Rethinking Juvenile Waiver and Sentencing Reform Within NJ

In 2016, New Jersey enacted numerous reforms within its juvenile justice system, essentially increasing the minimum age for adult court waiver and required judges to consider the developmental and psychological factors before transferring minors to an adult court. This law was considered progressive, yet nearly a decade questions arise if New Jersey’s system truly protects young offenders from the long term consequences of adult prosecution. Minors as young as fifteen can still legally be waived into an adult court, where such cases can receive sentences that exceed their life. Many studies have revealed that minorities, such as African-American and Latino minors, are often waived more often and receive harsher sentences than many caucasian offenders. Cases such as State v. Comer (2022), serves as a symbol of the continuing discomfort spreading throughout communities for extreme juvenile sentencing and the recognition of the constitutional limits of punishing minors as adults. The state should integrate further restrictions on the sentencing rules for adolescents and establish more opportunities for a post-conviction review. The justice system needs to recognise the capability for change within these offenders, providing such minors a chance at rehabilitation.

New Jersey’s juvenile justice system originally stemmed from a system of rehabilitation. The state’s early statues often emphasized reform rather than penalties, granting courts the ability to control juvenile cases. Contrastingly, the fear of rising youth violence prompted legislators to produce disciplinary laws and reforms. The 1982 waiver statue enabled prosecutors to transfer minors, as young as fourteen, to adult court. The power prosecutors hold often overshadows the individual assessment of many offenders. This painted many adolescents as dangerous and unredeemable. More recently, a 2014 report by the New Jersey Justice Commission (JJC) revealed that many minority youth were more prominent in adult correctional facilities. In these cases, waiver decisions were vastly concentrated in urban areas, this prompted addendums and changes to legislation. An example being when in 2016 the act, P.L 2015, Chapter 89, raised the minimum waiver age to fifteen years old. In addition, this act required prosecutors to the interests of the public are greater than the interests of the adolescent itself. The statue mandates the courts to reevaluate the maturity, record, and prospect for rehabilitation within said minor. Although, regardless of such changes, many law officials claim their actions are in the interest of public safety. Many minors within New Jersey continuously face adult penalties that conflict with the rehabilitative system designed to better juvenile cases. 

The New Jersey Supreme Court (NJSC) displays such intent towards adolescents when it had required waiver hearings to include an in depth evaluation of the adolescents history and background. For instance, in State v. Comer, the court ruled that harsh sentences prevent minors from the opportunity from release, essentially violating constitutional principals. Such cases suggest that statewide recognition that such children are capable of becoming a functioning citizen. Although, statutory framework may not reflect these principles, as prosecutors often seek to waiver depending on the offense committed itself, regardless of maturity. The statue itself provides an ambiguous guideline to act based upon, resulting in many juveniles to receive adult sentences. Such actions undermine the intent to better offending minors rather than punishing them.

The progress the courts have made were progressive, they fail to stay consistent with new developments and cases. The courts itself should integrate a more specific and in depth approach to waiver eligibility. Waivers should only be restricted to major violent crimes, amd prosecutors should be able to sustain their claim that the offender is beyond rehabilitation itself. Courts should be more cautious when utilizing waivers, making it uncommon rather than it being a normal occurrence. The mental status of the offender itself should become a factor in their sentencing. Judges should consider the psychological and background factors which could potentially influence or impact the actions of juvenile delinquents. The maturity of the offender could aid them to receive a lower sentence, and lead them to rehabilitation. 

New Jersey’s juvenile justice system shows a commitment toward accountability and compassion towards minors, although its current waiver contradicts such morals. Many adolescents are prevented from becoming more productive citizens due to harsh sentencing and biases held by law professionals. Minors are not adults, they are still developing individuals still exploring their identity as a person. Justice for offending youth requires more understanding than punishment, it requires compassion. By narrowing waiver eligibility, New Jersey can help more minors rehabilitate themselves, and create a better future for the next generation.