evening ladies and gentlemen on behalf of my colleagues on the court i'm delighted to welcome the governor and the leadership of the members of the general assembly to our oral arguments evening and i think the attorneys who were involved in the case for going to be here the seating with us to argue this case of the court selected this case for argument before you we thought it would be a particular interest to the members of the general assembly because it involves the constitution of one of the statutes they can pass so it's your opportunity to see the third branch of government actually in in session and doing the people's business so at this time i would like to call case number one one eight t five five people of the state of illinois versus jermain richard are you ready to well i am assistant attorney general because shop on behalf of the people of the state of illinois recently the legislation to twenty thousand and thirteen the legislature amended the juvenile court act raising the age  juvenile jurisdiction to include most seventeen year old alleged felons within it's purview that change alter the longstanding system in illinois that had previously treated seventeen year olds as adults to implement this change the legislature and activist savings clause which prospectively applied the amendment to offenses occurring on or after the effective date of january first two thousand and fourteen defendant here committed and was indicted for felony is alleged funny is that he that occurred prior to the effective date of the amendment and therefore he is ineligible for juvenile treatment the circuit court here found that the savings clause of precluding the amendments the time that they allegedly committed their offense as they were subject to different such terms schemes like in ramsi the savings clause here treats defendant in the in the same manner as all other seventeen year olds who situated in a moment here or given scuse me the savings pause here is rational dependent agrees that the line should be drawn somewhere that agreement and this court's inquiry as the united states supreme court has stated time and again the precise targets of line drawing efforts like that issue here are matters for the legislature and virtually on review moreover defendant's contention that quote the more implement this change it chose to balance those competing interests in favor of the date of offense as opposed to now and that balance is completely rational particularly because criminal statues custo should we consider those policy issues and factoring into this constitutional argument no your honor because the issue here is not whether the a men meant is rational it's whether the savings clause is rational and so the legislature of course it is rational for the legislature to take into account all of the changes or all of the brain science cited by your honor and in acting the amendment however the question here is whether the legislature could and that the amendment and apply it respectively rather than retroactively as if the question is whether the savings clause which does that is rational and that the same clause here furthers legitimate state interest for example defendant draws the line at finale and makes it so that the amendment should be applied retroactively to all pending cases whether they're pretrial mid trial post trial in the circuit court attorneys it would lead to questions regarding the effect of prior proceedings on the new juvenile proceedings it would call in to call raise questions about whether the juvenile protections were afforded at the time of arrest there would be double jeopardy and speedy trial complications and all of these concerns the legal and mystery of questions that could arise by ray's applying the moment retroactively this court stated and grant and ramsey were legitimate and rational and certainly the legislature rationally could have decided to make the amendment or perspective to avoid these complexities which would disrupt and delay ongoing cases was a good six months before its effective date and so defendants within that time frame could have delayed their cases to get the benefit of human hundred but the lives tended and so that the legislature could have decided that it did not want to encourage such delay tactics particularly where the bright line rule at the date of offense is not subject to manipulation and it's chosen by the alleged offender at the time if that's present any evidence  analysis for the question as to whether there is any conceivable basis for the legislators legislatures actions that an inter meeting whether there's any conceivable basis the basis kimmie supported by rational speculation it's there needs to be no empirical data it's just whether there are reasons and i just cited many reasons why the legislature could have chosen to draw the line at the date of offense the scarcer is there any case in which held this type of saving was unconstitutional my research has found nothing your honor this type of savings clause is been upheld by the courts across the country there is maybe one case in california in which a savings clause was held unconstitutional but it dealt with credits good con or not not good conduct but because she credits and the court in that case said that because it was simply a recalculation effort that the amendment there was no rational reason to apply the amendment not to apply the amendment retroactively that's not the case here your honor there are many administrative issues with applying the amendment right or actively there's a lot of burdens on the system and the legislature here was perfectly rational in choosing to implement the form gradually it's important to note that this court has upheld savings clauses and grant and ramsi and more so it has its where the legislature was silent on the question of prospect retroactivity this court has applied the general savings clause found in section four of the statute on statutes and applied changes in legislation prospectively only so for example in gleason this court applied the general savings u find a particular statute perspective only that statute made it so that the person who had committed the crime at the time they committed the crime was was convicted however after conviction the crime was no longer crime yet this court applied the general savings laws and found that the conviction should be upheld similarly and builder back this core apply the savings clause to apply amendment to a statute perspectively in that case it preserves the conviction which was a felony and the defendant had committed the crime and before he was convicted the law had changed in order to reclassify the crime as a misdemeanor yet this court said that at the time the defendant committed this crime it was a felony and therefore the general savings clause applied and applied that perspectively to hold that this is an equal protection equitable the line if analogy makes it so that pretty effective date anders themselves are treated differently is soley on when their cases become final so a particular offender it depends on how quickly his case moves through the system and as we know in illinois there are many counties some of which move quicker than others because of their size and so that would create so two defendants who committed their crimes on the very same day would receive just for treatment the line was drawn would be tried and only honors the legislature's decision to to enact the savings clause and implement this reform gradually one step at a time and to lessen the immediate impact of the system was rushed on and many  including the united states supreme court held that that is a legitimate state interest thus the savings cause for there's a number of legitimate government unless this warehouse for the questions at this time out how is this different and there it was i noticed that he would be prosecuted as an adult similarly situated with seventeen year olds who committed a federal offense is after transfer there's other transfers available in this case if you think jermaine was seventeen years old when he committed this offense alleged to commit this offense he was almost eighteen years old when he was charged he possibility that the prosecution could lower the charge and he would wind up in the juvenile court so that i guess there there was a notice situation but mostly he was on notice that he committed a felony a felony offense and that's what's the what the question was that was the conduct this court has set in people versus ph but there is one circuit court there happens to be a juvenile division of the circuit court and they don't the vision of the circuit court and that the transfer from the juvenile to so this is one of those cases where it could be up by actually but i'd like to actually comment on a couple of other things that were in the state's brief at page four of their brief and councilor said it again today included everything up to possibly going to the united states court that has never been the contention ever in the circuit court or on the subpoena in fact they say that if i make both  that that the defendant's contention is the i j j c report which we rely on in our brief quote favor the amendments retroactive application and then they go on to say that that contention is factually and legally incorrect willetts it is factually and legally incorrect they don't cite our brief for anywhere that we made that contention we never sat i even ran a word search in preparation for today just to see if i put that in there the only time i used the word retroactivity was when i was citing another say state case or when i was quoting the state we never have claimed retroactivity are online we all agree that there has to be a line drawn somewhere our line is that final judgment and means sentence conviction and sentence all of the cases that the state has relied on in its brief all of concern cases in which there has been a conviction and it is after that conviction that the defendant or the affected party is trying to apply some subsequent change and in every case it's been denied rightfully so you have to respect the finality of the judge basis test is a very difficult test to me and it's it's not been very successful but i would go back to what i started to say the case is that the state relies on all the cases where they've been financial finality of the judgment derek versus derek was unbearable case it was a modification of marital support and they tried to use some changes to the determination of the amount of support court case again it was a sexual harassment case land graph lost in the lower courts and she tried to bring another action that would allow her to get compensatory and punitive damages and i think attorneys based on changes that occurred after her her judgment was was entered but it comes down to all of those cases have finality of judgment this case does not this is a  using i go back to that your honor said that since it is a procedural step determining which court to go into that this could be applied retroactively if you do choose to use were retroactively we are still saying  he's spending on you and as to the rational basis your honor i asked about the policy consideration they're all part and parcel of this and that's why we keep harping on them if you will those policy considerations that were listed by the legislature in in the legislative debates of two thousand and seven when the first amendment to section five twenty five one twenty were going on that's when the members of the legislature all all talked about the effect on the administration considerations because they were already decided the a misdemeanor juveniles charged with misdemeanors were already going on the juvenile system was all set up or none of that had to be a consideration at this point the only consideration at this point and it was representative belloc represent a curry and some other ones that all said the same thing our consideration is the kids and if your consideration is the kids what's the point in waiting why should it be brief that you focus really on the substance of the legislation rove the savings was so how do you how do you address the state's argument that the it's the saving school there really has to relate to a legitimate government objective she mentioned bright line application to avoid gamesmanship the way legal snafu was avoided ministry of course isn't isn't there what we're dealing with whether there is a rational relationship to the serious course not the substantive effect of the bill but i go back to what i said about the debates that occurred in two thousand and seven when section five hundred twenty was amended to allow seventeen year old juveniles charged with misdemeanors that the legislature did consider all those things if you look at those debates that the state was nice enough to include all of those debates in their brief in the appendix they go into great detail about the administrative cost to different different counties they go into law enforcement at that time there were law enforcement agencies and states attorneys offices who are opposed to making this bifurcated system and that they and at that time they talked about holding off for six months in two thousand and seven when they made that change for mr mean it they held off for six months before it was was implemented this time with this change that doesn't weigh with what is the bifurcated system that the i j j c condemned really in their report that's when they just jump to that this is the kids now it is no longer these other considerations i believe those represented bella who said financial cost is not a concern so that the second paragraph that that savings squad's there is no rational basis anymore it was already decided we don't need to consider that judge chris was ruling was correct this does violate equal protection he's a seventeen year old to me as a seventeen year old kid who like any other kid charged with a family should be in the juvenile court system there is no rational basis there's absolutely no rational basis to have delayed the implementation of what is a a logical well thought out researched supported by his law and scientific law changed to the statute we're asking your honest to it from i take it there's no there was no legislative debate on the a part to date of the change this time around no ok then can we assume that the legislators in fashioning the state and taking the other debates that were mentioned or took all of that into consideration the concerns the dates the primes the good of the children or can we not assume that the only thing that was was flatly stated on the floor was that this is for the kids they said you you he talking about deferring that the need of implementation would you explain a little bit more about what you mean you're saying that they should have become effective the minute it was signed by the government yes that is exactly know involves juveniles or is it because it involves juveniles and that and because of what the legislature said on it during the floor debates that this involves the case and if it's that important to help our kids there's no reason to have a second paragraph that says oh wait we'll wait six months but the legislature put that in during the time of their debates and when they fashion the law is there should that carry any weight with us that's what the whole question is he know this legislation amending the juvenile court act to raise the age of juvenile jurisdiction was introduced in the legislature with the satans laws it was not debated by the legislature that is exactly what the legislature had done with the misdemeanor amendment and they and that have been successful for the legislature of course it was rational for the legislature to think that where the misdemeanor amendment was successful that where it applied perspective that they should do the same here i'd like to go back to counsel's point about analogy on page twenty one of defense brief he had stated that the line should be an analogy we interpret that as final judgment which circuit is denied or decided by the united states supreme court it seems now that he's his line is at post disposition essentially which is what the circuit court hel reasons that i discussed earlier apply equally even when we're talking about a line being judgment one minute your honor if you don't mind the thrust of defendants i know is that these children and it is unfair to treat this defendant differently because he was seventeen at the time that he committed as offense but while the choice was fair this line that is drawn by the legislature is no less on the line of majority as the commission's report on page nineteen you know it's the psychosocial of maturity and basic intellectual abilities of individuals do not merge until their mid twenty's so that means that our societies decision to draw the line of majority at eighteen also does not necessarily comport with the brain science so but yet the legislature here decided furthermore i'd like to know that council was discussing that seventeen year olds are seventeen year olds and so that's why this defendant similarly situated two defendants who committed  date but the juvenile court act to sing was just among seventeen year olds it treats some seventeen year olds as adults from the from the beginning such as those that commit allegedly commit first degree murder i recommend sexual assault and some other crimes and so not seventeen year olds are not seven seventeen year olds they're all they're not all the same because they each have noticed that different  finally your honour's your honour's i'd like to conclude by just saying that the united states supreme court has stated that all changes must have beginning and the equal protection clause does not forbid discriminating between the rights of an earlier and a later time