As the court system works to catch up from pandemic disruptions, many courts continue to use remote technology or are testing new ways to incorporate it. But groups that advocate for criminal-justice reform and juvenile justice are voicing concerns. They say these steps raise questions about litigants' rights, their access to representation and other resources.

Especially with children, said Veronica Williams, who founded Mothers Against Wrongful Convictions, it's important for them to feel they have a support system, and in-person relationships can be key.

"When they are dealing with court hearings and proceedings, we have to understand that they are fragile," she said. "And when they become fragile, they can become disoriented. And if we're not careful, we lose them in the system."

Research has found children are more likely to be perceived as less accurate, believable or consistent if they testify by video. In a study by the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, 66% of respondents said "going remote" has compromised attorney-client communication, making it harder to have confidential conversations and build relationships.

Without universal access to high-speed internet, said Doug Keith, a counsel with the Brennan Center for Justice, many attorneys working during the pandemic have reported poor audio or video quality. He noted that 4% of Americans and 9% of those in rural areas lack access to broadband.

"Twenty-six percent of people in the Black, rural South and 18% of people on tribal lands lack such access," he said, "so it's clear that there are significant communities across this country, and within most states, that have disparate access to this technology."

He said there are some contexts where remote hearings can be beneficial - for instance, in civil cases with low-income parties who may have limited time off work, or for legal-aid organizations to reach underserved areas of their states. But he said it's important to take a careful look at whether proceedings can have better outcomes in person.

A youth crime bill passed by the Connecticut General Assembly has been sent to Gov. Ned Lamont's desk, even as some youth-justice advocates view the bipartisan bill as a step backward for the state.

House Bill 5417 would increase penalties for some serious crimes, with the maximum juvenile sentence extended to up to five years. It also would increase the amount of time a young person could be detained while awaiting a judge's ruling, from six to eight hours.

Christina Quaranta, executive director of the Connecticut Justice Alliance, said the bill does not do enough to address the youth mental-health crisis which may lead to behavioral issues.

"Putting on different harmful band-aids or stopgaps is not going to get us where we need to go," Quaranta asserted. "What drives meaningful change is addressing the root causes and really helping people get what they need, because nobody wants to do things that are wrong or make bad decisions. People naturally want to be productive members of society."

A spokesperson for the governor said the bill will be reviewed for consideration. Quaranta pointed out the Justice Alliance plans to host community conversations about youth crime in Connecticut this summer. The first is scheduled for May 23 in Bridgeport.

The legislation was introduced as a response to a perceived increase in car theft and other crime in the state in 2020. Car thefts in the state increased 40% between 2019 and 2020, although data has shown young people were not responsible for most of them.

Quaranta noted behavioral issues like crime can be directly connected to the pandemic.

"If the State of Connecticut wants to continue to make decisions based on periods of time when we were in wide distress, that's a problem," Quaranta contended. "The Legislature moved this session to pass sweeping mental health legislation that will, hopefully, actually help young people deal with the impacts of the pandemic."

Car thefts had fallen to historic lows through 2019. The General Assembly also passed House Bill 5001, which aims to increase the availability of mental-health and behavioral-health services to young people in the state.

Colorado lawmakers are considering a bill that would raise the minimum age for prosecuting children for crimes from 10 to 13 years old, except in cases involving sexual assault or homicide.

House Bill 1131 cleared the Judiciary Committee last week, and is under review by Appropriations.

Elise Logemann, youth policy counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, said when children are handcuffed, arrested, fingerprinted and locked up, the trauma they experience creates a host of long-term negative impacts.

"If a child is detained, that process can actually increase their chances of being incarcerated in the future by up to 41%," said Logemann. "Younger children under age 13 are at a higher risk of being victims of violence or sexual abuse while they are incarcerated."

They also are less likely to graduate from high school and find employment later in life.

The Denver Post reports that last year, more than 500 children between 10 and 12 years old were charged with crimes in Colorado's juvenile courts. Black children and other kids of color are disproportionately incarcerated.

Logemann pointed to years of data showing that "scared straight" strategies - the notion that kids experiencing jail will get their act together - are misguided.

Most parents have seen firsthand how punishments don't always lead to improved behavior, and Logemann said the main reason is because the frontal lobe of children's brains haven't fully developed yet.

"And that piece of the brain, which doesn't develop until we are in our early 20s, is the piece of our brain that puts that logic in place, so that we can not follow our impulses," said Logemann. "We can consider what the consequence is going to be, and then we can make a rational decision. Kids just aren't able to do that."

Some critics of the measure argue that the court system is a tool to help struggling kids access programs and treatment.

Logemann said there are better ways to help kids - through schools, child welfare assistance, behavioral health care, and other community services - that don't lead to life-long interactions with the criminal justice system.

"And there are existing ways to refer the kids to these services," said Logemann. "And the services exist, they don't have to be created. We just have to be creative about getting kids to the services through a different path."

An organization in Montana is providing an alternative model for juvenile justice.

The Center for Restorative Youth Justice is based in the Flathead Valley and started as a youth-run court. Now, the organization gets referrals from schools and youth courts in an effort to reduce young people's involvement in the legal system.

Catherine Gunderson, executive director of the Center, gave an example of what restorative justice can look like. She said to imagine you are a kid who accidentally threw a baseball through your neighbor's window. The neighbor could get the police involved, or you and your parents could go over and have a conversation about what happened, and how to avoid it in the future.

"From there, you're really building a relationship and community and accountability," Gunderson explained. "'OK, I'll pay for it, and it really wasn't personal.' And I think we've all had experiences where that has a deeper impact than just paying a fine."

Gunderson pointed out an important part of the process is ensuring everyone feels as if they have been heard and their voice matters.

A recent study from researchers at Washington University in Saint Louis found juvenile detention may not have the positive, rehabilitative effect it's designed to have.

Gunderson contended it may actually cut a young person off from what they really need.

"That's another example of our propensity to want to put people away for something wrong that they did as opposed to bring closer in," Gunderson observed. "And be like, 'What is not going right for you that this would even happen in the first place?' "

Gunderson added her program aims to make young people feel like they are in a safe environment, so they can open up.

"A lot of the feedback we get from kids on the way out of participating is, 'I came in thinking that you were going to just be sort of judging me, and then even just being able to hear from other people made me realize that I'm a better person than I thought I was,' " Gunderson emphasized. "Or, 'Thank you for not deciding I was a bad person because I made a bad decision.' "