The following are questions by the Sunday-American about juvenile justice posed to
Deputy Chief State’s Attorney for Operations Kevin D. Lawlor for the Division of
Criminal Justice/Office of the Chief State’s Attorney. Portions of Lawlor’s answers were
used in a story that was published on Oct. 28, 2018

Is your office, as well as SAs statewide, seeing an increase in the number of
arrests/convictions of juveniles? If so, why is that the case?
We do not keep statistics so we have to rely on the statistics generated by the
Judicial Branch. Their statistics do not show juvenile “arrests” but only the
number of juvenile cases accepted by the court. Those statistics, found at
https://www.jud.ct.gov/statistics/juvenile/juv_movement.pdf, show a decline in
the number of juvenile cases accepted by the court after reaching a peak in FY03FY04. There was a slight uptick in FY09-FY10 when the juvenile age was
increased to include 16-year-olds and again in FY12-FY13 when the juvenile age
was increased to include 17-year-olds.
Some experts and advocates suggest the decrease is due solely to the recent
legislative changes. Two other aspects however may be taken into consideration.
First, the downward trend started in FY04-FY05 and continued steadily
downward until FY09-FY10. Recent juvenile reforms – namely raising the
juvenile age, requiring a court order to place an arrested child in a juvenile
detention center, making transfer to the adult court more difficult, closing the
Connecticut Juvenile Training School (CJTS) and transferring responsibility for
juvenile facilities from the Department of Children and Families (DCF) to the
Judicial Branch, didn’t start until January 1, 2010. That indicates that one or more
other factors were responsible for the decline that started in 2004.
Second, there are a number of other possible reasons why the number of juvenile
cases accepted by the court declined over that period:

The number of children in the school-aged population also declined as evidenced
by the census and the number of towns considering closing schools due to declining
enrollment. It stands to reason that if there is a decline in the number of children in the 7
to 18 age demographic, the number of crimes committed by that age group would also
decline, even without any legislative changes as we saw between 2004 and 2010. Some
will say that the percentage change in the population is small compared to the decrease in
the juvenile statistics. What is significant however is that the trend is the same and must,
to some degree impact the statistics.

The juvenile probation supervisors now screen all cases that come to the court as
authorized by a statute that has been on the books since before we had prosecutors in the
juvenile courts. As result, the probation supervisors can reject cases at intake that do not
meet with the intake criteria set by the Judicial Branch. So while the police may have

 probable cause to arrest a child, the probation supervisor may reject the case at intake. If
that happens, there was still a juvenile “arrest” but that case would not be counted in the
statistics published by the Judicial Branch. Unlike adult court, the decision to reject a
case at intake does not have to be reviewed by the prosecutor or the judge.

There has been a significant growth in community-based diversion programs
known generally as juvenile review boards (JRB). Where they exist, the police can send
children charged with minor crimes to the JRB and if the child complies with the
conditions set by the JRB, the charges are dismissed. Again, there was a “juvenile arrest”
but the case would not be included in the Judicial Branch statistics. As more JRB
programs are established, more cases are diverted by the police resulting in a decrease in
cases handled by the court and a corresponding decrease in the Judicial Branch statistics.
The bottom line is that there are many possible reasons why the statistics
published by the Judicial Branch show a decline in juvenile cases so it is difficult
to say that any one in particular factor is responsible for the decline. It is also
difficult to say how much of an impact recent legislative changes have had on the
amount of juvenile crime or number of juvenile arrests.
Can you give me a procedural run through on what kinds of juvenile cases are
transferred to adult court? Is that discretionary, or mandated by law?
The transfer laws changed recently in a few different ways:


The minimum age for transfer was increased from 14 to 15;


To transfer a child for some class B felonies or a class C, D, E or unclassified
felony, the discretionary transfer procedure would apply and the prosecutor would have
to convince the judge that there is probable cause to believe the child committed the
offense charged and that it is in the best interests of the public and the child that the child
be transferred to the adult court. Since a child who is transferred loses all of the rights and
protections afforded to children in the juvenile court, it is virtually impossible to establish
that a transfer is in his or her best interests. If that were an “or” instead of an “and” in
the statute, the judge would be able to balance the interests of the child and the interests
of the public and make a decision. The way the law is now worded the judge must find
both before ordering a transfer.

In the past several months, since the closing of the CJTS, the only secure juvenile
treatment facility in Connecticut, there has been an increase in discretionary transfers.
Judges and prosecutors are taking the position that some children need a secure
environment to be rehabilitated and, since the closing of CJTS, only the adult correctional
system can provide such a placement.

The automatic transfer law also changed recently moving many, but not all, class
B felonies from the automatic transfer category to the discretionary transfer category,
making them virtually not transferrable. Such class B felonies like manslaughter, sexual

 assault 2nd degree of a person under 16, certain robbery 1st degree and certain burglary 1st
degree charges are no longer automatically transferrable.

The typical transfer case is now a murder case, assault 1st degree or certain
robbery 1st degree and burglary 1st degree cases.
Law enforcement is reporting that teens arrested for auto theft do not feel as if there
are consequences for their actions. Do you feel enough is being done on the
prosecutorial end when it comes to juvenile crimes?
Legislative changes to detention, transfer and sentencing options have impacted
our ability to prosecute juvenile crime. The many positive changes we have
observed have had some unintended consequences such as the increased sense
among some juveniles that they will not be punished for their actions. We have
proposed legislative changes we believe will enhance our ability to effectively
protect the public and rehabilitate the juvenile. These proposed changes will help
alleviate some of the unintended consequences of recent legislative reforms. We
must continue to strive to improve upon the recent progress made in this area of
the law.
In response to what seems like a recent increase in juvenile auto theft, are
prosecutors doing anything differently when they handle those types of cases? If so,
what?
There is not a lot a prosecutor can do in these cases other than asking for
detention upon arrest or transfer if a child accumulates such a record that transfer
can be justified. With the recent changes in the detention laws, a judge’s order is
required to place a child into detention. The judge can now only sign such an
order if the child poses a risk to public safety, has a history of violating court
orders or is wanted by another state. So most children arrested for stealing cars do
not go to detention. With the change in the transfer laws, auto theft is a
discretionary transfer charge for children who are at least 15 years old. As stated
above, unless the judge is convinced that transfer is in the child’s best interests,
they will not be transferred.
In appropriate circumstances, prosecutors have started using the “serious juvenile
repeat offender” (SJRO) procedure in auto theft cases. Basically, this procedure is
used when a child has two prior felony convictions and is charged with a third
felony. If the case is designated as a SJRO proceeding and the child is convicted,
the court imposes two sentences. One is an adult sentence to a Department of
Correction (DOC) facility that is suspended, and the other is a juvenile sentence.
If the juvenile sentence is completed, that is the end of the case. If the conditions
of the juvenile sentence are violated, after a hearing, the adult sentence is imposed
and the child goes to a DOC facility to serve out the previously suspended adult
sentence.

 There is a new juvenile sentencing structure effective July 1, 2018. DCF is no
longer responsible for providing rehabilitation services in juvenile delinquency
cases. That responsibility now lies with the Judicial Branch. There are no more
commitments in juvenile court. The dispositional (sentencing) options available to
the court are:


Discharge with or without a warning;



Probation supervision, with or without placement;
Such probation supervision, with or without placement, is for up to 18 months
with a possible extension for another 12 months for a total maximum of 30
months. The seriousness of the charge does not result in a longer maximum
period.
Before this change, a child could be committed to DCF for up to 18 months, with
a possible extension for another 18 months, for a maximum of 36 months, for any
non-serious offense. For serious offenses (SJO), the maximum commitment was
up to 48 months. Under the new scheme, the maximum is the same, 30 months,
whether the charge is disorderly conduct or a serious assault, if the case is not
transferred.

Police may initially charge a juvenile with a crime, for instance, first-degree larceny
in connection to a car theft. Can the severity of that crime be reduced through a
plea deal? For instance, Waterbury Police made 19 arrests of juveniles for seconddegree trover in 2017, but statewide there were just 10 convictions. Do plea deals
explain that disparity?
Yes, charges can be dropped or reduced if they cannot be proven or in exchange
for a plea.
What factors do prosecutors consider when making those types of deals? Do they
result in prison time, or is the primary aim of those deals to enroll the youth into
programs that are alternatives to incarceration?
Children do not get “prison time” unless ordered after their case is transferred to
the adult court. Prosecutors in the juvenile court engage in plea-bargaining for the
same reasons as the prosecutors in the adult courts.
There is actually more reason in the juvenile court to do so. As stated above, the
sentence, or disposition, in a juvenile case is not as related to the charge as it is in
the adult court. The maximum is the same regardless of the charge. The outcome
is based more on what the court determines to be the needs of the child. So
reducing a larceny 1st degree to a larceny 4th degree will not make any difference
in the final disposition.

 Also, since we are dealing with children, we know that when it comes to putting
services in place, the sooner that happens, the better it will be. If a child gets
arrested and four months go by while the case winds through the legal system, the
child will not associate the consequences with the conduct we are trying to
change. Most prosecutors take the position that, if they can get a plea today to
some charge that reasonably reflects what the child did, they would rather do that
then wait for months and try the case to get a conviction on a more serious charge,
especially if the disposition will be the same anyway.