Syracuse Sun

New York’s initiative to alleviate the criminal justice system by raising the age of criminal responsibility is facing criticism. Critics argue that young offenders committing violent crimes face minimal repercussions, which emboldens them under a policy that has not delivered the intended reform.

Eric Chapman Jr., an 18-year-old with a history of criminal activities such as assault, robbery, and weapon possession, serves as an example. According to the Times Union, Chapman received minor penalties from Family Court judges for these offenses. Ineffective rehabilitation programs and laws complicating youth offender prosecution have failed individuals like Chapman. He now stands accused of murder and critically wounding another person at age 17.

Family Court is deemed unsuitable for adjudicating serious crimes like armed robbery and weapon possession. Prosecutors' attempts to prevent these cases from being moved out of Family Court are often thwarted by unclear policies on jurisdiction. These measures neither protect the public nor individuals like Chapman, who continue down a violent path.

The Assembly Minority Conference has proposed several solutions to address these issues. While there are instances where trying individuals outside traditional criminal courts is appropriate to avoid long-term incarceration impacts on young people, serious offenses committed by 16- and 17-year-olds should not be handled leniently in Family Court.

Critics assert that current laws are ineffective and need revision to protect vulnerable individuals better. Without changes, they warn of continued devastating outcomes similar to Chapman's case.

---