Given the increases in juvenile violence both nationally and in Memphis, it is time to look at a new way of dealing with young people accused of violent crimes.

Currently, if a person under 18 years old is charged with first-degree murder in Memphis, there are only two options for how to handle the case under Tennessee law.

The first option is for the district attorney and juvenile court judge to leave that young person in the juvenile justice system. If convicted (found delinquent, in legal terms), any sentence can last up until the offender’s 19th birthday, but that’s it.

Opinion: How and why some juveniles are transferred to adult court

Under this first option, the period of confinement — or any other form of supervision — for that young person will be relatively short. And the chances are high under our current state law that the sentence will not be for a fixed, determinate time such as the offender’s 19th birthday. Any confinement or other supervision could be for an indeterminate period to be decided by the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services and actually end before the offender’s 19th birthday.

The second option available under current state law is for the district attorney to seek a transfer to adult court, with a sentence under the adult system if convicted. The juvenile court judge decides whether to grant the district attorney’s request for transfer after a hearing. Upon transfer to the adult system, if convicted of first-degree murder, for example, the offender will be eligible for parole after serving 50 years. The jury would have the option of returning a verdict for what is called a lesser included offense, such as second-degree murder. The standard sentencing range for second-degree murder is 15-25 years.

Those are the only two options available under our current state law. A juvenile charged with murder is the most extreme example in Tennessee of the difference between leaving the offender in the juvenile justice system or transferring the offender to the adult system. Of the two options, I believe most citizens in our community would likely opt for transfer to the adult system. Hundreds of cases each year involving such crimes as carjackings, aggravated robberies and aggravated assaults with guns involve the same two options and decision-making process.

Guest column: We need a sense of urgency to curb gun violence

Based on current trends, this year, we will have about 2,000 juveniles charged in Shelby County with delinquent (criminal) acts. Of those, about 600 will face serious charges involving violent offenses. Probably less than 1% of the total number of juveniles facing delinquent charges will end up being transferred from juvenile court to adult court. The rest will remain in the juvenile system for short periods of time.

In Tennessee, district attorneys and juvenile court judges need a third option not currently available but which many states have. It is referred to as “blended sentencing” because it blends the need for public safety and accountability for juvenile offenders with the traditional juvenile justice system’s focus on rehabilitation.

While states vary in their blended sentencing approach, the concept is a blend of a juvenile sentence combined with an extended sentence beyond the normal age limitation of the juvenile justice system.

Sanford: Party loyalty, prosecutorial philosophy will dictate outcome of DA’s race

Some states with blended sentencing have fixed sentences for a certain time period while, in other states, the sentence length is determined in part by the offender’s conduct.

In some states, blended sentencing involves an extension of the juvenile justice system’s jurisdiction beyond the normal age limit. In others, based on the offender’s behavior, the blended sentence involves the juvenile spending a combination of time in the juvenile system and additional time in the adult system. This approach offers the offender an opportunity to avoid time in the adult system if there has been appropriate compliance with requirements under the juvenile sentence. It is a way of encouraging good conduct.

Another approach establishes a wholly separate system from both the juvenile system and the adult system, one that detains the juvenile but puts a major emphasis on intensive educational, vocational, and treatment programs.

In many states with blended sentencing, eligible juvenile offenders are those with charges similar to those currently eligible for transfer to adult court in Tennessee. But other states with a blended sentence option have broader eligibility criteria than those for transfer eligibility. Factors typically considered are the age of the offender, the seriousness of the crime, the offender’s prior record, and an assessment to help determine the likelihood of success through a blended sentence.

Sanford: Beloved faith leader’s murder should be catalyst to end gun violence

The bottom line is that any workable blended sentencing system should emphasize enhanced services and appropriate treatment designed to reduce the likelihood of the juvenile becoming a repeat offender.

Blended sentencing can serve as a tool to hold juvenile offenders more accountable than the standard juvenile system, but in a way that avoids a complete adult sentence. By providing a third option between the typical juvenile system and transfer to the adult system, it is a graduated response that, in appropriate cases, can be an important tool in combating serious crime. It gives prosecutors and courts a viable alternative to, on the one hand, a juvenile system with limited age jurisdiction and, on the other hand, straight adult prison time.

A number of us, including outgoing District Attorney Amy Weirich and outgoing Juvenile Court Judge Dan Michael, have advocated blended sentencing for Tennessee, but the concept has not gained traction among key state executive and legislative officials. That’s unfortunate. Because only through action by the Tennessee General Assembly can these sorts of changes be made.

But with growing concern over juvenile violence, maybe the time is ripe for serious discussion about changing our state law and providing blended sentencing as a viable third option.