Three recommendations for holistic juvenile justice reform | GUEST COMMENTARY

Like many states and local jurisdictions, Maryland has experienced a spike in auto thefts, carjacking, possession and use of firearms, and other violent and nonviolent offenses. While the data reflects that adults still represent the bulk of arrests for violent crimes, a significant number of these offenses have been perpetrated by juveniles. The contributors to juvenile crime vary and include: the impact of the pandemic on education, the institution of online education and the increase in truancy; the ready availability of drugs and firearms; the lack of effective parental guidance and supervision; social determinants such as gangs and negative peer influence; lack of mental health counseling; and, of course, the absence of an effective juvenile system to address the goals of accountability and rehabilitation. Systemic reform must be considered.

It is encouraging that the Maryland General Assembly is tackling the issue of juvenile reform. Senate Bill 744 and House Bill 814, both of which have been approved by their respective chambers and reviewed in work sessions to resolve differences, are good starts. Among the features of both bills are the establishment of a Commission on Juvenile Reform, the expansion of juvenile jurisdiction of children ages 10 to 12, and greater monitoring of youth required to attend mandatory treatment programs.

Yet, effective juvenile reform requires a comprehensive study, which, undoubtedly, will have to be considered beyond this present legislative session. There have been legislative discussions for several years with respect to an integrated, creative and holistic approach to juvenile reform. Wrap-around services — such as mental health counseling for at-risk youth, gun violence intervention strategies, family and community engagement, diversion programming, educational improvement, mentoring with respect to improving conflict resolution, and restorative justice to promote accountability and repair harm caused by criminal behavior — are but a few of the suggested proposals inherent in juvenile reform.

Let me make three observations:

First, all stakeholders must come together and periodically discuss solutions.  What is needed is a joint effort by groups such as the departments of juvenile and social services, prosecutors, law enforcement, school officials, the governor, executive and legislative officials, judicial officials, the faith-based community, parents and community organizations and others, to partner to develop strategy and commit resources. I heard someone say that the best prescription is proscription, which suggests that preventive measures are more effective than remedial efforts. Despite fiscal constraints, at some point, we must address the social determinants that contribute to juvenile delinquency and anti-social behavior.

Second, the overall processing of juvenile delinquency cases (i.e. review of allegations, filing of petitions, detention policies, waiver, adjudication, disposition, and placement) often lack consistency and should be reviewed for improvement.

Finally, whatever juvenile reform measures are adopted and implemented, they must reflect a balanced approach to reform. Yes, there has to be accountability, and often punitive and even harsh measures are warranted and should be imposed for those youth who insist on breaching the law with violent behavior; however, sanctioning for criminal behavior or failure to complete rehabilitation can also include more moderate approaches such as being referred to diversion programs or removing driving privileges of those with permits and restricting those seeking to secure a driver’s license.

Alexander Williams Jr. is a retired United States District Court Judge and former state’s attorney for Prince George’s County. He is executive director of the Judge Alexander Williams Jr. Center for Education, Justice and Ethics within the University of Maryland (judgeawcenter.umd.edu).