criminal-law

H.2 Raise the Age Bill report

lalonde

The following is my report that I delivered in the House Chamber on H.2.

The juvenile justice system handles the supervision, care, and rehabilitation of juveniles accused of criminal acts. Vermont’s juvenile justice system has several goals: To protect public safety. To connect youth to age-appropriate services that reduce recidivism. And to shield youth from the adverse impact of a criminal record, helping them become responsible and productive members of the community.

The system helps to prevent the taint of criminality from the juvenile offender. To this end, unlike in criminal court, juvenile delinquency proceedings are confidential. In addition, the juvenile is not saddled with a criminal record. While rehabilitating the juvenile is a focus, the system also seeks to ensure protection of the community and accountability to victims.

In Vermont, juvenile offenders are brought to Family Court instead of Criminal Court. In general, when a person is charged with a criminal offense in Vermont, the court system they enter depends on their age and the severity of the crime. Currently, with some exceptions, if someone age 10-18 is charged with a crime, they are processed as juvenile delinquents in Family Court. One of the exceptions occurs if they are charged with one of the most serious crimes such as murder or arson. In that case their case will start in criminal court. If the offender is over 18, they are processed in Criminal Court. But for individuals 18 to 21 years old who are alleged to have committed a crime, there is another path to the family court called Youthful Offender. H.2 does not deal with Youthful Offender, but it is good to have the whole picture.

H.2 addresses several issues related to the treatment of juvenile delinquents. The bill primarily amends the age range for individuals who initially appear in Family Court in a delinquency proceeding.

I will now take you through the bill.

Sections 1 and 2, starting at page _ of Today’s Calendar, concern the age range of children who can be subject to juvenile delinquency proceedings in the Family Division of the Superior Court.

Under current law, a delinquency proceeding can be brought against a person who is at least 10 years old and not older than 18. If a person younger than 10 commits an unlawful act, the behavior might still be introduced in another type of proceeding, such as one to terminate parental rights, but it could not be the basis of a juvenile proceeding in Family Court. The only exception to this is that a juvenile proceeding can be brought against a child under age 10 for murder.

Section 1 of H.2 proposes to change this structure in two ways. First, the bill proposes to increase the minimum age, so that a child would have to be at least 12 in order to be subject to delinquency proceedings. The effect of this change would be that delinquency proceedings could not be brought against 10- or 11-year-olds. Second, H.2 proposes to repeal the exception for murder, so that children under 12 could not be subject to delinquency proceedings for any offense.

This change was prompted by a recommendation in a 2024 report from the Racial Disparities in the Juvenile and Criminal Justice System Advisory Panel (RDAP).

This change recognizes that children are fundamentally different from adults. Their brains are not fully developed. Young children, regardless of the misconduct, do not have the legal capacity to form criminal intent or the competency to comprehend basic legal principles.

The Vermont Defender General’s Office provided testimony in support of this change and stated that it would be very challenging to find a youth under 12 years old to be competent to stand trial. Witnesses also noted that, in the past 25 years, the exception for ten-year-olds related to murder has not been used.

There are other, better ways to handle individuals in this age group who break the law. Courts are empowered to order a broad range of services designed to support a child and their family to address any behavioral concerns without criminalizing young children.

While about half the country has no minimum age for juvenile court jurisdiction, many of our neighboring states have a higher minimum age. For example, New York and Massachusetts both have a minimum age of 12 for children who can be brought into Family Court, and New Hampshire goes even further with a minimum age of 13 (with certain carve-outs).

No witness opposed this section of the bill.

Moving to section 3, found on page _ of today’s calendar.

Generally, jurisdiction over a juvenile ends at age 18. But current law permits a court to extend its jurisdiction if the person committed the offense as an older teenager. For example, if the person was 16 or 17 years old when they committed the offense, the court can extend jurisdiction to 6 months beyond the person’s 19th birthday. This permits the Department for Children and Families to supervise and treat the person for a longer period.

Section 2 of the bill adds one year to this authority, so in the case of an offense committed by a 16 or 17 year old, the court could extend its jurisdiction to 6 months beyond the person’s 20th birthday. In the case of an offense committed by an 18 year old, the court could extend jurisdiction to 6 months beyond the person’s 21st birthday.

During testimony on H.2, witnesses shared that there are missed opportunities for accountability when a juvenile ages out of the system and full adherence to case management plans can’t be achieved. When a juvenile ages out of the system, court supervision ends and all intervention regarding that specific case stops. To address this, H.2 extends the opportunity for court supervision so there is more time for the juvenile court supervision process to provide rehabilitation and accountability.
Turning to sections 3 through 9 starting on page _ of Today’s Calendar.

Sections 3 through 9 propose an additional 2-year extension, until July 1, 2027, on the further implementation of the Raise the Age initiative.

Prior to this initiative, most youthful offenders age 17 or younger could be charged as a juvenile in the Family Division.

Upon passing the “Raise the Age” law (Act 201) in 2018, Vermont became the first state in the country to treat 18-year-olds accused of most crimes as juvenile offenders, rather than adults.

Based on research that shows young people’s brains are still developing into their 20s, the reform was set to gradually increase the age that youth could be sent to family court, where cases remain confidential. As discussed earlier, through the family court process, offenders receive rehabilitative services aimed at helping them avoid future criminal behavior. Young adults accused of serious violent crimes, like murder and a handful of other felonies, would still be charged in adult court. The state brought 18-year-olds into the juvenile system in 2020. 19-year-olds were set to follow in 2022, but the Legislature extended that date by one year, to July 1st of 2023, as a result of the COVID emergency. Two years ago the Legislature extended that date by another year, to July 1st of 2024, and last year the Legislature extended it again to April 1st of this year.

With the last extension, this body added a reporting requirement to monitor progress by the Department for Children and Families in moving toward the implementation date. Although reports showed some progress on this measure, DCF’s last report asked lawmakers this year to pause the move indefinitely.

Since the start of the session, House Judiciary has taken extensive testimony focused on understanding the processes involved with juvenile justice, and specifically with the long-delayed Raise the Age initiative. The committee heard testimony that covered a range of perspectives on this topic. The Department of Children and Families, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs and Department of Public Safety called for a repeal of the act raising the age to 19 year olds. The Office of the Child, Youth, and Family Advocate testified that we should proceed on April 1st. Still others, including the Office of Racial Equity and the Office of the Defender General testified that raising the age to 19 is the right approach, but we should only proceed when the change is likely to succeed. And currently, due to staffing, programmatic, and infrastructure inadequacies, DCF is not ready to proceed to this next step.

Based on this testimony, and on the reporting of DCF, your House Judiciary Committee concluded that now is not the right time to expand Raise the Age to 19-year-olds.

Adding 19 year olds to DCF’s workload at this time would stretch already over-stretched resources. DCF’s ability to supervise and serve the youth already in the juvenile justice system would be hampered. DCF, and specifically the Family Services Division that oversees juvenile delinquents, is already having difficulties with recruiting and retaining staff. In FY24, the vacancy rate for Family Services Workers rose to 11.4% with a turnover rate of 16%. Expanding to 19 year olds at this time would exacerbate this problem by putting additional stress on Family Services workers.

Also, working with 18 and 19 year olds in this context presents different challenges than working with those who are under 18. Different interventions are needed when individuals in this age group are resistant to treatment or otherwise opposed to changing their behavior. DCF needs additional time and experience to get those interventions right while working with 18 year olds.

The delay will give DCF additional experience in adapting more effective interventions for 18 year olds before adding 19 year olds. It will also give the administration and the legislature additional time to develop approaches to improve accountability for those treatment resistant individuals in the 18 year old age group before adding 19 year olds.

In short, DCF has inadequate capacity and experience to expand Raise the Age at this time. More time is needed to make sure the system is ready for the expansion.

So, sections 3 and 4 delete the April 1, 2025 implementation date, and Sections 5-9 reenact the language changes necessary to permit 19-year-olds who commit certain offenses to have their cases start in the Family Division. These are offenses that are not part of what we call the Big 14 – murder, arson, and similar serious offenses. These language changes become law on July 1, 2027 under the Effective Date provisions in Section 11. This extension gives DCF more time to increase capacity and experience for the expansion.

But to check on whether necessary progress is being made, Section 10 of the bill, starting on page _ of Today’s Calendar, outlines clear reporting requirements to monitor readiness.

Section 10 requires the Agency of Human Services to provide the Joint Justice Oversight Committee (as well as several other Senate and House Committees) with two progress reports on the requirement that the Raise the Age initiative be implemented on July 1, 2027. These are very similar to the bimonthly reports that AHS provided over the past year. They must describe the steps taken to achieve such specified goals as establishing a secure residential facility, expanding capacity for nonresidential treatment programs to provide community-based services, and improving recruitment and retention of staff.

This year a new provision was added to the report requiring AHS to provide data on the Red Clover Treatment Facility, including the number of youths who use the facility, their length of stay, their treatment needs, and their racial and gender demographic data. Section 10 also makes clear that the failure by DCF to meet one of these progress report goals cannot be a basis for extending the implementation of the Raise the Age initiative beyond July 1, 2027.

Section 11 contains the effective dates. A particularly important part is subsection (b), which has a March 31, 2025 effective date for the sections that repeal the Raise the Age provisions scheduled to go into effect on April 1st. This is necessary to ensure that the provisions are repealed before they go into effect.

The Committee heard from the following witnesses:

H.2 provides important updates to the age of individuals subject to juvenile delinquency proceedings as opposed to criminal proceedings. It also pauses the next step in Vermont’s Raise the Age initiative given the reality that more work is needed before we take that step. If we do not pass this bill, that next step will occur on April 1 of this year, less than three weeks from today. DCF is simply not ready to properly supervise and serve a population of 19 year olds at this time. And by further taxing DCF’s resources, we will be dis-serving those youth already under their supervision.

The Committee vote was 7-2-2 and I ask for your support.

Looking Ahead to Upcoming Session – Public Safety

lalonde

On January 8, the Vermont General Assembly will convene its 79th Biennium. Based on what we have heard while reaching out to constituents, the legislature’s priority will be affordability, primarily as it relates to education and health care. I hope to continue to serve as Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, where we will resume our work addressing concerns related to public safety.

In the last session, the legislature passed several initiatives to address public safety concerns. We targeted crimes that have specifically impacted our state, such as retail theft in Act 128, auto theft and trespass into an auto in Act 129, drug trafficking in Act 125, and the proliferation of ghost guns in Act 120.

We also tackled systemic issues. In Act 138 we established a pretrial supervision program that includes electronic monitoring to ensure that people are complying with their conditions of release as they await resolution of their cases. We re-established community restitution, also known as work crew.

The legislature also provided additional resources to the courts, prosecutors, defenders, and victim advocates so that our criminal justice system will work more effectively. And we passed Act 180 to expand restorative justice throughout the State as a vital part of our public safety package.

The criminal justice system has several important goals: rehabilitation of individuals who have committed crimes, incapacitation of violent individuals who pose a threat to society, and deterrence.

Effective deterrence relies on two factors: (1) the risk of being caught and (2) certain and quick consequences for criminal activity. The consequences do not necessarily have to involve incarceration. They can include probation, community restitution, deferred sentences, diversion, and mental health or substance use treatment. The key is that the consequences for offenders must be certain and swift.

In Vermont, consequences for criminal activity have become slow and uncertain. Deterrence has therefore declined. Why has this happened? There is one major reason. Over the past several years, Vermont State courts, prosecutors, defenders, and victim advocates have lacked the resources to resolve criminal cases expeditiously.

To get to a point where cases can be promptly resolved, the Vermont criminal justice system must address a significant backlog of proceedings, which pre-dated the COVID pandemic. During the pandemic, fewer cases were filed, but those that were filed were not being processed. After the courts fully reopened, a surge in new filings left the courts falling even further behind.

The courts use several metrics to track whether they are making progress on reducing the backlog. One of those metrics is clearance rates – the number of new filings compared to the number of cases the courts dispose of each month. Cases in compared to cases out. If the clearance rate is over 100%, that means the backlog is being reduced. As of the end of October of this year, the courts have achieved a clearance rate on criminal cases of 111%, an improvement over last year’s clearance rate of 106%. But our goal is to achieve a rate of 125%, which would allow the system to substantially decrease the backlog in the next four years.  

Due in part to the court backlog and a lack of resources, criminal cases are frequently not being processed in a timely manner. The Vermont courts track the time from when a case is filed to when the court disposes of it. They set forth disposition goals: for example, 98% of standard misdemeanor cases should be resolved in 180 days and 98% of standard felonies should be resolved in 365 days. Currently, approximately 50% of cases are meeting disposition goals. That means that, for many individuals alleged to have committed criminal offenses, the consequences are far removed from the offense, diminishing any deterrence value.

How do we reach these goals? There are two primary solutions. First, we can provide the resources to the criminal justice system so that cases can be more expeditiously processed. This past year, the legislature provided additional resources to the State’s courts, prosecutors, defenders, victim advocates, and Community Justice Centers.

Second, we need not rely solely on the courts to provide expeditious consequences for criminal activity. A well-functioning, well-resourced restorative justice system can also ensure certain and immediate consequences, often with better outcomes for victims and offenders than the criminal justice system.

Restorative justice is a community-based response to crime that focuses on repairing harm and making amends. It holds individuals accountable for the harm they have caused in a manner that centers on the victim and the community that has been harmed. 

For years, Vermont has successfully used restorative justice through its established court diversion program. Under this program, defendants charged with crimes can be sent to the diversion program as an alternative to being prosecuted. 

Some communities in Vermont also successfully use what is called pre-charge diversion. In these communities, for low-level crimes and first-time offenders, law enforcement or prosecutors can send an alleged offender to a community justice center before they are charged with a crime. They are diverted from the criminal justice system earlier, with better results for victims and the community and quicker accountability for the alleged offender.  

Pre-charge diversion had not been available or uniformly applied across the state. There was no pre-charge diversion program like there is for court diversion.

Act 180 corrected that problem. It establishes a state-wide pre-charge diversion program that will be overseen by the Office of the Attorney General, which currently manages the court diversion program. It sets forth standards for program implementation and access across all counties. It requires uniform data collection that will allow Vermont to more precisely evaluate program effectiveness and overall cost savings. Critically, diverting more cases pre-charge will take pressure off the courts to allow the criminal justice system to take care of the backlog and speed up case processing.

It will take time for the work of this past Session to have an impact on public safety. The pre-trial supervision program will start as a pilot in Orleans and Essex Counties before rolling out to the rest of the State. As to the courts, in May we approved the addition of three judges; in early September the Judicial Nominating Board recommended to the administration twelve candidates for the judgeships; and on November 27 the administration appointed judges from this list. Filling positions takes time, and there will be a learning curve for these new judges and for additional prosecutors and defense attorneys. 

Looking to the upcoming session, the House Judiciary Committee will monitor progress in addressing the backlog and will evaluate additional resource needs, including for the pre-charge diversion program. We will also consider other initiatives to ensure that our communities are safe.

Vermont’s Under-resourced Criminal Justice System

lalonde

Vermonters are concerned about public safety. I have heard from constituents and fellow representatives from around the State, who share stories of individuals who have committed crimes, who are arrested, arraigned, and released, and who proceed to commit additional crimes. Why, I’m asked, aren’t the courts locking these individuals up?

Under our legal system, individuals are considered innocent until the State proves their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. Or, as happens in most cases, a plea agreement is reached between the defendant and the prosecutor, usually after a trial date has been set. It is after conviction or a plea agreement that individuals face the consequences associated with their crime, including potentially incarceration.

Individuals can only be detained before their trial in limited situations. Chapter 2, Section 40 of the Vermont Constitution provides that “all persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties.” This means that a judge must release the defendant either on “personal recognizance” (a promise to return for the next court hearing) or on an “appearance bond” (bail). The purpose of bail is not to punish. It is not a method to detain a defendant. If a judge decides to set bail, they may set bail only at an amount that will reasonably ensure the defendant’s appearance in court and not higher. It should be an amount that the defendant can post and that will act as an incentive for the defendant to show up in court. Judges are not supposed to set bail at an amount that will prevent the release of the defendant simply because the person is unable to post the amount. If the defendant does not appear, they forfeit the bail amount.

Under the Vermont Constitution, individuals can be held without bail only in a few circumstances. They may be held if they are charged with an offense for which the punishment is life imprisonment, and the evidence of guilt is great. They may also be held if charged with a felony involving an act of violence against another person, the evidence of guilt is great, and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person’s release poses a substantial threat of physical violence to any person and that no conditions of release will reasonably prevent the physical violence.

Most offenses charged in our criminal justice system do not involve such offenses that allow courts to hold the defendant without bail. So the large majority of alleged offenders will be released pending their trial. They may be subject to conditions of release, such as restrictions on their travel, people they may associate with, or place they can live during the period of release. But they will be in the community. And some of these individuals will commit additional offenses and may violate their conditions of release while they await their trial date.

But that trial date may be far in the future. And this, in my view, is the crux of the problem. The Vermont courts continue to face a significant backlog of cases. Even before the COVID shutdown, the courts had insufficient resources, resulting in delays in cases being heard. This problem was exasperated by the pandemic and the courts are still catching up.

The courts have been open post-COVID for a while now. But with the courts focused on addressing accumulated felony cases, misdemeanors are also not being processed expeditiously.

In the criminal justice area, it is understood that the best deterrent to crime is a heightened risk of being caught and the certainty and immediacy of the consequences. The risk of being caught depends on the availability and visibility of law enforcement. The certainty and immediacy of consequences depends on judicial, prosecutor, and defender resources.

What is needed, then, to help address the community’s concern related to crime is a fully resourced and functioning criminal justice system, including law enforcement, courts, State’s Attorneys offices, and the Defender General’s Office.

Of immediate concern is the fact that of 37 state judge positions in Vermont, seven are currently unfilled. When judges retire, it is taking four to six months on average to fill the positions. In the upcoming session, the House Judiciary Committee will likely consider a bill to expedite the nomination process and expand the pool of applicants for judge positions.

Even with a full complement of judges – hopefully by year’s end – courts will still need additional resources, including yet more judges and court staff, to ensure a speedy process for resolving criminal cases. In the upcoming session, the legislature should ensure that the courts, prosecutors, and defenders receive the necessary resources.

In future columns, I will explain other bills that the House Judiciary Committee will likely consider next session to reduce the pressures on the criminal, as well as civil, justice system. The best way to reduce crime, however, requires solutions beyond the Judiciary Committee’s purview. These solutions involve addressing social determinants of crime including underemployment or unemployment, housing instability, food insecurity, untreated substance use disorder, and poor access to health care. I will continue to support other committees in their work to address these underlying issues.