Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Juvenile Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate subcommittee carries over bill that would automatically try some 16‑year‑olds as adults
Summary
After hours of testimony from prosecutors, public defenders, the ACLU and DJJ officials, a Senate subcommittee voted to carry over H.4151 for further study. Supporters say it speeds waiver processing; opponents say it risks moving juveniles into ill‑equipped county facilities and undoing Raise the Age reforms.
A Senate subcommittee voted to carry over House Bill H.4151 after extended testimony about whether the measure would roll back parts of South Carolina’s Raise the Age reforms and automatically place certain 16‑year‑olds in adult criminal court.
Amy Golding, identified in the hearing as a solicitor who has prosecuted juvenile cases, told the panel she supported H.4151 “without the House amendment,” saying the bill is a narrowly tailored fix to problems created by earlier, larger changes. “Without that amendment, 41 51 is narrowly tailored,” she said, arguing the House change would duplicate procedures and prolong case processing.
The bill drew sharp opposition from public defenders and civil‑liberties advocates. Cameron Blazer, the ninth‑circuit public defender for Charleston and Berkeley counties, said the proposal would shift litigation and detention burdens to county jails and is not evidence‑based. Blazer cited data he said showed only 66 percent of waiver motions for murder involving 16‑year‑olds resulted in transfer to adult court, noting that family court judges declined transfer in about a third of those cases. “I urge the committee to reject it,” he said.
Zakiyah Mickle of the ACLU of South Carolina said H.4151 would “roll back years of work done in South Carolina through Raise the Age,” and objected to any provision that would automatically remove juveniles from the child‑definition based solely on charge category. “Family court should remain the default with the transfer as the exception, not the reverse,” Mickle said.
Jay Elliott, an attorney with decades of experience in family court, warned the subcommittee that treating 16‑year‑olds as adults risks worsening public‑safety outcomes. “That doesn’t protect public safety,” he said, arguing the bill should be tabled for more study.
Prosecution leaders told the panel they generally back H.4151 as originally filed. Lisa Catalanado of the Commission on Prosecution Coordination said solicitors statewide supported the bill’s original language and described it as a “measured approach” meant to improve efficiency in the waiver process; she said roughly 120 waiver petitions had been filed statewide over the previous three years for juveniles aged 14–17.
County and corrections officials flagged practical problems. Kent Lassane, of counsel to the South Carolina Association of Counties, urged clearer statutory language to make certain 16‑year‑olds would not be housed in adult county facilities and warned of potential lawsuits and loss of funding. Eden Hendrick of the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) said DJJ had repurposed facilities to ease overcrowding after several county JDC closures and emphasized that prolonged length of stay and service delivery — not merely headcount — remain the central problems. “Detention is not meant to be permanent, not meant to be long term,” Hendrick said.
Committee members questioned whether shifting certain defendants to General Sessions would relieve state facility overcrowding or instead move costs and constitutional risks to counties. Neither side disputed that waiver hearings can be slow; witnesses differed on whether H.4151 or a separate waiver‑process reform would better address those delays.
After discussion, a committee member moved to carry the bill over for further study. The subcommittee approved the motion by voice vote and directed staff to continue reviewing the issues raised during testimony before returning the bill to the agenda. The panel then adjourned.
