CTJA’s Jordyn Wilson testifies before the state’s judiciary committee on bill SB 365
Dear Chairs Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom and members of the Judiciary Committee:
My name is Jordyn Wilson, I’m the Community Connections Associate with the Connecticut Justice Alliance (CTJA) and I’m writing this testimony to communicate my strong opposition for S.B. 365 AN ACT CONCERNING JUVENILE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE.
The CTJA is a statewide youth-adult partnership working to end the criminalization of youth. The Alliance includes Justice Staff, Justice Advisors, and Steering Committee members, which includes lawyers, researchers, clinicians, and social workers, who work across issues areas such as mental/behavioral health, family advocacy, substance abuse, youth services, LGBTQ+ issues, legal representation, education, community and residential services, and public policy reform.
I’d like to highlight that though we are overall in opposition of this bill, there are certain recommendations we are okay with as an organization. Both are outlined below.
Detention Orders
Section 1 recommends the Chief Court Administrator to implement and update a training program on a uniform process for applying and issuing a detention order. We are in support of this. By creating a uniform process for applying and issuing a detention order, as well as providing training to the officers applying, we eliminate the narrative of how “difficult it is” to obtain a detention order for “repeat offenders” and are actually able to see and identify what barriers exist.
Section 2 recommends the Judicial Branch, along with the Division of Criminal Justice, the Division 23 of State Police within the Department of Emergency Services and Public 24 Protection and each municipal police department, to compile data regarding the request to detain a child in detention. We are not opposed to this.
Court Process
Section 3 and Section 4 recommends a shift in language now requiring whenever a child is arrested for a felony, a class A misdemeanor, among other things, they must be brought before a judge no later than the next business day. It also recommends that youth, along with their parent or guardian, appear in court the next business day after a child has been summoned. We are not in support of this.
Requiring adults to appear in court the very next day their child was summoned creates unimaginable barriers for parents and guardians. This recommendation does not take into account working parents, single family households, economic insecurity and/or families with small children, and no access to child care. Parents and guardians can not call out of work at the drop of a dime to accompany their child in court. Many families are facing the everlasting effect of the COVID-19 pandemic and cannot afford to call out of work for court proceedings. Many families also can not afford to risk exposing their small children to the virus by accompanying them to the courthouse to be there on time, or their children missing school because no one was able to bring them.
Section 4 also recommends judges to provide in writing why they denied a detention order, and requires young people to be immediately assessed for services if placed in detention. We are in support of this, and recognize this language is similar to H.B. 4418. While the assessment of services is great, we shouldn’t be placing kids in detention. We would like to flag that this recommendation also sets no timeframe for a response from a judge and that distinction should be made clear. There is also no time frame at which a child could be held while a detention order is being sought, and we are opposed to the expansion of time. This current recommendation doesn’t specify the max time a child could be held which is ineffective, useless, and doesn’t address root issues. We can’t have kids sitting around in detainment until a court order to detain is approved. It’s unethical, especially if not proven guilty.
Section 5 recommends the sharing of youth records amongst municipalities and. We are not opposed to this, and recognize this language among other bills.
Electronic Monitoring
Section 6 recommends young people who are released for a delinquency offense, but aren’t adjudicated delinquent yet until their case is disposed of to be electronically monitored. We are not in support of this. Electronic monitoring is not effective, in fact it is a super high-cost waste of time. The idea of having a GPS monitor that doesn’t track location and is only being looked at 9-5 is insane, ineffective and does not address the root issue. In fact, it further exacerbates certain issues as the rules are often far more strict than regular life allows.
Transfers to Adult Court
Section 7 recommends young people ages 14 and up to be transferred to the adult court for various offenses, and looks to roll back how a child can be transferred. We are not in support of this. The adult court is not designed to meet the needs of our young people. It is ineffective, inhumane, costly and frankly transferring youth ages 14 and up to the adult court is just flat out racist. Rolling back how a child is transferred is dangerous as it no longer takes their best interest into account, and that is who we are focusing on. This is a life altering rollback that need not be considered.
The adult legal system is ineffective as it relates to rehabilitating our youth. It does not provide adequate programming or treatment, and research has shown that sending a young person to adult prison increases their chance to return to prison later in life.
The adult system is also inhumane. Manson Youth Institute (MYI), where youth ages 15-17 whose cases are transferred to adult court are placed in pre- and post-trial, was being investigated by the Department of Justice (DOJ). The Department of Justice released a report in December 2021, outlining how Manson violates the civil rights of youth in its custody. The DOJ found that MYI’s isolation practices and inadequate mental health services seriously harm children and place them at substantial risk of serious harm. In addition, MYI fails to provide adequate special education services to children with disabilities, so why would we want to send our youth there? What will they learn? How will they rehabilitate under these circumstances?
Not only is the adult system ineffective in rehabilitating our children, but it’s another tactic used to further criminalize Black and brown youth. The adult legal system is racist. A 2017 report on Connecticut data found that in cases that involved discretionary transfer, Black youth were more likely to be transferred to adult court than their white peers. The study looked at other factors like age, previous record, charge, socioeconomic status, etc., but found that race was the deciding factor. In Connecticut, Black youth are 10 times more likely to be held in placement as white youths.
If we want to have a conversation around meeting the needs of kids who commit serious offenses, or have higher risk, we should be providing those who need out-of-home treatment services in small, therapeutic facilities that are developmentally appropriate, not the Department of Corrections.
Office of Policy & Management
Section 9 recommends the Office of Policy and Management shall establish a program to foster a system that unites community service providers with kids needing support and services in order to prevent, deter, and redirect kids from crime. We are not in support of this. While programming is always good as it relates to our youth, we have services and programs in place that would work if they were fully funded. We should start there. Why would we put money into new programs if we haven’t committed to funding the ones that have been working and exist? Or the ones that need more expansion and access to provide to larger amounts of kids?
Conclusion
Senate Bill 365 does far too much harm than good as it relates to transforming youth justice and addressing youth crime. Anytime we would consider pushing our youth further into the adult system should be evaluated and conversations should be had with all parties, and all involved, on exactly what we are trying to achieve? If we are looking to further penalize our children, throw them away and enforce punitive measures, then this bill is spot on. However, if we are looking to promote real change within our State, set examples, and transform the lives of the youth who need us most, we need to be having a different conversation, with young people at the forefront and at the table.
CTJA welcomes and supports conversations around finding real solutions that work for our youth, identified by our youth, and can help facilitate as necessary to promote outstanding change. Our youth have a lot to say, they know what works: let’s finally listen.
Thank you for allowing me to submit testimony today.
