Did Connecticut’s “Raise the Age” Increase Motor Vehicle Thefts?

DOI10.1177/0887403419892045
AuthorGiovanni Circo,Alexander Scranton
Date01 October 2020
Published date01 October 2020
Subject MatterArticles
/tmp/tmp-17u2lxHVUjnXJJ/input 892045CJPXXX10.1177/0887403419892045Criminal Justice Policy ReviewCirco and Scranton
research-article2019
Article
Criminal Justice Policy Review
2020, Vol. 31(8) 1217 –1233
Did Connecticut’s “Raise the
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
Age” Increase Motor Vehicle
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403419892045
DOI: 10.1177/0887403419892045
journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp
Thefts?
Giovanni Circo1 and Alexander Scranton1
Abstract
In 2010, Connecticut followed the pattern of most other U.S. states by raising the
age of juvenile jurisdiction from 15 to 16. This was further raised from 16 to 17
years, 2 years later in July 2012. This sweeping change meant youth were no longer
automatically prosecuted as adults in the criminal justice system. Following the change,
crimes in Connecticut steadily decreased in line with nationwide trends—However, a
subsequent increase in motor vehicle thefts prompted concern among critics of the
“raise the age” (RTA) legislation. This study examines the change in Uniform Crime
Reports (UCR) county-level index crimes before and after Connecticut changed the
maximum age of juvenile jurisdiction from 16 to 17 in 2012, focusing specifically on
motor vehicle thefts. Using a weighted difference-in-differences design, we estimate
that RTA played a minimal role on the increase in Connecticut auto thefts between
2012 and 2017.
Keywords
criminal justice policy, juvenile justice, juvenile waivers, program evaluation, juvenile
justice reform
Introduction
Prior to 2007, Connecticut was one of three states nationwide that prosecuted all 16-
and 17-year-olds as adults (Mendel, 2012). Changing attitudes toward punishment,
along with a robust body of research on juvenile offending, led to most states diverting
juveniles away from the adult criminal justice system (Connecticut Juvenile Justice
Alliance [CJJA], 2019). Proponents for raising the age highlight evidence suggesting
1University of New Haven, West Haven, CT, USA
Corresponding Author:
Giovanni Circo, Henry C. Lee College of Criminal Justice and Forensic Sciences, University of New
Haven, 300 Boston Post Road, West Haven, CT 06516-1916, USA.
Email: gcirco@newhaven.edu

1218
Criminal Justice Policy Review 31(8)
Table 1. Connecticut UCR Index Crimes, Rate per 100,000.
Larceny
Motor
Year
Assault Burglary
theft
vehicle theft Murder
Rape
Robbery
2008
163.7
420.5
1,759.6
247.5
3.7
18.9
112.5
2009
161.3
420.3
1,661.6
206.7
2.9
18.2
110.8
2010
158.3
413.1
1,538.8
182.8
3.6
16.2
96.90
2011
146.5
421.2
1,499.4
181.6
3.5
18.8
100.4
2012
147.3
401.6
1,518.2
175.9
3.9
25.3
100.7
2013
133.0
350.7
1,412.7
169.2
2.5
21.4
96.30
2014
122.5
325.8
1,387.9
165.8
2.4
21.5
86.00
2015
111.3
279.3
1,327.7
174.5
3.1
21.7
79.40
2016
125.2
274.4
1,297.8
194.1
2.1
20.9
74.00
2017
121.4
243.7
1,296.9
200.4
2.8
22.8
77.20
% Chg
−25.8%
−42.0%
−26.3%
−19.0%
−24.3%
20.6% −31.4%
(2017 vs. 2008)
Note. UCR = Uniform Crime Reports.
juveniles do not possess mature decision-making capabilities, and the often (long-
term) negative impacts of incarceration (Aizer & Doyle, 2015). Connecticut responded
to a series of lawsuits and investigations during the mid-1990s and early 2000s by
passing legislation to broaden the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Specifically, the
age of juvenile jurisdiction in the state was increased from age 16 to age 18 as part of
a gradual rollout. The law gave state agencies approximately 3 years to plan for the
transfer of the 16-year-old population, effective January 1, 2010, and an additional 2.5
years for the transfer of the 17-year-old population, effective July 1, 2012 (CJJA,
2019). In addition to increasing the age of juvenile jurisdiction, other reforms were
implemented in the state to divert youth from the adult justice system and, instead,
direct them toward rehabilitative and community-based services.
The effects of this legislation appeared positive, with the number of juveniles under
correctional supervision dropping substantially. By 2016, the number of juveniles
admitted to youth prison was down 69% compared with 2004, and only 11% of incar-
cerated youth were committed to adult institutions (Love et al., 2017). Concerns about
increased offending and arrests among juveniles also appeared unfounded. A 2015
analysis of Connecticut’s “raise the age” (RTA) policy by Loeffler and Chalfin (2017)
found little evidence that broad measures of juvenile offending were affected by
changing the age of juvenile jurisdiction to 18. Indeed, Connecticut’s property and
violent crime rates continued to decrease consistently year-over-year (see Table 1). At
the same time, however, motor vehicle thefts (MVTs) began to increase precipitously
between 2014 and 2017. In general, the clearance rate for MVTs in Connecticut was
between 9% and 12% from as far back as 1990. Of the total number of cleared cases,
offenders under age 18 comprised between 30% and 12%. In 2008, offenders under

Circo and Scranton
1219
Table 2. Connecticut UCR, Total and Cleared MVTs.
Total reported
% total cleared
% total cleared
% cleared
Year
MVTs
MVTs
MVTs >18
MVTs >18
2008
8,891
0.09
0.02
0.20
2009
7,461
0.10
0.02
0.19
2010
6,701
0.10
0.02
0.17
2011
6,670
0.09
0.02
0.17
2012
6,478
0.10
0.01
0.12
2013
6,241
0.11
0.02
0.17
2014
6,114
0.11
0.02
0.16
2015
6,426
0.10
0.02
0.23
2016
7,090
0.12
0.03
0.25
2017
7,306
0.12
0.03
0.28
Note. UCR = Uniform Crime Reports; MVTs = motor vehicle thefts.
age 18 made up about 20% of cleared MVT cases. By 2012, offenders under age 18
made up only 12% of cleared cases. However, between 2015 and 2017, the percentage
of cleared cases with offenders under age 18 increased from 23% to 28%—reflecting
a 10-year high (see Table 2).
Statewide concern grew over this increase, which manifested disproportionately in
several Connecticut suburbs (Kramer, 2019). Among the causes for this increase, sev-
eral state officials—including the chief state’s attorney and chiefs of police for
Wethersfield and Westport—placed blame on changes to the juvenile justice system.
Specifically, chief state’s attorney Kevin Kane lamented “. . . the gaps in our juvenile
justice system that have emboldened young people to violate our laws with no fear of
repercussions” (McWilliams, 2018). This prompted discussion on whether new bills
were needed to increase the available criminal penalties against juvenile offenders
(Dichello, 2019).
Despite these arguments, there is currently little evidence to support or reject the
assertion that Connecticut’s RTA legislation played any part in the increase in MVTs.
In our article, we first compare changes in Connecticut’s crime rate to nationwide
trends, focusing specifically on MVTs. We then employ a quasi-experimental design
using a weighted difference-in-differences (DiD) regression to estimate the county-
level impact of Connecticut’s 2012 RTA change in juvenile jurisdiction from 16 to 17.
In our results, we find little evidence that RTA had an impact on Connecticut’s subse-
quent increase in MVTs. In contrast, we find evidence that this increase was likely part
of nationwide trends in MVT and unrelated to the RTA policy. Below, we review the
literature regarding juvenile offending and the effects of diverting youth away from
the adult criminal justice system. We then describe the history and implementation of
the RTA legislation in Connecticut. Finally, we discuss our analytical methods and
present our results. In our “Discussion” section, we note, more broadly, the efficacy of
raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction and its implications for other states and cities.

1220
Criminal Justice Policy Review 31(8)
Adolescence, Deterrence, and Juvenile Offending
The period of adolescence is marked by changes in psychosocial maturity—manifest-
ing as the ability to manage impulsive behavior, to take long-term account of personal
actions, and to take responsibility for one’s behavior (Dmitrieva et al., 2012).
Development of psychosocial maturity is seen as a crucial step in desistence from
delinquent behavior (Moffitt, 2003; Monahan et al., 2009). Indeed, a major factor in
desistence from delinquency is the development of these cognitive skills and the adult
conceptualization of one’s self (Paternoster & Bushway, 2008). While developmental
trajectories vary between youth, it is generally accepted that adolescents do not reach
full maturity until their early to mid-20s (Monahan et al., 2013; Sowell et al., 1999).
One of the primary goals of prosecuting juveniles as adults is to increase the per-
ceived severity of punishment—consistent with deterrence theory. This logic supposes
that juveniles who perceive the threat or severity of sanctions may be less likely to
commit a crime (Nagin & Pogarsky, 2001). A concern, therefore, is that raising the age
of adult responsibility may indirectly incentivize crime through a reduction in the
perceived severity of punishment (Nagin, 2013; Redding, 2008). This deterrence-
based perspective has only marginal support in the criminological literature. Longer
prison sentences and “three-strikes” laws have marginal effects, at best, on overall
crime rates (Kovandzic et al., 2004; Nagin, 2013; Stolzenberg & D’Alessio, 1997).
These findings have been bolstered by other tests of general deterrence, finding no
strong effects (Kleck et al., 2005). Rather, consistent research points toward the cer-
tainty of punishment, not severity, being a more effective deterrent (Nagin & Pogarsky,
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT