New Illinois law: 17-year olds charged with misdemeanors stay in juvenile court
Mar 6, 2009
For decades in Illinois, 17-year-olds have not been considered old enough to vote, sign contracts or buy cigarettes, but they have been considered old enough to be sent to adult court. That is going to change on January 1, 2010 when a new Illinois law will make age 18 the cutoff between adult court and juvenile court for youth charged with misdemeanors.
For the thousands of 17-year-olds arrested on misdemeanor charges each year in Illinois, this reform is the difference between going through life with a criminal record and having an opportunity to be rehabilitated and begin adulthood with a clean slate. Beginning next year, 17-year-olds facing a misdemeanor charge will be involved in a juvenile system that does not simply punish but is designed to reform youngsters. In 2007, more than 16,000 17-year-olds were arrested on misdemeanor charges in Illinois.
“Keeping 17-year-olds out of adult court and away from hardened criminals is the best chance – and possibly the last chance – for many of them to turn their lives around,” said Elizabeth Clarke, President of the Juvenile Justice Initiative (JJI). “It also is best for the safety of their home communities and can prevent increased crime in the future.”
Juvenile Justice Initiative prepared a fact sheet on Illinois' SB2275.
Download a copy.
This significant advancement for the juvenile justice reform movement was led by Clarke and JJI, a statewide non-profit and a Models for Change grantee that has helped create a coalition of advocate organizations throughout Illinois. JJI guided the public education work and, with unrestricted contributions, also was able to do some direct lobbying.
Illinois was the second chosen of four core Models for Change working to advance replicable models of successful juvenile justice systems reform. Illinois has chosen as one of its three strategic areas of focus the issue of “right-sizing” the jurisdiction of the juvenile court so that youth who can safely benefit from the age-appropriate treatment and rehabilitation in the juvenile system remain there.
“Education about juvenile justice reform issues has been successful in Illinois,” Clarke said. “I can’t say enough about the importance of the research and resources provided by the MacArthur Foundation. Whether it was finding an experienced judge from another state to talk to legislators or putting research results about brain development and juveniles at our fingertips, MacArthur has always been there for us.”
The movement to change the age for adult court began in 2003 at about the same time that Illinois House Speaker Michael J. Madigan, D-Chicago, decided to create a new legislative committee – the House Juvenile Justice Reform Committee. Rep. Annazette Collins, a Chicago Democrat with a passion for juvenile justice issues, was named Chair, and one of her first priorities was to try to raise the age of juvenile court jurisdiction.
“Everyone knows high school teenagers make mistakes, and many of them exercise terrible judgment,” Clarke said. “But that argument alone was not enough to change the long-standing law in Illinois.”
The effort, however, got off to an inauspicious start. The 2003 legislation, sponsored by Collins, would have changed the age for misdemeanors and felonies. The proposal, which received little discussion before it was called for a vote, came as a surprise to lawmakers, and it was not well understood by many legislators. The bill was defeated by a vote of 42 to 72 with 60 votes needed for House passage.
“Legislation, especially anything controversial, usually moves slowly, but this bill was introduced and defeated in less than a month,” Clarke said. “The lopsided vote caught everyone by surprise, and the floor debate made it obvious that not enough people knew why changing the age would be good for communities, good for taxpayers and especially good for kids who need a second chance.”
After that defeat in 2003, the education process began in earnest. Those being educated about the benefits of changing the age included not just legislators but potential supporters in community groups and bar associations.
“Making a change in state policy of that magnitude required a well-planned strategy,” Clarke said. “It’s a process of talking to as many people with influence in policymaking as possible.”
JJI and other reform advocates began to build a list of organizations willing to sign on as supporters of the change in age legislation. Children’s advocates, lawyers and an influential business-based non-profit, Chicago Metropolis 2020, signed up in support. Those organizations began talking to legislators, explaining why most states set the age of adult court jurisdiction at 18 and answering concerns and misconceptions.
One year later, Rep. Collins introduced the proposal for a second time, and many more legislators were receptive to the age change idea. The 2004 bill was sent from the House to the Senate by a vote of 75 to 37, nearly the reverse of the 2003 bill.
“I think the success in the House caught opponents by surprise,” Clarke said. “Because the idea fared so poorly in 2003, they probably didn’t think they needed to talk to many House members the following year. But after the success in the House in 2004, the opponents were able to throw up a roadblock in the Senate where the bill stayed in committee.”
Encouraged by the success in the House, supporters mounted a similar education effort directed at senators. In 2005, the Senate approved a new bill by a narrow margin. By that time, opponents had begun to chip away at supporters of the change in the House.
Clarke said it became apparent the bill would not pass the House in 2005, and legislative sponsors began to work on a compromise.
The legislation’s progress had been slowed after some local officials raised concerns about shifting the cost of services for 17-year-olds from state to local units of government and the impact of putting 17-year-olds in confinement with much younger teens.
Because many legislators arguing against the bills were sympathetic to changing the age for misdemeanors, legislative sponsors and the coalition of supporters tried to compromise by limiting the age change to misdemeanors and only some felonies. Eventually, a compromise produced the final bill, now law, which changed the age for misdemeanors only, delayed the effect of the change to January 1, 2010, and created a task force with all interests at the table to examine and make recommendations regarding felonies at a later date.
Clarke credits the law change to many factors.
- Coalition. With the help of the MacArthur Foundation and the Woods Fund of Chicago, Clarke created JJI in 2000 as a coalition of groups interested in change in juvenile justice. JJI’s governing board includes representatives of organizations working on behalf of children, community service providers, law schools, and other child advocates. But to persuade policymakers to increase the age of juvenile court jurisdiction, a much broader coalition was formed and included the Illinois PTA, the League of Women Voters, the Illinois State Bar Association and many others.
- Bipartisan support. The coalition reached out to all lawmakers from both political parties and from all regions of a state that is nearly 400 miles long and includes a mix of urban, suburban and rural communities.
- Sound arguments. Appealing to emotions alone would not succeed. The coalition was careful to present the facts about juvenile laws in other states, the impact on local governments, the potential savings to taxpayers, lifetime barriers caused by a permanent criminal record received at age 17, and the latest scientific research indicating a 17-year-old’s brain is not fully developed and can result in bad impulsive behavior. The lengthy discussion also gave advocates time to conduct the research needed to refute opponents’ contention that the change would overwhelm juvenile courts with large numbers of new defendants.
- Persistence. Most juvenile justice reform advocates are tireless and determined, and those are qualities that help win long-term struggles for reform.
- Education. One of the single most important factors, the juvenile age change could not have been accomplished without educating legislators unfamiliar with juvenile courts, educating editorial writers who influence public opinion and educating members of the growing coalition.
Although the discussions of changing the age for juveniles in Illinois spanned several years, the education about the need for juvenile justice reform helped score several other victories in Illinois. During the five years that advocates worked to pass the juvenile age bill, several other juvenile reform measures did become law. The legislation approved included the creation of a stand-alone Department of Juvenile Justice with a mission of rehabilitating youth; the repeal of the automatic transfer to adult courts of juveniles charged with drug crimes; a requirement legal counsel be appointed shortly after arrest of a juvenile; and expansion of Redeploy Illinois, a program increasing community-based alternatives to secure confinement of juveniles.
“There is an emerging coalition of champions for juvenile justice in Illinois,” said Clarke, who was honored as a Champion for Change at the annual Models for Change national conference last December. “They do feel like they’re making a change in juvenile justice, and that it is having its intended effect.”
- Issues
-
Community-based alternatives
- States
-
Illinois