SJC: Juvenile offenders cannot be held beyond 18

More knee jerk legislation that turns out to be bad law.

Let's not protect the citizens? It's sort of like the Lions and the Christians, except here we have to feed the lions until they are strong enough to tear us apart, then we let them go? What a country?

"undefined term of dangerousness." How about convicted murderer!

I think this is HORRIBLE.

My daughter's throat was sliced in 2000 by Christopher Carlton - the Globe reported on this, the act was committed on the last day of February in 2009. He SLICED HER THROAT and left her to die, and instead of being sentenced to the 30 years in Walpoe he SOULD have gotten, he was given a slap on the wrist and sent to juvie.

He was ABSOLUTELY considered to be a danger - he sliced her throat open and left her to die, how is that not the act of a dangerous person? So he was held until 21, then released to walk the streets. He was a violent offender, he committed attempted murder, and THE only reason he didn't get a prison term was because he was lucky enough to have missed her carotid artery.

Thanks to the SJC, violent juvie offenders just like him will now serve almost NO TIME and be released to walk to the streets and reoffend. Where is the rehabilitation in a juvie sentence of less than a year for a 17 year old that tried to murder someone in cold blood?

I am OUTRAGED by this ruling!!!!

Hmmmmm....20 to 25 kids a year.
While it certainly does seem there is plenty of room to abuse it and keep a young person incarcerated for being a jerk or just not liked, that number seems to indicate the system isn't doing it now. But anything in government needs to be spelled out, because things are done without looking at the person involved just because that's how the system works. Seems that's what happened to these three, if they are truly not phsically dangerous. But keep in mind, it ought to also be considered how they acted while in custody...not just what crimes initially put them there.

The problem is the law is vague in terms of "dangerousness"...if the legislature had simply said "Those convicted of murder, attempted murder, rape, etc", this would NOT have been an issue. Do NOT blame the SJC, when they specifically told the legislature back in 2004 that it had "grave concerns". Blame your local representative why the vagueness of this was NOT addressed. Ask them to address it NOW!

The SJC should realize that this will simply mean more minors being charged as adults, a result which I don't think any of us want. Of course, thinking two steps ahead has never been their forte.

Did anyone read the story, the way the law is written is to vague. The lawmakers have to define what is dangerous. the 17 yr old should have been tried as an adult , that law already exists.

Elizabeth, while I am sad for what you and your family went though, please go back and read the article. Mainly this part: "These three kids were not the most dangerous kids in the Commonwealth. None of them were were charged with murder or rape or anything like that. These were kids who were delinquent, who had gotten in trouble, were arrested, and processed in the court system." YET IF THEY HADN'T CHALLENEGED THIS LAW THEY WOULD STILL BE IN JAIL. Nothing in this world is black and white. Its not always as simple as 'I'm good, they're bad. Send them away.'

You might be outraged, but there's another side to this coin. Its the side where non-murderous people shouldn't be damned their entire lives for one mistake.

I don't condone coddling criminals, but 'throwing them under the jail' is DEFINITELY NOT always the answer. Look at the bigger picture. If that mentality actually worked, we'd have proof of it by now. Texas has the highest death penalty rate in the country. Yet there's no drastic decrease in offenses punishable by death.

In CA, where they have the '3 Strikes and You're Out' rule, the prisons are so over crowded that judges just ordered the release of thousands of people. Our country now has MORE prisoners per capita than ANY other country in the WORLD. Yet nobody wonders why.

This ruling doesn't say they can't be held to 21 - juveniles can still get sentenced to 21 by a judge, that hasn't changed. But it used to be a judge would sentence a kid to 18 and DYS could just arbitrarily decide to hold them because they were dangerous to 21. Last time I checked you don't get to incarcerate Americans because they're dangerous. And EM "These three kids were not the most dangerous kids in the Commonwealth. None of them were were charged with murder or rape or anything like that." SJC, thanks for recognizing that we have that thing called the constitution.

It's important to note that the SJC did *not* say that it's unreasonable to hold juvenile offenders past the age of 18 if they are dangerous. What they said was that the current law does not provide for proper procedures for determining who should be held. Furthermore, the SJC told the legislature *5 years ago* that the law was flawed and needed to be fixed. Anyone who thinks the option of lengthening the sentence by 3 years is important should be banging on the doors of their representatives, demanding to know why they didn't fix this bill so that it would be constitutional. That's where the responsibility lies.

Do not blame the SJC. blame the legislature for a bad law. They could have easily defined what prior acts were necessary and sufficient to hold someone until they are 21. A well defined statute with a process for a hearing and a determination of dangerousness is all that is required. Call your State Rep and tell them to fix the law

The SJC gave them 4 years to fix the problem.... Calf had the same problem and immediately fixed the law.... no our reps on the hill.... They have better things to do, like raising our taxes.....
""California Legislature had previously responded to the court's opinions by immediately correcting other constitutional deficiencies in the statute. Id. at 132-137. [FN12] Such is not the case here"""".

What this article fails to mention is that in order for a juvenile to become a youthful offender, specific criteria must be met. You must have committed a felony and meet one of the following criteria: you are already committed to the DYS, you are charged with a crime that involves the infliction or threat of serious bodily injury or are charged with an offense involving a firearm. Also, more youths will not be charged as adults. In Massachusetts, youths must be charged as juveniles unless they are 17 years of age or above. If they are over 17 they must be charged as adults. While the youthful offender law was not always the best answer, it was a good option for the court to use in many circumstances

Just to clarify things for everyone. When they say that they will hold a youth until or after their 18th birthday, that does not mean that they are incarcerated for that long. The amount of time a youth is incarcerated is based on the crime and the time assignment that each crime is linked to. A youth may very well be committed to the Department of Youth Services until he or she turns 18 but only serve a few months and is released on a "parole" bases.

In Mass the Child and Family Court system says one is a child until 25 and supported like one until then. Why the double standard?

Looks like the SJC clerks are busy on the boards today.
Of course it is the SJC that is to blame for this. They are once again legislating from the bench ad overriding the legislature. Their kneejerk liberalism is completely in keeping with their track record. Impeach them all before they rule again.

Hmmmm. Is keeping a youth in prison past 18 really going to change their likelyhood to re-offened? I dont agree with letting young people convicted of violent crimes go free, however, strict retribution isn't always the answer. The longer you keep a young dog in a cage the more violent it is going to be when it gets out. Instead legislation should be geared towards victim/offender sitdowns in an effort to truly rehibilitate the young offender. But thinking outside the box seems to be a nearly impossible task for those in power.

So rather than leaving it to some discretion, previously DYS, it's better to release all of them when they turn 18? Those that are clearly dangerous (rape, murder) get a free ride. If the three were "not the most dangerous kids in the Commonwealth", why would DYS recommend they be held? As someone said, they don't indiscriminately recommend everyone be held, as evidenced by the numbers. Appeal the decision for those 3, rather than letting the other 20+/yr go.

And yes, I'm involved with a case now where my child was the victim. The perp now gets to walk at 18 (this summer) and cannot be held by DYS after that.

i like this webite i think that it is very helpful, i am a freshman in highschool right now and we are doing a project on juvenile offenders and this helped me out alot thank you :]