I have received several off-line comments about my last post on whether teen driver cases should be handled in juvenile court, where they are shielded from public view. Most have opposed my position, saying that the teen driver has suffered enough; the criminal charge is negligent homicide, that is, an innocent mistake by a new teen driver; and the court system should decide where the case is handled, based on the circumstances of the case. One thoughtful letter, published in the Hartford Courant as a response to mine, came from the director of a juvenile justice organization, who said in part: “The reason we have separate juvenile and adult justice systems is that we know kids are different. They are still developing and much more amenable to rehabilitation.”
To further this discussion, a few points:
- We are talking here only about 16 and 17 year olds, who are the only drivers eligible to have their cases sent to juvenile court. My comment has nothing to do with kids younger than 16 or drivers older than 18.
- It seems to me that, as a society, it is contradictory for us to say that 16 and 17 years olds are allowed to operate vehicles on public highways, where they are unquestionably a threat to public safety, but when they are charged with serious misconduct or consequences, they should be treated as juveniles. This is where I (and, I think, the statewide Task Force on which I served in 2008) part company with the statement in the letter quoted above, that “kids are different … and still developing.” When it comes to driving, we cannot base our teen driver or juvenile justice laws on the thought that teen drivers should be treated differently because they are inexperienced and don’t know any better. In addition, I am not sure that the letter’s reference to kids being “more amenable to rehabilitation” has anything to do with driving; the court system is certainly not set up to help teens become better drivers. Put another way, I don’t think that the many valid reasons for which we have juvenile courts apply to the operation of motor vehicle by a teenager.
- There may be cases where public attention would actually prevent the administration of justice for a teen driver. The regular court system can deal with those exceptions, without our juvenile laws allowing such cases to be trasnsferred on a regular basis.
- I wrote the original comment to point out that the law involved asks a judge to balance the interests of the teenager with “the needs of the community,” and that there is, in fact, a powerful community interest – further education parents and teens about the dangers of teen driving — that needs to be factored into a judge’s consideration.
Let me go back to the beginning of my original comment. The accident that led to the teen driver being charged is a tragedy for him, his family, and the victim’s family. I wish them healing and an ability to move on, and have expressed this offline. My priority here is educating parents and saving teen driver lives. Handling cases of this type in a public setting will help this cause.
I hope this debate has been useful.
