New York’s youth justice reforms face challenges and need protection to ensure continued support and effectiveness in the system.

America’s ongoing struggle with policies that disproportionately affect Black and Latino youth is drawing renewed scrutiny, particularly in New York. The state’s 2017 legislation known as Raise the Age sought to address this legacy by halting the automatic prosecution of minors as adults, regardless of the crime’s severity. This legislative effort was a recognition of the systemic injustices embedded within the criminal justice system, which has historically marginalized youth of color.

The New York Legislature’s decision to protect minors’ rights and encourage a juvenile justice approach was a significant step forward. However, recent actions by district attorneys and the New York Police Department suggest a push to amend these protective measures. Critics, including long-time supporters of Raise the Age, express deep concern not only about potential rollbacks but also about the state’s inadequate implementation of the law. They emphasize that, rather than seeking amendments, prosecutors should advocate for the allocation of funds designed to support constructive alternatives to incarceration, particularly in urban settings like New York City.

Evidence suggests that reversing the Raise the Age initiative would be counterproductive. Research from John Jay College has indicated a slight increase in youth arrests during the social and economic disruptions of the COVID-19 pandemic, yet this trend aligns with fluctuations seen in other age groups. Thus, there is insufficient evidence to attribute these changes solely to the policies instituted by Raise the Age.

Historical context is critical in this discussion. New York’s harsh laws permitting adult charges against children have roots dating back to 1962 and are largely considered outliers compared to national trends. Past instances of sensationalized media narratives, such as the case of the Central Park Five, only exacerbated the issue, feeding into the debunked “superpredator” myth and resulting in a cycle of increased penal measures against youth.

The notion of rolling back Raise the Age reflects a troubling return to fear-based policymaking reminiscent of the 1990s, an era marked by punitive approaches that have failed to produce long-term solutions. Instead, these legislative efforts should focus on evidence-based strategies that foster rehabilitation and support rather than punitive measures, which have shown to lead to higher recidivism rates.

While serious crimes committed by youth do warrant thoughtful intervention, the existing Raise the Age law does allow judges the discretion to move cases involving individuals aged 13 to 17 to adult court under severe circumstances.

A commitment to public safety should emphasize the implementation of effective funding mechanisms for programs that aid youth in overcoming challenges, such as vocational training, educational support, and community engagement. These initiatives are designed to address the root causes of youth crime, rather than exacerbating the cycle of incarceration.

The current discourse surrounding Raise the Age must prioritize data-driven decision-making over political rhetoric that incites fear. By grounding the conversation in established research, lawmakers can better navigate the complexities of juvenile justice and work towards creating safe, healthy communities. Only through a commitment to treating youth with dignity and respect can New York learn from its past and foster a more equitable future for all children.