The debate goes on. Should judges be allowed to grant early release to felons who committed crimes when they were young adults with immature brains, or would their early release let hundreds of violent criminals go free? The D.C. Council unanimously agreed with proponents of the first theory and passed a bill last week that leaves the fate of youthful offenders up to federal judges.

Under D.C.’s Second Look Amendment Act, judges can determine whether inmates who have already served 15 years for the violent crimes they committed before they were 25 years old should be allowed to petition for early release. The bill amends the Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act of 2016 by expanding the age from younger than 18 to the new age limit of 25. It argues that offenders in their late teens and early twenties should not be given the same sentences as older people. The bill now goes to D.C.’s Mayor.

In essence, the new bill requires judges to determine whether an inmate who receives early release would be dangerous or not. Mayor Muriel Bowser has criticized the bill, but the 12-1 Council vote may persuade her otherwise or be enough to override a veto.

Research has demonstrated that the undeveloped brains of young adults are more prone to making bad choices than those who are older and have more reasoning skills. The bill’s supporters urged that this scientific evidence be considered. Democratic Council Member Charles Allen, chairman of the Judiciary and Public Safety Committee, introduced the amendment which was strongly opposed by the Metropolitan Police Department.

Allen told The Washington Post that approximately 300 current felons could be eligible for early release petition review but would have to provide proof of rehabilitation, show they are not threatening to society, and have committed no major violations while incarcerated.

The differing views set off a Tweetstorm according to The Washington Times, with the police tweeting “Gun-related crime has increased dramatically in D.C” and “Councilmember Allen is pushing for legislation that will provide for the early release of hundreds of violent gun offenders. This impact on victims and our community can’t be overlooked.” The D.C. Police Union added, “Seems like people are starting to realize that and his small-minded policies have resulted in more murders and more crime.”

Allen responded, “…stop fear mongering. Of those the Court resentenced after decades of , *0* have re-offended. No link to todays gun violence.”

The scope of the bill was a key factor in discussion and disagreement as it does not exclude perpetrators of violent crimes, including murder and sex crimes. The new bill excludes a phrase that required judges to consider “the nature of the offense” as had been required in the previous bills. Mary Cheh, a member of the D.C. Council, tried to reintroduce offense-related language along with victim statements. Both of these offers were rejected.

The bill’s passage also considered the track record of those who received early release under the previous bill. David Gorman, the lead attorney for the U.S. Attorney’s Office that prosecutes D.C. homicides, said that out of approximately 50 inmates who were granted early release, he is not aware of a single one who was subsequently convicted of a violent crime. He did qualify his statement by indicating that there has been insufficient time for a valid study.

Several other states, including Illinois and California, have enacted similar legislation, although the age ranges and types of crimes differ. The difference in culpability was also recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court that ruled mandatory sentences of life without parole for juvenile offenders are unconstitutional, while citing evidence that adolescent brains are not yet fully mature.

These divergent views reflect the fierce disagreement that garnered attention last week. D.C.’s bill was passed just a week after the controversial federal execution of Brandon Bernard, a 40-year-old Texan who was executed for his part in the gang-style murders of a couple in 1999 when he was just 18. Other, younger defendants in the case are now out of prison or eligible for release.

Sentencing that is determined primarily by a cut-off age of 18 is controversial as well. Lael Chester, director of the Emerging Adult Justice Project at Columbia University’s Justice Lab, told the New York Times that reliance on the age of 18 is misplaced. Research demonstrates that there is “no magic birthday,” she said. “You can’t magically transform into an adult at age 18. Should the justice system have a safety valve in which to review the case and consider this?”

Bernard is the first of five federal executions President Trump is planning before he leaves office and the ninth to be put to death since the President ended a 19-year hiatus on federal executions. Bernard, who is black, was convicted by an all-white jury that could have recommended life in prison. His youth was doubtless not a factor in the death penalty decision.

Race, according to Chairman Allen, could also be relevant in early release cases prompted by the new D.C. legislation. He told the New York Times that he suspects the bill’s beneficiaries would be overly black, in sync with what he perceives is the inherent racial bias in the criminal justice system and is part of the reason for the legislation he proposed.