Edward Coristine was walking through Washington, D.C. on August 3 when two 15-year-olds from Maryland approached him.
What happened next was captured on video that would spread across the internet: a brutal attempted carjacking and beating of the former DOGE staffer and Elon Musk protégé. The attack lasted several minutes as the teenagers struck Coristine repeatedly before fleeing the scene.
The incident exposed deep fractures in the District’s juvenile justice system that legal experts say have created a revolving door for violent young offenders.
In a rare move for D.C.’s notoriously lenient juvenile courts, a judge ordered both suspects held at the Youth Services Center. But the decision came only hours after President Trump announced he would federalize the Metropolitan Police Department and deploy National Guard troops to restore order to the nation’s capital.
The timing was no coincidence. Washington D.C. now ranks among the top four U.S. cities for juvenile violent crime, with more than half of all robbery arrests last year involving minors. About 60 percent of this year’s carjacking arrests involve juveniles. Nearly 200 youths charged with violent crimes in 2024 had prior violent crime arrests, according to Metropolitan Police Department data.
The numbers reflect what conservative legal experts describe as a system structurally designed to shield violent teenagers from meaningful consequences. Zack Smith, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, calls D.C.’s arrangement “virtually unheard of” compared to other states.
“Plenary authority to prosecute juveniles below 15 rests with the D.C. Attorney General,” Smith explained to the Washington Examiner. Even for older teenagers, “the U.S. attorney can reach down and prosecute you, but only for a few specified, enumerated offenses.”
That local prosecutor, District Attorney General Brian Schwalb, has made his philosophy clear. At a 2023 community event, he declared that “kids are kids” and teenagers are biologically prone to mistakes. His office, Schwalb added, has a duty to “treat kids like kids” and give them a chance at rehabilitation.
The practical effect leaves most violent juvenile cases in the hands of someone who refuses to seek adult charges, even for serious crimes. In D.C., criminal offenders younger than 15 can only be prosecuted by the D.C. Attorney General, regardless of whether they commit rape, armed robbery or murder. Those aged 15 to 17 can only be transferred to adult court if the attorney general requests it.
Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro weighs in
Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro faces significant constraints in her ability to intervene. She can prosecute 16- or 17-year-olds as adults without local approval, but only for a handful of offenses including murder, first-degree sexual abuse, and armed robbery. Most violent assaults remain outside federal reach unless the victim dies.
“But under current law, if you shoot someone and don’t kill them, I don’t have jurisdiction,” Pirro said Tuesday, describing family court as a place of “yoga and ice cream socials” rather than punishment.
She cited a particularly striking case where a 19-year-old convicted of shooting someone in the chest walked free with probation to attend college. Pirro called the outcome proof that current statutes are “nonsense” and need to change.
Pirro emphasized the urgency of the situation during recent remarks, noting that every juvenile homicide she has reviewed involved an illegal gun. “I guarantee you that every one of these individuals was shot and killed by someone who felt that they were never going to be caught,” she said.
Her message to young violent offenders was direct: “We are going to catch you, we are going to change the laws, and if you’re 14, 15, 16, 17, we’re going to bring you into the justice system — no more of this.”
Deep-seated judicial problems
The problems extend beyond prosecutorial philosophy to the very structure of how justice is administered. A Washington Post investigation revealed that D.C.’s juvenile court system increasingly relies on GPS ankle monitors instead of secure detention, even for repeat violent offenders. The daily number of monitored youths has tripled since the mid-2000s, now averaging between 125 and 150.
The system’s fundamental flaw becomes apparent in its execution: it depends on youths as young as 12 to keep their devices charged. Many simply ignore this responsibility. Some devices went dead for weeks without enforcement action, allowing teenagers to disappear or commit new crimes. One juvenile told the Washington Post he committed robberies while wearing a charged monitor because there was “no point” in complying.
The deadly consequences became clear when five youths died while wearing monitors in just two months last year. One 16-year-old had not charged his device for over two weeks before being shot and killed. Court officials have since switched to longer-lasting-battery models, but acknowledge the technology contains significant limitations for deterring dangerous behavior.
The judicial appointment process itself presents another obstacle to reform. Unlike federal courts where the president nominates judges, D.C.’s system operates through a nominating commission where the mayor gets two seats, the city council gets one, the D.C. Bar gets two, local federal judges name one, and the president gets only one.
“To my mind, that’s unconstitutional,” Smith argued, pointing to judges who regularly release violent offenders with lengthy criminal histories pending trial or impose inappropriately light sentences.
Local statutes compound these structural problems. The District’s Youth Rehabilitation Act allows offenders under 25 to receive probation regardless of crime severity. The Incarceration Reduction Act permits release at age 25 after serving only part of a sentence. Title 16 of the D.C. Code limits the U.S. attorney’s jurisdiction over violent juvenile crimes unless the victim dies.
Smith traces much of the current crisis to years of reduced police resources and what he calls the D.C. Council’s “radical” 2023 criminal code overhaul. The proposed changes were so extreme that Congress and former President Joe Biden rejected them. The Metropolitan Police Department now faces what Smith describes as a “historic staffing crisis” that could take a decade to reverse.
The Catholic Church teaches ‘balancing mercy with justice’ and ‘rehabilitation with accountability’
The Catholic Church’s teaching on justice provides important context for understanding these failures. The Catechism emphasizes that civil authorities have a duty to maintain public order and ensure lawful punishment of wrongdoers to protect society, especially the vulnerable. This principle of the common good requires balancing mercy with justice, rehabilitation with accountability.
Romans 13:1-4 affirms that civil authorities are “ordained by God” to punish wrongdoing and preserve order. The current system’s emphasis on rehabilitation at the expense of justice fails this biblical standard by leaving victims and potential victims unprotected.
In sum …
The path forward requires congressional action to address D.C.’s unique legal status. Smith advocates for legislation that would give the U.S. attorney broader authority to prosecute violent juvenile offenders, overhaul the court appointment process, and roll back local statutes that prevent meaningful consequences for repeat offenders.
Such reforms would restore the proper balance between mercy and justice that Catholic social teaching demands. True compassion for troubled youth includes protecting them from a cycle of violence while ensuring they face appropriate consequences for their actions. It also means protecting innocent victims like Edward Coristine from preventable attacks.
The August 3 attack serves as a stark reminder that when justice systems fail to hold offenders accountable, violence fills the void. Reforming D.C.’s broken juvenile justice system represents both a constitutional imperative and a moral obligation to protect the common good that benefits everyone in our nation’s capital.
