summary, show emerging adults treated in juvenile‑track systems are less likely to reoffend than those processed in the adult criminal system. A member said Vermont, Michigan and New York currently include 18‑ and/or 19‑year‑olds in juvenile systems and that Connecticut, Missouri and North Carolina are moving toward similar models.
Several senators said they were open to compromise but wanted the administration and agency officials (including the commissioner of the Department of Corrections) to provide clearer plans on staffing and capacity before the committee took final positions. One senator said that, in the committee’s usual process, if the committee does nothing on a particular bill the status quo may move forward automatically and that the House’s actions will also affect the outcome.
No formal committee action was taken on policy changes during the session; members agreed to continue fact‑finding and invited further testimony and bill drafts to help find a compromise.
