Has juvenile crime jumped since the Maryland General Assembly in 2022 lessened punishment in favor of rehabilitation? Law enforcement and Maryland state’s attorneys insist on an affirmative answer. But according to the Department of Juvenile Services and the youth advocates who engineered the 2022 law, juvenile crime has witnessed no uptick.
The chairman of the newly formed Juvenile Justice Reform Commission, Andre Davis, a former U.S. district court judge, acknowledges that the commission “isn’t concerned with punishment, but rather rehabilitating young people.”
Rehabilitation, however, seems illusory. Not because proponents have bad intent. But because they vastly exaggerate their ability to shape character to prevent recidivism. Punishing immature youths may seem harsh, but centuries of experience teach it is superior to all the alternatives that have been attempted or conceived. Maryland’s flirtation with rehabilitation is corroborative.
Take home monitoring of juvenile suspects. Baltimore City State’s Attorney Ivan Bates advocated a bill to ensure DJS notified the courts, law enforcement and prosecutors within 24 hours following a violation of a home monitoring agreement. Juveniles confined to home monitoring commonly abscond unknown to law enforcement or the courts and commit additional crimes often with the monitor attached to their bodies. DJS regularly reinstates these juveniles with the very same home electronic monitoring agreement, inviting more of the same.
DJS seems incorrigible. In one recent juvenile sentencing, DJS withheld 23 separate electronic monitoring violations from the judge and breezily commented that it would not impact their sentencing recommendation. DJS characteristically remains remiss in reporting home monitoring violations within 24 hours to prosecutors.
Detention versus release is another hotly debated issue pivoting on the DJS subjective scoring system that excludes or slights public safety. According to the DJS website, scoring considers six items: Pending criminal charges; prior sustained charges and current supervision status; history of failure to appear in court (within the past 12 months); history of escape or AWOLs (within the past 12 months); prior detentions (within the past six months); and age at first felony complaint.
But I discovered DJS commonly disregards its own scoring system and releases juveniles back into the community in violation of its own public danger metric. A youth was on AWOL status and was picked up by law enforcement, yet DJS recommended release pending the court date. A youth charged with felonies — which are supposed to be automatically sent to the prosecutor’s office — was released into the community because the DJS worker stated that the charges “did not warrant detention.” In 2023, a 15-year-old juvenile with three misdemeanor arrests — second-degree assault and two malicious destruction of property charges — escaped detention. The juvenile was then charged with attempted motor vehicle theft but DJS “diverted the case.” Three weeks later, that youth was arrested for another motor vehicle theft. The case was never forwarded to the state’s attorney’s office. But this is only the overture.
The same juvenile was then charged with disturbing the peace and traffic violations with no consequences. The seventh charge was sustained and the youth placed on probation. But before probation commenced, he racked up four robberies in quick succession in a separate jurisdiction within seven days. Arrested for one robbery, brought in and released by DJS. Brought in for the second robbery, once again released by DJS. Third robbery, once again brought in and released from DJS. And yet again, caught, charged, brought into intake and released by DJS. Four separate times, for four separate robberies. Same criminal, likely different DJS intake officers, but the same result for each case — released back into the community.
This is a lose-lose game. The public loses because of the accumulation of victims of recidivist offenses. The youth loses from the absence of adult supervision and returns to a life of crime with no alternative.
Isn’t it time for the governor, and members of the Maryland General Assembly, to hold DJS and its Secretary Vincent Schiraldi accountable for a failed mission by any yardstick? Isn’t it time to consider new personnel and a new approach?
Armstrong Williams (www.armstrongwilliams.com; @arightside) is a political analyst, syndicated columnist and owner of the broadcasting company, Howard Stirk Holdings. He is also part owner of The Baltimore Sun.