By Beth Dixon

I am compelled to address the inaccuracies in the April 7, 2024, article entitled “Two incidents in Salisbury raise questions about juvenile justice changes.” The article implies that the juvenile 2019 “Raise the Age” legislation has been detrimental to our community and that Rowan County’s juvenile courts are failing to hold youth engaged in delinquent behaviors accountable for their actions. Both allegations are completely false.

The article focuses on two juveniles with whom Salisbury police officers claim to have had multiple criminal interactions. Both of the juveniles involved are only 15 years old; Raise the Age, which deals exclusively with 16- and 17-year-old juveniles, has no relevance whatsoever to proceedings involving a 15-year-old. Neither of these youth has had any prior adjudications of delinquency. One juvenile does have a pending matter. The complaining officers have never even reported the majority of these “criminal interactions” to juvenile authorities. In fact, officers have yet to follow up with juvenile justice and request complaints for the incidents reported in the article. It is unfair for the Salisbury Police Department and the Salisbury Post to disparage our juvenile courts for not holding youth accountable for behaviors that have never been reported by the police officers.

The third juvenile complained of, found in the stolen Honda CRV, is 17 years old. This youth is known to juvenile authorities. Although the young person did not qualify for detention, if the officer found the juvenile to have violated any motor vehicle laws, Raise the Age allows the officer to place a 17-year-old under arrest the same as an adult perpetrator. There is no explanation as to why this option was not utilized. Again, juvenile petitions for possession of the stolen motor vehicle and for resisting arrest have not been sought by the complaining officer as of the date of this letter. It appears that the police are not as interested in having juveniles held accountable as they are in having them locked up.

Placing a juvenile in secure detention is not the same as arresting an adult. There is no opportunity for bond and a juvenile cannot be released until authorized by a district court judge. Scores of juvenile justice research informs us that even short periods of youth incarceration contributes to increased recidivism, decreased high school success, and teen pregnancy. Detention is reserved for those youth who are truly violent and pose a viable danger to our community. Our juvenile statutes require that other options are first considered and rejected before proceeding with a secure detention order.

In determining whether a youth should be placed in detention, juvenile justice professionals utilize a validated screening tool. Considerations are given to the seriousness of the offense, the juvenile’s prior criminal history, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the risk to public safety. This screening tool guards against implicit biases and helps prevent inequities in detention decisions. It is not the sole arbiter of detention decisions; other factors are considered as well. Any request for secure detention must also be authorized by a district court judge.

I am very proud of Rowan County’s juvenile justice professionals and our juvenile court. My colleagues and I preside in juvenile court each Friday and enter dispositions to hold young people accountable for the crimes that they have committed. Juvenile Court Counselors monitor these youth to ensure compliance with court orders and report back to the court should the youth be in violation. Sanctions become more severe if undesirable behaviors continue. Older and more dangerous youth are transferred to Superior Court to be handled in the adult criminal system. The Salisbury Post’s poorly researched and written article unfairly criticizes our juvenile justice professionals’ hard work as well as the 2019 Raise the Age legislation and I cannot in good conscience leave that unaddressed.

— Beth Dixon
Dixon is Chief District Court Judge of the Judicial District 27 Rowan County.