Disgraceful

Youth advocates say 17-year-olds are better off in a juvenile system geared toward rehabilitation than alongside adult criminals in prison. While juvenile records are generally sealed, an adult conviction can limit a teen's college or career prospects.
"When you place a child in the adult criminal justice system, they're more likely to re-offend," said Liz Ryan, president and chief executive of the Campaign for Youth Justice. "So you're going to be paying for them again and again."

Some police and prosecutors, however, have said they support trying 17-year-olds as adults. New Haven, Conn., Police Chief Francisco Ortiz opposed Connecticut's decision to move the age to 18. He said 16- and 17-year-olds are old enough to face the consequences of their actions like adults.

Rhode Island Chief Family Court Judge Jeremiah Jeremiah said teens get important services in family court that they can't get in the adult system. Young people accused of drunken driving, for example, are taken to hospitals on weekends to see what possible consequences could have come from their actions.

Attorney General Patrick Lynch said he already had the discretion to try those younger than 18 as adults, but that he rarely did so because he believes family court can turn children around. The new law leaves him no choice about what to do with 17-year-old defendants, Lynch said.

We don't allow teens to vote until they are 18, I think it is disgraceful that they will be treated as adults in criminal cases.