Beyond Criminalization: A Call For Educational Restorative Justice in Response to Maryland’s 2024 Juvenile Crime Bill
Melissa B. Spirn
On April 5, 2024, the Maryland General Assembly passed House Bill 814 (“H.B. 814”), also known as the Juvenile Law Reform Act (the “Act”), in an effort to reduce certain juvenile offenses in Maryland. A month later, on May 16, 2024, Governor Wes Moore signed the Act into law, much to the dismay of juvenile justice advocates. Legislators intended for H.B. 814 to alter the current juvenile justice process. H.B. 814 introduces significant changes, most notably expanding the jurisdiction of the juvenile court to include children as young as ten years old charged with crimes of violence, crimes involving handguns or firearms, aggravated cruelty to animals, or sexual offenses in the third degree. H.B. 814 also alters procedures for juvenile intake and detention, extending the minimum length of probationary sentences. Furthermore, H.B. 814 establishes the Commission on Juvenile Justice Reform for Emerging and Best Practices to oversee and enhance the juvenile justice system, and mandates additional reporting from the Department of Juvenile Services (“DJS”) and the Governor’s Office.
Opponents of H.B. 814 viewed the bill as a step backward in efforts to keep juveniles out of the justice system. Many of those who disfavored H.B. 814 voiced their concerns during the Judiciary Committee meetings, warning that H.B. 814 disproportionately targets Black and Brown children and perpetuates systemic and institutional racism. Opponents also cautioned legislators about the potential for increased recidivism and the adverse impact on mental health caused by subjecting juveniles to the criminal justice system at such a young age. Critics, particularly from the Office of the Public Defender (“OPD”), highlighted the financial strain the bill’s new requirements would place on their department and similar agencies.
This Comment is premised on the idea that juveniles aged ten to twelve years old do not belong in the legal system. In Part I, this Comment begins by describing Maryland’s pathway to creating a juvenile justice system—a system intended to better meet the needs of youth offenders. After establishing the historical context of the juvenile justice system, this Comment then turns to relevant Supreme Court and Maryland court cases that have shaped the system’s evolution. The discussion then shifts to an analysis of Maryland legislative history leading up to the bill’s passage. To provide a comprehensive background on H.B. 814 and Maryland’s juvenile justice system, this Comment then provides an overview of the structure of today’s juvenile justice system and its current impact on juvenile crime in Maryland. Part I of this Comment concludes with a comprehensive outline of the various changes H.B. 814 introduces.
After analyzing the history and content of H.B. 814, in Part II, this Comment argues that H.B. 814 represents a significant rollback of progress in juvenile justice reform. This Comment then contends that Maryland’s Legislature improperly disregarded warnings from opponents of H.B. 814. These warnings included those related to the financial burden of H.B. 814, the racial and equity implications, increased recidivism rates and involvement of juveniles in the system, and neurological research indicating that juveniles, due to their ongoing brain development, are less culpable than adults. Because H.B. 814 disproportionately impacts Black youth and places them at risk for abuse in detention centers, this Comment also explores potential constitutional violations under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and the Eighth Amendment’s prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishments. Finally, this Comment shifts to a discussion of potential solutions to the issues it identifies and advocates for restorative approaches within the educaon system, arguing that resorting to the legal system is an inadequate response to juvenile crime. This Comment ultimately concludes that young children do not belong in the juvenile justice system. Rather, proactive school-based interventions are necessary to reduce juvenile crime and incarceration rates.