Lawmakers hear wide support and practical concerns as Connecticut considers raising minimum arrest age to 14

Supporters of SB 15-42 told the Judiciary Committee on March 26 that raising Connecticut’s minimum age of arrest would keep young children out of the criminal legal system and steer them into community services instead. Testimony came from national and local child‑rights groups, youth‑justice advocates, and practitioners who described diversion programs they say work better than arrest for young children.

Proponents said the measure would align Connecticut with international and emerging U.S. practice and reduce long‑term harm from early system contact. Teresa Komunos of Human Rights for Kids summarized the policy case and cited national research on adverse childhood experiences to argue that the law should reflect developmental science. Several nonprofit program leaders and youth advocates told the committee that diversion and restorative approaches produce better outcomes for children and public safety than arrest and prosecution.

The bill would phase in increases in the minimum age (first to 12, later to 14, depending on the final text) and include carve‑outs for very serious offenses. Supporters said the statutory change should be matched by funding for diversion, mental‑health services and standardized assessment and referral systems so that police and youth service bureaus can offer alternatives statewide rather than defaulting to arrest.

Service providers described operational programs they said already reduce recidivism. Mark Donald, president and CEO of Catalyst Connecticut, described a mediation program used in Bridgeport and neighboring cities that he said achieves a roughly 96 percent success rate for participants and costs an estimated $2,000–$3,000 per case versus much higher court/custody costs. Christina Quaranta of the Connecticut Justice Alliance provided case counts from 2024 showing the numbers of young people referred to court by age (10:22; 11:78; 12:92; 13:421) and urged a standard statewide diversion pathway so qualifying youth can access community services before any arrest.

At the same time, some legislators raised implementation questions and public‑safety concerns. Representative Fishbein asked for clarification about which offenses the carve‑outs would cover and noted that some serious harms are classified as high‑level misdemeanors under current Connecticut law. Representative Howard and others pressed witnesses on the prospect of repeat offenders or escalating misconduct — for example, motor‑vehicle thefts committed multiple times — and asked what backstops would exist if diversion repeatedly failed. Providers replied that most youth respond to diversion but acknowledged a small percentage require more intensive, individualized interventions and that the bill’s timelines should be paired with standardized, statewide capacity building and data collection.

Why this matters: testimony framed the proposal as a developmental and public‑safety reform. Witnesses argued that arresting very young children tends to increase later system contact and that effective diversion requires consistent statewide resources, standardized screening and follow‑up. Lawmakers indicated support for the concept but flagged the need to tighten language on carve‑outs and to shore up diversion infrastructure before the statutory age increases take effect.

Next steps: Committee members said they expect further drafting to clarify which crimes are exempted and to capture phased implementation details tied to investments in diversion, assessment tools and youth service bureau capacity. No formal vote was recorded at the hearing.