In Albuquerque, New Mexico, an alarming incident unfolded involving a stolen vehicle driven by a 12-year-old boy with an 11-year-old passenger wielding a handgun in the front seat. A 15-year-old, seated in the back, recorded the dangerous incident, where the car hit a bicyclist, and was described by police as a deliberate hit-and-run. In the video, the 15-year-old is heard instructing to “bump” the cyclist, leading to the car colliding with him, shattering the windshield, and leaving the scene swiftly in the early hours of a May morning.
Despite the initial lack of arrests, a turning point came in February when a video of the crash appeared on social media, which led authorities to an 11-year-old previously arrested in June for multiple burglaries and allegedly involved in a shooting incident resulting in the discovery of firearms and a stolen police bullet-proof vest. Now, the chilling prospect of vehicular homicide had sparked another dimension of concern within New Mexico’s juvenile justice context.
The three boys connected to the hit-and-run incident—now aged 13, 15, and 16—were apprehended and charged last week for the murder of Scott Dwight Habermehl, a father and engineer. Prosecutors stated all three would face severe charges, including first-degree murder, conspiracy, hit-and-run resulting in fatality or severe injury, and illegal possession of a handgun by a minor. Authorities are seeking to try the 16-year-old as an adult in the case.
This surge in youth violence, highlighted by such severe acts, has instigated fear across the community and strained law enforcement, stirring debates on the adequacy of the juvenile justice system designed without considering children as young as 11 partaking in such violent offenses. There’s a growing perception that minors might escape repercussions for serious crimes, emphasizing the need for legal reform.
In recent years, Albuquerque has dealt with numerous teenage offenders in severe criminal cases, often those aged 15 and above. However, rarely has someone as young as 11 faced murder charges. State law prevents the youngest offender from being held in a juvenile detention center, deferring his custody to the state’s child welfare. Meanwhile, the other two remain detained due to their perceived threat to the public.
John Day, a Santa Fe-based attorney, noted that New Mexico’s juvenile justice infrastructure originally aimed at rehabilitating minors to prevent future crimes. He stated that those drafting the system did not anticipate young children engaging in such violent behavior.
Across the U.S., juvenile justice laws vary widely with 26 states establishing minimum ages for prosecutions, though New Mexico lacks such specifications. Current state laws do allow for teens as young as 14 to be tried as adults in some first-degree murder circumstances.
Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman lamented the outdated laws, calling for reforms that match contemporary needs, pointing to the pervasive firearm and social media influences creating conflict resolution options among juveniles. He argued for modernization and direct consequences paired with behavioral support to thwart escalating juvenile crime.
Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham expressed dissatisfaction with legislative inaction on appropriate juvenile justice changes, foreshadowing a potential special legislative session to address the pressing crime concerns.
Historically, children over age 7 were treated similarly to adults in legal proceedings before juvenile courts arose over a century ago, which were intended for productive social development in youth devoid of familial support. Modern advocates argue for prosecution starting no earlier than age 14 to avert adverse outcomes for too-early involvement in the juvenile system.
In this New Mexico case, pre-awareness of the deliberate nature of the hit-and-run was a basis for previous warnings about the 11-year-old’s escalating violent behavior. This instance raises profound questions about system failures and what led these children into costly legal predicaments.
Experts like Amy Borror at The Gault Center remind us that adolescent brains operate differently, often unable to rationally assess the consequences of their actions. The challenge remains in assigning accountability to minors who lack adult-like reasoning. Former lawyer and judge Joshua Kastenberg noted the complexity when dealing with youth in the legal system, reinforcing that their comprehension diverges significantly from adult perpetrators.