Here's an interesting post on another blog regarding the "unintended consequences" of the exclusion of 19- and 20-year olds from TYC.

Ombudsman: Move 19-20 year olds back to TYC

I guess you can say it was "unintended," but it certainly wasn't unexpected. Isn't this one of the reasons why many juvenile prosecutors and juvenile judges opposed that portion of SB 103? They knew it would result in harsher sentences and less chance of rehabilitation, and they said so, but those pleas fell on deaf ears (which were probably deafened by the cacophony of ringing cash register bells from all the money the state was trying to save by slashing TYC's capacity).

Well, I guess it's better late than never. I give credit to the Ombudsman (who helped pass the bill in his previous job w/ the ACLU) for admitting the error, and to Grits for covering an issue that hasn't been picked up in the MSM. We'll see if it makes any difference at the Capitol.

What do you think?

I think it's a very welcome change. In addition to certifying more of the borderline kids, I think that there was a definite increase in defendants with determinate sentences being sent to TDC. Defendants who ordinarily would have been given an extra year or two to see if they could comply with their requirements instead butted up against the age barrier. They hadn't done enough to be released, so they HAD to be sent to TDC instead.

I know it's surprising that legislators don't always think things through.

Prosecutors expressly warned legislators about this likely outcome. The truth is they chose to ignore it.

Another likely consequence is the expected recidivism by those juveniles who were released early. But, who keeps those numbers and publishes them to the public?