sign in sign up
<<
Home , Juvenile court, Juvenile delinquency

StateScan

Angel Zang, MBA, MSW http://www.ncjj.org/Publication/U.S.-Age-Boundaries-of-Delinquency-2016.aspx July 2017

Juvenile GPS (Geography, Policy, Practice & Statistics) is an online repository providing state policy makers and system stakeholders with a clear understanding of the juvenile justice landscape in the states. The site layers the most relevant national and state-level statistics with information on state laws and practice and charts juvenile justice system change. In a landscape that is highly decentralized and ever-shifting, JJGPS provides an invaluable resource for those wanting to improve the juvenile justice system.

U.S. Age Boundaries of Delinquency 2016 This StateScan compares upper, lower, -only law violations such as run- transferred on a discretionary or man- and extended age boundaries found in ning away, truancy, and under-age datory basis. When discretionary, the juvenile statutes to give a deeper drinking are usually considered status judge makes the decision on an individ- understanding of how states define offenses with other labels, and may ual basis. These are known generally as delinquency. State comparisons may have different age boundaries than transfer laws, and states set minimum assist jurisdictions, legislators, and described in this StateScan. Juvenile ages of criminal responsibility advocates considering statutory and and penal codes define status offending that can be confused with age boundar- practice changes for juvenile justice. conduct and usually split jurisdiction ies of delinquency. Age boundaries for between municipal and juvenile courts. delinquency apply more broadly to State analyses include the District of original or exclusive Columbia and U.S. territories with Many fine-only violations or infrac- jurisdiction for minors. court systems. For ease of discussion in tions, such as those defined in motor this publication, all of these jurisdic- vehicle or fish and wildlife codes, are Statutory age boundaries intend to set tions are referred to as states (56 in placed under the original jurisdiction of a framework that harmonizes needs for total). a municipal court, regardless of the public safety, holding juveniles account- alleged violator's age. Minors found able for their actions, and reducing bar- States address where childhood ends responsible for violating these statutes riers to rehabilitation for who and adult criminal responsibility are not considered or adjudicated can likely be rehabilitated. Upper, begins by specifying age boundaries in “delinquent”. lower, and extended ages define the law. Age criteria are found in laws that parameters for juvenile justice in each are organized by subject and compiled States sometimes identify exceptions state. with amendments into codes of juve- for infancy, allow for an infancy nile and criminal (or penal) statutes. defense, or assign a minimum age of Youth in conflict with the law may be criminal responsibility in penal or Upper Age Boundaries subject to municipal, juvenile, or criminal procedure statutes. Although The upper age boundary refers to the (adult) criminal court jurisdiction, these serve to guide juvenile court oldest age at which an ’s depending on the state’s legal structure practice in some states, when com- alleged conduct can be considered and court organization. pared among states and against juve- delinquent and under original juvenile nile codes within the state, it is clear court jurisdiction. For federal viola- Delinquent acts are law violations of that these age limits are not inter- tions, the Federal children and older youth that would be changeable with age boundaries of Act (18 USC § 5031-5042) defines juve- considered a if committed by an delinquency. nile delinquency as “the violation of a adult. State legislatures usually assign law of the United States committed by a exclusive or original jurisdiction over Juvenile and criminal codes direct person prior to his 18th birthday which delinquent acts to a juvenile or family when felonious allegations may or must would have been a crime if committed court judge. Over time, state legisla- be subject to (adult) criminal court by an adult....” In a great majority of tures have amended statutes to modify rather than juvenile court jurisdiction. states, the upper age boundary has tra- what can be considered a delinquent States delineate various procedures ditionally been age 17. act by age, alleged offense, and other with specific age and offense thresh- conditions. olds for when and how jurisdiction is

JJGPS StateScan: U.S. Age Boundaries of Delinquency 1 U.S. Age Boundaries of Delinquency in State Juvenile Statutes, 2016 After decades of little movement, many states with an upper age boundary State Upper Age Lower Age Extended Age** below 17 have recently raised the Alabama 17 NS 20 age to conform to the national majority, Alaska 17 NS 19 and others have ongoing taskforces to 17 8 20 explore options for raising the age. In 17 10 20 17 NS 24 2016, the upper age boundary of origi- 17 10 FT nal juvenile court jurisdiction for delin- 17 7 19 quency was through age 17 in 47 out of Delaware 17 NS 20 56 states (see table on left). Only nine District of Columbia 17 NS 20 states had yet to raise their upper age. Florida 17 NS 20 Four of those have done so, but are not 16 NS 20 yet in effect. Hawaii 17 NS FT Idaho 17 NS 20 Illinois 17 NS 20 and are the Indiana 17 NS 20 only two states where no offense com- Iowa 17 NS 20 mitted by a 16- or 17-year-old can be 17 10 22 considered delinquent, but both recent- Kentucky 17 NS 20 ly passed laws to raise the upper age 16 10 20 Maine 17 NS 20 beginning in 2018 and 2019. 17 7 20 17 7 20 4/10/17, NY’s A3009C raised the 16 NS 20 age through 16, effective 10/1/18, Minnesota 17 10 20 • and through age 17, effective 17 10 19 10/1/19. 16 NS 20 Montana 17 NS 24 6/28/17, NC's SL2017-57 raised 17 NS 20 Nevada 17 NS 20 the age through 17, effective 17 NS 20 • 12/1/19. New Jersey 17 NS FT New Mexico 17 NS 20 New York 15 7 20 Law violations of 17-year-olds in an North Carolina 15 6 20 additional seven states (GA, LA, MI, MO, North Dakota 17 7 19 SC, TX, WI) cannot be considered delin- Ohio 17 NS 20 quent and are all prosecuted as , Oklahoma 17 NS 18 though South Carolina and Louisiana Oregon 17 NS 24 have amended their upper age for 17 10 20 future years. Rhode Island 17 NS 20 South Carolina 16 NS 20 17 10 20 6/6/16, SC's Act 268 raised the age Tennessee 17 NS 20 through age 17, effective 7/1/19. 16 10 18 • Utah 17 NS 20 6/14/16, LA's Act 501 raised the 17 10 21 Virginia 17 NS 20 age through 17 for some offenses Washington 17 NS 20 • starting 7/1/18, and others begin- West Virginia 17 NS 20 ning 7/1/20. 16 10 24 Wyoming 17 NS 20 Pending implementation, by the end of Territory 2020, only five states (GA, MI, MO, TX and WI) will continue to prosecute law American Samoa 17 10 20 Guam 17 NS 20 violations of a 17-year-old the same as Northern Mariana 17 NS 20 an adult, regardless of severity. Puerto Rico Islands 17 NS 20 The Virgin Islands 17 NS 18 An estimated 82,400* youth aged 16 or 17 faced adult criminal prosecution in "NS" means no age specified. the 9 states that routinely excluded 16- "FT" refers to the full term of the disposition. and 17- year olds from juvenile court in **Extensions requiring consent are included. Extensions for incapacity, restitution, and narrow spe- 2016 (see methods). cialty court dispositions that otherwise raise the extended age to full term (like drug court) were excluded.

JJGPS StateScan: U.S. Age Boundaries of Delinquency 2 Understanding Delinquency The U.S. Department of Justice initially their approach. If successful, it would Juvenile courts were created to manage funded the American Bar Association’s be the first state in the nation where the unique needs of juveniles who were development of a National Inventory of conduct of a person older than age 17 considered easier to rehabilitate than Collateral Consequences of Conviction, could be considered a delinquent act. adults. Protecting juveniles from the which compiles lists of hundreds of consequences of an adult criminal potential consequences for adult con- record and separating incarcerated victions in each state. Judges and public Lower Age Boundaries juveniles from the influence of adult defenders could not possibly counsel a Some states identify lower age bound- criminals were main reasons for the youth about all of them when negotiat- aries in juvenile statutes, and/or rely establishment of juvenile courts. ing or accepting a guilty plea, and neu- on common law, case law, court rules, Differences continue to reflect princi- rologists would argue that youth could and penal codes to assist with age ples that children who are less culpable not fully comprehend the potential parameters in practice. Only 18 should be supervised under the broad- effects anyway. states specified a lower age boundary er civil guidance of a juvenile court for delinquency in juvenile statutes in judge, rather than only the punish- Today's research shows more tangible 2016. Of those, North Carolina had the ments required for adult criminals. evidence that a different approach for lowest age of six, which is younger than juveniles has biological components. the federal tradition, where an early Youth who enter a guilty or nolo con- Neurologists assert that adolescents U.S. Supreme Court case mentioned tender (no contest) plea, or are found have immature brain structures and do that youth younger than age seven are guilty in criminal court, not only lose not have as much control over impulses presumed incapable of criminal intent access to rehabilitation services tai- or decision-making as adults in their at Common Law (see Allen v. United lored for juveniles, but also face collat- mid-twenties. The plasticity of a young- States, 150 U.S. 551 [1893]). eral consequences that last much lon- er brain affords a greater opportunity ger than the sentence itself. Beyond for change when tailored interventions Five states (Connecticut, Maryland, educational and employment repercus- are received (Perry 2013). Massachusetts, New York, and North sions, such as no access to financial aid Dakota) identified age seven and one or having to explain a “yes” answer to a While states continue to debate the state (Arizona) set the lower age criminal conviction question on job issue, internationally, United Nations boundary at age eight. Age 10 was the applications for life, youth may not committees recommend that the upper most common lower age boundary, list- realize that taking a plea leads to more age boundary should be no lower than ed in 12 of the 19 states that specified a than the gambit of a few visits with an 17, and (adult) criminal responsibility lower age for delinquency (see table on adult officer. Certain convic- for those under age 12 is deemed “not page 2). tions in some states, for example, could internationally acceptable" (United mean the entire family gets evicted per- Nations 2007, 2014). manently from public housing. Extended Age Boundaries Advocates and legislators working to Extended age boundaries are statutory raise the upper age appear to be get- provisions that indicate the oldest age a History of the U.S. Upper Age ting closer to their goal. Most state juvenile court can retain or resume Boundary for Delinquency work groups concur that the best jurisdiction over an individual whose From 1975-2015, only eight states had chance for rehabilitation occurs at delinquent conduct occurred before the changed their upper age of juvenile younger ages and any higher per-child end of the upper age boundary. court jurisdiction: Alabama raised its cost of juvenile and human service bud- Extensions typically occur so a juvenile upper age from 15 to 16 in 1976 gets could ultimately offset court judge can monitor completion of and from 16 to 17 in 1977; Wyoming budgets and benefit communities. lowered its upper age from 18 to 17 in dispositions and services intended to Federal funding tied to compliance with 1993; New Hampshire and Wisconsin rehabilitate the child. Extended release lowered their upper age from 17 to the Elimination Act, which plans may include voluntarily extend- 16 in 1996; Rhode Island lowered joined the Juvenile Justice and ed placements or aftercare services. its upper age from 17 to 16 and then Delinquency Prevention Act's require- raised it back to 17 again four months ment to separate youth under age 18 Age limits for extensions generally vary later in 2007 (the only state to lower by “sight and sound” from older by offense and type of disposition (e.g., the age); Connecticut passed a law in inmates, is encouraging change in probation and secure facility place- 2007 to raise its upper age from 15 to remaining states. 17 gradually from 2010 to 2012; Illinois ment). Extensions in some states raised its upper age for misdemeanors require the consent of the youth or a from 16 to 17 in 2010; Massachusetts Five states still have not amended laws hearing to extend juvenile court super- raised its upper age from 16 to 17 in to prevent 17-year-olds accused of any vision beyond the upper age boundary. 2013; Illinois raised its upper age for offense to be criminally prosecuted and By statute, seven states permit delin- most felonies from 16 to 17 in 2014; sentenced as adults, while quency jurisdiction through age 18 or and New Hampshire raised its upper Connecticut's governor is touting an 19, 40 states extend through age 20, six age from 16 back to 17 in 2015. upper age through age 20 as part of states range from age 21 to 24, and

JJGPS StateScan: U.S. Age Boundaries of Delinquency 3 three extend to the full term of the dis- delinquent, the proper court for initial Methods position and have no specified age limit and ongoing authority, and whether To compare age boundaries of (see table on page 2). dispositions are sufficient to balance delinquency among states, juvenile public safety and accountability to vic- statutes were reviewed in spring of For eligible youth in need of longer care tims with the needs of individual youth. 2017 using WestlawNext™ online, or services leading to successful adult- Statutory evolutions will continue to Legislative Reference Bureau of hood, states can opt for agreements gain speed as jurisdictions are better American Samoa: http://www.asbar. between child welfare and juvenile jus- able to quantify and translate case-level org/index.php?option=com_content& data to what works best in practice, view=category&id=185&Itemid=172; tice organizations to receive federal and Commonwealth of the Northern reimbursement for non-secure place- ultimately influencing what should be Mariana Islands Law Revision ment extensions and resumption of formalized in law. Commission: https://www.cnmilaw. juvenile court jurisdiction up to age 21. org/frames/CommonwealthCode. Many states have statutory language to html. Searches were conducted accommodate this, and more are likely in juvenile codes for definitions of to follow (see the U.S. Department of References: adult, child, juvenile, delinquent, and Human Services Administration for delinquent act; as well as original Perry, B. 2013. “Policy: Neurodevelopment, Children and Families, Program Maltreatment & the Juvenile Justice System,” jurisdiction and disposition sections In Brief Reflections on Childhood, Trauma, in juvenile codes. Penal codes were Instruction ACYF-CB-PI-10-11 and the Child Welfare Policy Manual 8.3A.1, and . Houston: The Child Trauma searched for infancy exceptions Academy Press. 47-84. and youngest age of criminal 8.3A.11 for guidance). responsibility. Sickmund, M., and Puzzanchera, C. (eds.). A measure of the total number of 2014. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2014 *Excluded youth estimates (page potential years of juvenile court juris- National Report. Pittsburgh, PA: National 3) were based on analysis of diction over a youth also reflects differ- Center for Juvenile Justice. www.ojjdp.gov/ petitioned juvenile court case rates ojstatbb/nr2014/. stratified by age, race, and county ent approaches among states. In 2016, youth population applied to youth the total years of original juvenile court excluded from juvenile court in those jurisdiction over a youth adjudicated Commissioner for Human Rights, states in 2016, using the approach delinquent could span from a strict OfficeCommittee of the on United the Rights Nations of theHigh Child. 2007. outlined in​ http://www.ncjj.org/pdf/ eight years in Texas to a potentially Children’s Rights in Juvenile Justice, General Transfer_232434.pdf on page 21. Comment No. 10. www2.ohchr.org/english/ unlimited amount of time in Hawaii. bodies/crc/docs/CRC.C.GC.10.pdf. States must balance costs associated Definitions: with extended age of delinquency juris- - Common law: (case law) sets diction against costs of (adult) youthful sioner for Human Rights, Human Rights precedent by judicial decision on offender and regular adult prosecu- Committee.Office of the 2014. United Concluding Nations High observations Commis individual cases when no statute on the fourth periodic report of the United tions. States of America. Adopted March 26. exists or a new legal aspect is raised. tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyex- The reference includes state systems Jurisdictions will also continue to work ternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2f based on Civil Law (LA, PR) as they C%2fUSA%2fCO%2f4&Lang=en. also follow procedures of common law out the complexities of when youth are for criminal cases. legal adults in some areas of law, such as contracts or health care, while The National Center for Juvenile Justice Municipal court: refers to a lower remaining a legal child for this purpose. is a non-profit organization that conducts trial state court of general or limited research on a broad range of juvenile justice jurisdiction (or department of a unified topics and provides technical assistance to court, as in CA). Locally, it may be the field. NCJJ is the research division of Conclusion known as district, city, mayor, or traffic the National Council of Juvenile and Family court, etc. State legislatures construct guideposts Court Judges. with statutory age boundaries to assign Angel Zang, MBA, MSW, azang@ncjfcj. Regulations: refers to detailed childhood, , and adulthood org, 412-246-0844, Policy Analyst, with procedural requirements written by an to law violations that reflect variations the National Center for Juvenile Justice, executive branch government agency of the intention of each state. This prepared this document with support from when a statute authorizes or delegates the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur rulemaking to it. Regulations may also StateScan suggests that age boundaries Foundation. Points of view or opinions be referred to as administrative law. of delinquency in juvenile statutes set expressed are those of the author and not Judges may choose to yield or defer to the stage but are intertwined with necessarily those of the Foundation. regulations when making decisions, but myriad considerations for juvenile © National Center for Juvenile Justice do not have to follow them. justice practice. 3700 South Water Street, Suite 200 Pittsburgh, PA 15203-2363 Statute: compilation of written laws in Youth and families must navigate a con- Suggested Citation: Zang, Angel. 2017. effect as organized by topic (codified). U.S. Age Boundaries of Delinquency 2016. A statute incorporates (consolidates) fusing web of rules and exceptions, JJGPS StateScan. Pittsburgh, PA: National new laws that amend it. while other stakeholders determine Center for Juvenile Justice. when conduct should be considered

JJGPS StateScan: U.S. Age Boundaries of Delinquency 4