When you see or hear of crowds of unruly young people engaged in underage drinking, destruction of property and just general intimidation of residents and tourists, think about the hoped-for greater good of juvenile justice reform.
In 2020, New Jersey embarked on an experiment in reform of how juveniles are treated when they break the law. It was well–intended, gained national attention for the politicians who supported it and was credited immediately with ending deplorable conditions for incarcerated teens whose breaches of the law were considered minor.
These reforms were motivated by a perceived bias in the criminal justice system, which incarcerated higher numbers of minorities. That does not mean the correction we took was not without its problems.
Why do we continue to act as though the only alternative to white is black, the only option for no is yes? Must we go from our existing system to a situation of such permissiveness that the destruction of property, the intimidation of adults and the blatant disregard for law must be condoned in order to spare teens the experience of the criminal justice system? Are those really the either/or options that leave no possibility for nuance?
We must be smarter than this!
First, we need to recognize that a big part of what is going on hinges on the perceived need by some people to control police response to juvenile bad behavior. According to Forbes, New Jersey has the third highest average pay for police officers in the nation. We put these officers through what we frequently tout as the best training programs anywhere. Yet, some feel the need to protect our youth from what they fear could be arbitrary and unnecessary brutalization inflicted on them by these same officers. Some feel the need to make the officers liable for third–degree criminal charges if they violate the juvenile’s newfound rights to break the law. Does this make sense?
Next, we should understand that a measure of success for juvenile justice reform has been the declining number of juveniles in detention. OK, some have concluded that keeping juveniles out of detention is a good thing. How, therefore, do we measure whether the behavior that used to lead to detention has improved? How do we measure the success or failure of the intervention programs? Certainly not by just counting fewer heads in detention since that is already a given when we changed the rules.
There is something here that does not track. We have laws, duly passed by our Legislature, that forbid behaviors like underage use of alcohol or marijuana. Then that same Legislature passes legislation that makes the previous laws almost impossible to enforce and seemingly guarantees underage use of alcohol and marijuana. Some label that “reform” and accept the accolades heaped on the state for being in the forefront of the efforts to change the juvenile experience with law enforcement.
The heavy reliance in this new enforcement world is on what is known as curbside adjustments and a system of warnings that are not even shared among departments. The young people have quickly learned that this is meaningless and carries no consequence. They can, and do, engage in behaviors that break the very laws we say we are teaching them to respect. They learn that law enforcement officers have little power over them even when they engage in destructive and lawless behavior.
These are lessons we teach at our peril given what may come of them in future years. Advancing in age does not suddenly bring respect for law when that respect was never taught.
Juvenile justice reform has some appropriate goals. Improving the interaction between juveniles and the criminal justice system has likely benefits for society.
But must it be done in a manner that shields juveniles from consequences of flagrant breaking of the law? Must it come at the expense of leaving parents and guardians uninformed about illegal activities juveniles may engage in? We ask for more parental involvement in teaching and enforcing society’s norms and then leave parents out of the equation when repeated curbside adjustments take place. We don’t even require that juveniles honestly identify themselves.
A system with no consequences for lawless behavior is not reform. We have seen the negative impact of the reform efforts in our shore communities. We can and must do better; much better.
Three years of silence from Trenton shows an unwillingness to admit that the current reform effort has serious flaws. It is time for the governor and the Legislature to step up and confront the unintended outcomes they have produced.
——
From the Bible: He who loves him is diligent to discipline him” From Proverbs Chapter 13
