Children have long held a special place in the hearts and courts of New Yorkers.  They were treated as vicious predators, evil spawn to be dealt with as harshly as possible.  Some say they grow up faster in the Big Apple, and that seemed as good a reason as any to toss teens into prisons with adults.  They didn’t tend to fare well.

Court of Appeals Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman has chosen to go out on a limb and try to change this.  From the New York Times :

New York State has long dealt with 16- and 17-year-old defendants more severely than almost every other state, trying all of them as adults in criminal courts. Now, New York’s chief judge is calling for a less punitive approach that would focus on finding ways to rehabilitate them.

The judge, Jonathan Lippman, is proposing that the state transfer jurisdiction for 16- and 17-year-olds accused of less serious crimes to family courts, which have more social services, while continuing to prosecute the most violent juveniles as adults.

This is a significant change in the routine, where the New York criminal justice system considered 16 and 17-year olds to be too far gone, unworthy of the effort to try to salvage their lives through rehabilitation and education.  The system gave up on these teenagers, and once they found themselves embroiled in a system for adults, there was no going back.

If the state adopts the plan, it will most likely have to allocate more money for social services and for the court system, which is already financially overburdened. The change would require a reorganization of the network of city and state agencies in the criminal justice system. The roles of judges, prosecutors, correction and probation officers and many others would change.

While the juvenile justice system is geared far more toward the inquisitorial approach, presuming guilt which is quite troubling to many, it also has the benefit of treating wayward children as salvageable, providing some measure of help and keeping them out of adult prisons where no life is ever improved.  Even the toughest 16-year-old stands no chance in prison.

Traditionally, the Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals takes on a cause, using the office as a bully pulpit to improve the system.  Judge Lippman’s predecessor, Judy Kaye, made her cause the improvement of conditions for jurors.  In the course of buying more comfortable chairs, Judge Kaye eliminated the historic exemptions for judges, lawyers and others from jury duty in order to “democratize” the system and make other citizens feel that they weren’t being dumped on while the system protected its own.

Judge Lippman’s cause, in comparison, is both far more substantive and far more difficult.

The judge’s proposal spotlights an issue that state lawmakers and judicial officials have long pledged to tackle. When the state’s juvenile justice law, the Family Court Act, was enacted in 1962, the Legislature chose 16 as the age of criminal responsibility as a temporary measure until public hearings and research could be conducted. The state did not carry out those steps, and the age was never changed.

Judge Lippman said the time had passed for another legislative task force. “To be sure, there are issues that have to be addressed, and we will do that,” he said. “But I don’t believe we should be studying this to death.”

Typical of governmental process, particularly in New York, the “let’s form a committee” approach to problems is the surest route to nothing being done for decades, if ever.  Judge Lippman appears bent on pushing this forward rather than watching this initiative fall into the abyss.

He also plans, in the coming months, to establish a pilot program of adolescent criminal courts, dedicated to handling the cases of 16- and 17-year-old defendants. These defendants would continue to be processed in the adult court system, but judges would handle the cases as if the defendants were in Family Court.

“I want to be able to show that this works while the legislation is pending,” Mr. Lippman said in an interview.

These are things that a Chief Judge can do on his own, without needing the approval of the politicians who will destroy any positive momentum if it gets them a vote.  It’s really quite a bold move, not only flying in the face of convention but taking the huge risk of using his supervisory powers to challenge the myth of the child predator who can never be rehabilitated.

As often noted here and elsewhere, “do it for the children” has become the mantra of scoundrels who use it to wrap up whatever half-baked pandering notion they are trying to sell.  Judge LIppman’s efforts form an initiative that is truly concerned for children, one that recognizes that 16 and 17-year-olds are not unsalvageable, but still developing teenagers who can, with help and guidance, contribute to society and live happy, productive lives.

It’s going to be a whole lot harder to make this work than it was to put some extra padding in the jury seats, and the details may require some serious discussion, but any initiative that gives children a chance is one that merits support.  Do it for the children.  Really.