A new law proposal in Pennsylvania could bring major changes to how teenagers accused of serious crimes are treated. Six lawmakers from Philadelphia are working together to get rid of the state’s “direct file” law. This law allows teens aged 14 and older to be charged as adults if they commit violent crimes.
The push to change the law is stirring up debate across the Commonwealth. Some believe this change is much needed, while others think it may cause more problems.
What is the Current Law?
Under Pennsylvania’s current law, teens aged 14 and up can be automatically charged as adults if they commit certain violent crimes. These include serious offenses like murder, rape, sexual assault, and aggravated assault. This rule is known as the direct file law.
However, even though the law exists, it’s not common for teens to be tried as adults. In fact, most juvenile cases eventually get sent back to juvenile court, dropped, or dismissed. For example, last year in Clearfield County, a 14-year-old charged with homicide was first tried as an adult. Later, the case was moved back to juvenile court.
Why Are Lawmakers Proposing a Change?
The lawmakers behind this new proposal believe that charging kids as adults is too harsh. They argue it can hurt the young person’s mental health and increase the chance they’ll commit crimes again later in life. They believe that teens deserve a chance at rehabilitation and a fresh start, rather than facing adult punishments at such a young age.
Concerns from District Attorneys
However, not everyone agrees with the proposal. District attorneys in Pennsylvania are warning that getting rid of the direct file law may have serious consequences.
Clearfield County District Attorney Ryan Sayers said that the current law already has limits and is only used for the most serious crimes. He believes that certain offenses are too severe to be handled in juvenile court.
“The current statute is very limited. We only use direct file for crimes like murder, rape, aggravated assault. These are not minor offenses,” Sayers explained.
Blair County District Attorney Pete Weeks shares similar concerns. He pointed out cases in his county where 16 or 17-year-olds have raped children under the age of 11. Weeks questions whether it is safe or wise to place such offenders back into the juvenile system, where the focus is on rehabilitation.
“In cases like these, putting them back with younger juvenile offenders could be harmful. It simply doesn’t make sense,” Weeks said.
Difficult Decisions
Both district attorneys made it clear that they don’t take the decision to charge a teen as an adult lightly. It’s not something they do often. But, when serious crimes are committed, they believe adult court is sometimes the only option.
In fact, in 2020, Weeks prosecuted four teens for attempted homicide. All four were already part of the juvenile system when they committed the crime.
Weeks highlighted another issue: lack of resources in juvenile probation. He believes if probation officers had more tools, like checking social media or enforcing curfews, they might be able to stop teens before their crimes escalate.
“I’ve said many times we need more resources. We should be catching these behaviors early,” Weeks stressed.
Sayers added that the time limits in juvenile court are also a big concern. If an older teen commits a violent crime at 17 years and 11 months, under the new law, they’d be tried as a juvenile and released by the time they turn 21.
“That’s simply not enough time. For crimes like rape or murder, it doesn’t allow proper rehabilitation or justice,” Sayers explained.
Where Will the Teens Go?
Another challenge the district attorneys raised is where to house dangerous teens if they can’t be sent to adult facilities. Currently, teens charged as adults are kept away from adult inmates, but the system still allows them to be held securely.
If the direct file law is repealed, this could change. There’s already a problem with finding space in juvenile detention centers.
Weeks shared an example: “We had a stabbing case involving a juvenile offender. Juvenile probation couldn’t find a detention bed. That same night, the offender was sent back home to a grandparent because there was nowhere else to place them.”
This issue becomes even more pressing because the Shapiro Administration recently announced a study to potentially close SCI Rockview, one of the few facilities in Central Pennsylvania capable of housing young offenders. The proposed legislation doesn’t mention how this bed shortage will be addressed.
What’s Next?
The debate over Pennsylvania’s juvenile justice system is far from over. On one side, there’s a push to give young offenders a second chance, offering support and rehabilitation rather than harsh adult penalties. On the other side, there are serious concerns about public safety, lack of resources, and justice for victims.
As discussions continue, lawmakers will need to find a balance—one that keeps communities safe while giving troubled teens the opportunity to turn their lives around.
Disclaimer – Our team has carefully fact-checked this article to make sure it’s accurate and free from any misinformation. We’re dedicated to keeping our content honest and reliable for our readers.