New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s latest budget plan maintains the state’s landmark “Raise the Age” law without introducing any significant changes, signaling continued support for legislation that reformed how the state’s justice system treats 16- and 17-year-old offenders. Passed in 2017, the “Raise the Age” law shifted most 16- and 17-year-olds out of the adult criminal justice system to be tried in family or youth courts. Hochul’s decision to keep the law intact, despite criticism from some law enforcement officials and political leaders, underscores an ongoing commitment to a juvenile justice system focused more on rehabilitation than punishment.
This decision has sparked renewed debate about the balance between public safety and restorative justice. Proponents argue the law has been transformative, reducing recidivism and providing young offenders with better access to mental health services, education, and job opportunities. Critics, however, contend the reforms have created unintended consequences, making it harder to hold violent youth fully accountable. With crime trends and court backlogs still in the public eye, the decision to leave the law untouched carries notable implications for families, attorneys, and judges across New York.
Overview of the Raise the Age policy and current status
| Policy Name | Raise the Age |
|---|---|
| Original Enactment | 2017 |
| Governor in 2024 | Kathy Hochul |
| Policy Change Status | No changes in 2024 budget |
| Applies To | 16- and 17-year-olds facing criminal charges |
| Legal Shift | Moves most teens to youth and family court |
| Main Goal | Rehabilitation instead of incarceration |
What changed this year
Despite calls for reform or rollback, Governor Hochul’s finalized 2024 budget continues to fund and support the existing Raise the Age law without modification. There were proposals on the table—including from district attorneys and legislative opponents—that sought tougher consequences for teen offenders, particularly in violent cases. However, none of those proposals made it into the final budget.
This means that 16- and 17-year-olds who are charged with crimes will continue to have their cases initially heard in the state’s Youth Part of criminal court. In most cases, unless deemed “extraordinary circumstances,” their cases will then be transferred to family court, where the focus is more on support services, guardianship, and rehabilitation programs rather than jail or prison time.
Winners and losers of the decision
| Winners | Losers |
|---|---|
| Youth advocates | Critics seeking tougher youth sentencing |
| Public defenders | District attorneys seeking broader discretion |
| Community organizations | Lawmakers pushing for rollbacks |
| Families of young defendants | Law enforcement unions |
Why the Raise the Age law matters
Before its passage, New York was one of only two states that treated 16- and 17-year-olds as adults in the criminal justice system, subjecting them to adult jails and severe sentences. Studies showed that youth in adult facilities were more likely to face violence, mental health issues, and repeat offenses upon release. The Raise the Age reform aimed to reverse these trends by recognizing that teens are neurologically distinct from adults and more responsive to rehabilitative programming.
Since implementation, thousands of cases involving minors have been moved to family court. Youth advocates argue the law gives juvenile offenders a real second chance—access to education, therapy, and opportunities that break the cycle of crime. The law also seeks to reduce racial disparities, given that Black and Latino youth were disproportionately affected by the adult system.
Arguments against changing the law
Supporters of the current version of the law, including civil rights advocates and public defenders, say keeping the law intact prevents regression to punitive models that have historically failed to reduce youth crime. These groups warn that any rollbacks could flood adult courts with teens and undo years of progress in lowering youth incarceration rates.
“Reverting back to an adult-centric punishment model is simply bad policy. It’s not supported by science or data.”
— Leah Davis, Director, Youth Justice Alliance
Instead, these advocates call for more investment in support services, including trauma-informed care, restorative justice programming, and expanded educational resources for teens in the system. They argue that violent incidents, although tragic, should not define the entire juvenile justice strategy.
Criticism from law enforcement and lawmakers
Opposition is mounting, particularly from police unions and certain district attorneys who allege the current law limits prosecutorial discretion. Some argue that violent teens are “gaming the system,” aware they face lesser consequences than adults.
There have also been calls to tweak the definition of “extraordinary circumstances” to keep more serious cases in adult courts. Opponents claim that assault and gun charges are increasingly being downgraded, creating public safety risks.
“We’re not asking to undo Raise the Age—we’re asking to make it more effective and fair for victims too.”
— Michael Reilly, New York State Assemblyman
How courts are managing under the current system
With the law firmly in place, New York courts have had to adjust structurally and resource-wise. Youth Parts of the criminal court were created statewide, requiring additional training for judges and legal staff. The transition hasn’t been seamless—delays, confusion about eligibility, and case complexities have taxed the system.
“The need for specialized youth courtrooms and staff cannot be overstated. The current resources are stretched thin.”
— Felicia Martin, Family Court Judge
However, many within the judiciary believe the law has long-term benefits, especially when it provides the framework for layered, individualized support rather than default punitive measures. Continued investment is essential, they say, to make the system more efficient and responsive to minors’ needs.
What’s next for Raise the Age?
Governor Hochul’s move to preserve the law shows it’s unlikely to see changes this year. However, debates in the state legislature are expected to intensify, especially if high-profile crimes involving youth continue to make headlines. A few lawmakers are floating bills that would amend parts of the law to address perceived loopholes.
For now, the legal standard remains consistent. Judges will continue to weigh whether a teen poses a serious threat to public safety before electing to keep them in adult court. Legal observers anticipate further reviews and public feedback as crime trends evolve and as more research becomes available on the law’s long-term outcomes.
Short FAQs on Raise the Age in New York
What is the Raise the Age law in New York?
Raise the Age refers to legislation passed in 2017 that moved most 16- and 17-year-olds out of the adult criminal justice system to youth or family court.
Did Governor Hochul change the law in the 2024 budget?
No, Governor Hochul kept the law intact with no modifications in the latest state budget.
Why was the law originally passed?
The law aimed to reduce youth incarceration, improve rehabilitation services, and address the negative impacts of placing teens in adult criminal facilities.
Who qualifies under Raise the Age?
Most 16- and 17-year-olds charged with crimes in New York are eligible, though violent felonies may be treated differently under ‘extraordinary circumstances.’
Can teens still be tried as adults?
Yes, but only if a court deems it appropriate based on severity of the crime and other factors such as posing a continuing threat to public safety.
What are the benefits of the law?
Youth benefit from legal protections, access to rehabilitative services, and a greater chance at reintegrating successfully into society.
What are the main criticisms of the law?
Critics argue it makes prosecuting violent youth more challenging and reduces accountability in certain serious cases.
Is the law likely to change soon?
Not immediately, but debates are expected to continue during upcoming legislative sessions.