Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
South Carolina subcommittee hears sharply divided testimony on bill to auto‑file some 16‑ and 17‑year‑olds as adults
Loading...
Summary
The Criminal Law Subcommittee heard competing testimony on H.4151, which would automatically charge certain 17‑year‑olds accused of gun crimes and some 16‑year‑olds accused of the most serious offenses as adults; prosecutors and the Department of Juvenile Justice backed the bill citing backlogs and public safety, while defense attorneys and youth advocates warned it would roll back Raise the Age and harm rehabilitation.
COLUMBIA — The South Carolina Criminal Law Subcommittee on Tuesday heard hours of testimony for and against House Bill H.4151, which would change the statutory definition of juvenile so that 17‑year‑olds charged with gun offenses and some 16‑year‑olds charged with offenses carrying 30 years or more (including first‑degree burglary and attempted murder) would be prosecuted initially as adults.
Supporters including solicitors’ offices and the Department of Juvenile Justice said the change is narrowly targeted to the most serious cases and would ease courtroom delays caused by lengthy waiver proceedings. "This bill is very important as do all 16 of our elected solicitors," said Lisa Catalinado, executive director of the South Carolina Commission on Prosecution Coordination.
Eden Hendrick, director of the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice, told the committee the agency supports the bill and described a waiver process that, she said, has created a backlog of complex cases involving DNA and competency evaluations. Hendrick said the Department of Public Safety estimated "about 60 17 year olds charged as adults in county detention centers," and that the proposal is limited to the most serious offenses and weapon charges.
Prosecutors who work juvenile dockets said caseloads have shifted since 2021. "I filed 10 [waivers] since 2021, and they've all been on murder cases," said Whitney Payne, a juvenile prosecutor with the York County solicitor's office, arguing that "if you are carrying a gun at 17, that should be on your adult record." Supporters told lawmakers many cases ultimately proceed in General Sessions and that H.4151 would avoid duplicative steps.
Opponents — a coalition of juvenile defenders, youth‑justice advocates and private attorneys — urged the panel not to reverse recent reforms. "H.4151 rolls back years of work done in South Carolina through Raise the Age," said Zakiyah Mickle, a youth justice advocate who said the 2016 law, fully implemented in 2019, was the product of bipartisan study and a structured transfer process. "Family court should remain the default with transfer as the exception, not the reverse."
Defense lawyers and juvenile advocates repeatedly cited adolescent brain development and long‑term outcomes for youth tried in adult court. "Direct filing of 16 year olds into adult court does not make communities safer," warned Dr. Alexandra Chauhan of the Chauhan Law Firm, who cited research linking adult prosecution of youth to higher recidivism and more trauma. Tamara Green, deputy public defender in the juvenile division for the ninth circuit, told the committee the solution is more sentencing options and community resources, not an automatic age‑based transfer: "Children are children, and in every case possible, they should receive rehabilitative, not punitive responses when they break the law."
Some witnesses raised systemwide consequences if the law changes. Jay Elliott, an attorney with long juvenile‑court experience, cautioned that the bill could create an anomalous cohort effect (16 vs. 17 vs. 18) and highlighted racial disparities in youth incarceration, saying publicly available 2023 data show Black youth in South Carolina are jailed at higher rates than white youth for comparable offenses.
Members asked for more operational data before acting. Representative Chris Hart and others pressed supporters on whether adding adult filings would improve efficiency versus adding judges or other resources. Committee members also requested county estimates on transport and detention costs; the South Carolina Association of Counties said it would gather those numbers.
The subcommittee did not vote on H.4151. Chair Jeff Johnson recessed the hearing until immediately after session, saying the panel would reconvene in the same room to continue testimony on the bills.
Because the bill overlaps with H.5117, which would establish a structured waiver process, several witnesses said the measures should be considered in tandem. No formal action or votes were recorded during this session.
