Yesterday, the House passed a law that would allow the state to share juvenile records with federal databases in an effort to prevent juveniles with criminal records from purchasing guns out of state. Republican lawmakers introduced an amendment attempting to expand the bill in an effort to curb juvenile crime, reigniting debate surrounding the state’s approach to juvenile crime.
“The bill before us is a very limited one, which seeks to deal with a conflict between our state law and federal law under the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act which passed a couple of years ago,” said Rep. Steven Stafstrom (D-Bridgeport). “This bill before us would create a carve out to our juvenile record shield laws to allow sharing of background records into the federal system to comply with and help support the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.”
The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, a federal gun control law passed in 2022 in response to the Buffalo mass shooting and Uvalde school shooting, established tighter background checks for weapon purchasers below the age of 21. Stafstrom explained that under Connecticut’s current state laws, juvenile records can be accessed when a minor attempts to buy a gun in the state of Connecticut, but these records are not shared with federal databases. As a result, minors with criminal records, who would be denied the right to buy a gun in Connecticut, are potentially able to buy guns in other states.
Rep. Craig Fishbein said that the bill “addresses part of the problems” but said that, “certainly there are other things that we could be doing with regard to juvenile crime.” Fishbein then introduced and summarized an amendment that was co-sponsored by several other Republican lawmakers.
Fishbein explained that the amendment would do three things; it would require juvenile cases be tried in the location in which the crime was committed instead of where the juvenile resides, would mandate that police departments fingerprint and photograph juveniles arrested for more serious crimes, and would lower the eligible age at which criminals can be charged with enticing a juvenile to commit crime from 23 to 21.
“As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, we created this crime, a new crime, called enticing a minor,” explained Fishbein. “There was a lot of discussion about what age one could be charged with enticing a minor, and at that time, it was represented to us that we’ll only create this new crime for if you’re 23 or older.”
According to Connecticut’s current statute, ‘enticing a juvenile to commit crime’ is charged to any person who recruits, encourages, or coerces a minor into committing or participating in a crime. It is considered a Class A misdemeanor on the first offense, and a Class D felony for any subsequent offenses. This amendment was not the first attempt by House Republicans to lower the age at which people could be charged with this crime; last year, Fishbein cosponsored a bill that would have lowered the age from 23 to 18, but it died in the House Judiciary Committee.
“If you read some of the headlines, some of the articles with these juvenile crimes that are going on, I’m seeing a lot of 19-year olds, quite frankly, those that are younger than 23, being involved with 14-year olds stealing cars,” said Fishbein. “The amendment before us doesn’t even go as far as that, it just brings the 23 down to 21.”
Fishbein explained the rationale behind the other two changes proposed in the amendment as well. Under current law, minors are tried for crimes in the district in which they reside instead of the district in which they’re alleged to have committed the crime. Fishbein said this makes it more difficult for witnesses and arresting officers to testify. As for the fingerprinting and photography mandate, Fishbein explained that the amendment would only apply to minors suspected of committing felonies and Class A misdemeanors and that these records would be destroyed if they’re acquitted, dismissed or assigned to one of the state’s juvenile diversionary programs.
Stafstrom stood in opposition to the amendment, saying that it was “only arguably germane” to the original bill.
“The underlying bill discusses firearm background checks and that information being used for background checks in other states,” said Stafstrom. “I would submit that this amendment is at best border-line.”
Stafstrom also said that the provisions of the amendment had not been subject to public hearings before the judiciary committee this year and that similar attempts by Republican lawmakers in years past, “were not well received by the committee for good reason.”
Stafstrom addressed each provision of the amendment. He said that the transfer of cases from the judicial district in which a juvenile resides to the district in which their alleged crime was committed would make it harder for court-ordered service providers to provide outreach to juvenile offenders. Stafstrom said this change would be “counter-intuitive to preventing crime in our state.”
“The exact services that we want to get to someone to prevent them from committing another crime are more readily available to them in their own communities,” said Stafstrom. “If you move the case, from say someone who’s in Waterbury, they now have to travel to New London for services, they are more likely to recidivate.”
As for the proposed fingerprinting and photography mandate, Stafstrom said that while some police departments take these measures already, mandating all departments to do so would “place an unfunded municipal mandate and burden” on municipalities.
In response to the proposed lowered age of eligibility for the charge of enticing juveniles, Stafstrom said that since the charge was only created two years ago, it would be best for the state to take more time to evaluate its impact before amending it.
“It certainly seems to me that we should let that statute sit for a little longer before we go and try to amend it again, particularly when we’re not even sure we’ve seen anyone arrested under that statute,” said Stafstrom.
Fishbein responded with conviction:
“I, for one, am not willing to sit and wait while more juveniles are creating more crimes in this state,” said Fishbein. “Not being able to be arrested, cases not adjudicated. We have to do something here to protect the citizens of the great state of Connecticut.”
Despite Fishbein’s protests, the amendment was ultimately shot down by a vote of 90-58. The House proceeded to pass the underlying bill in an overwhelming vote of 148-1. The bill now must be passed by the Senate and signed by Gov. Lamont to become law.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
