Critics warn of years of prison sentences for young adults under the carjacking bill introduced in Congress

By Elena Tittel/Medill News Service

WASHINGTON – A North Carolina jury convicted a man of stealing a truck from a McDonald’s parking lot by holding something “cold and hard” to the driver’s neck. A Federal Court of Appeal overturned the conviction in 2016, citing insufficient evidence.

“The evidence was insufficient to support a reasonable rational finding that (Kenneth) Bailey had the specific, conditional or other intent to kill or seriously injure his victim when he took control of the vehicle,” a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit wrote in its ruling.

Cases like this inspired some in Congress to propose a federal law that would make it easier for prosecutors to convict people of car theft. This could result in harsher penalties, including the death penalty.

Most car thieves are under 25, leading advocates and Democratic lawmakers to argue that a lower threshold for proving car theft could result in many young adults, particularly black men, spending decades in prison.

“These harsh, really extreme crime sentencing schemes don’t really work and end up just ending up incarcerating more youth and perpetuating racial disparities,” said Malik Pickett, senior staff attorney at the Juvenile Law Center, a nonprofit law firm and national advocacy group.

The bill, is called the Federal Carjacking Enforcement Actwas introduced on May 1, 2025 by Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn. The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced the measure on April 30 by a vote of 18-4. However, the measure has not yet been voted on. An identical House version introduced in November by Rep. Barry Moore, R-Ala., has yet to take effect.

According to the Council on Criminal Justice Nine U.S. cities saw a spike in car thefts during the COVID-19 pandemic, peaking in 2023. Since 2024, car thefts have declined.

In Washington, DC, where the carjacking rate is above average, there were 1,751 carjackings between January 2023 and the end of May 2026, 1,273 of which involved a firearm. according to the Metropolitan Police Department.

Prove intent

The Federal Auto Theft Act first came into force in October 1992. On September 13, 1994, the law was amended to include: “Whoever drives a motor vehicle with the intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm” and added the possibility of the death penalty for cases where someone was killed.

But some lawmakers said the need to prove intent makes it harder for prosecutors to convict car thieves.

“We must make it easier for federal prosecutors to combat and prevent car thefts.” Blackburn said in a statement after a hearing in April. “My Federal Carjacking Enforcement Act would make our roads safer for Tennesseans and all Americans by fixing a broken law that has prevented federal prosecutors from holding carjacking offenders accountable.”

The bill would change the required standard of proof so that prosecutors must instead prove that a defendant acted “knowingly,” rather than prove that the defendant acted “with the intent” to cause harm.

In some previous cases, prosecutors failed to prove intent, making prosecutions more complex. For example, in the North Carolina case, Kenneth Lee Bailey Jr. stole another person’s truck in a McDonald’s parking lot. In Bailey’s statement, he claimed he approached the witness’ car and asked for a ride, promising payment. However, when the witness refused, Bailey forced his way into the car and placed something “cold and hard” on the driver’s neck. The prosecutor could not prove that it was a weapon.

In the case of intent, the prosecutor must prove that the defendant intended to cause harm, while in the case of knowing intent, the prosecutor must only prove that the defendant knew that his actions would result in harm, even if that was not his goal.

“Federal prosecutors shouldn’t have to read minds to put dangerous criminals behind bars,” Moore said in a press release.

Some argue that the penalties for car theft are too high

People convicted of aggravated auto theft offenses can face a prison sentence of between 15 and 25 years, depending on whether aggravated assault occurred. If death occurs, the defendant could face life imprisonment or the death penalty, the statue says.

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., said during the April hearing that lighter convictions and harsher penalties for car thefts could do more harm than good.

“Federal prison does not provide a better path for young people,” Booker said. “Carjackings are a serious crime … but I think this bill does some things that have proven to be misguided and undermine a sense of fairness and decency.”

Juvenile justice advocates spoke out against changing federal carjacking laws to make them more strict.

Carjackings “have traditionally been local crimes that should be in the hands of communities,” said Liz Komar, senior policy adviser at The Sentencing Project, an advocacy group. “They don’t need more aggressive federal penalties.”

Juveniles convicted

Research from the Sentencing Project shows that car theft convictions disproportionately affect young adults. From 2020 to 2024, nearly half of car theft convictions involved people age 24 or younger.

Data from the Council on Criminal Justice also shows this that black men are disproportionately convicted of car theft. Between 2018 and 2022, black offender rates of car theft, robbery and motor vehicle theft were higher than white offenders in 10 U.S. cities.

Komar said young people who commit these crimes may not realize that what they are doing is a sedate crime.

“I think we’ve seen on social media, particularly in some cities, that car theft is associated with young people engaging in risk-taking behavior and not understanding that what they’re doing is a crime,” Komar said. “You certainly don’t go into this with the intent to cause serious harm to anyone and then spend decades in prison, and yet that can still happen.”

Democrats and youth advocates argued against the up-to-date legislation, citing research showing that the brains of convicts under 25 are still developing. A study cited by the Sentencing Project has shown that young people in their tardy teens to mid-twenties are most at risk of committing crimes, raising questions about whether long prison sentences are appropriate for young defendants

However, this has not stopped federal prosecutors from prosecuting juveniles and imposing long prison sentences:

• In January 2020, Elijah Roberts, 19, of St. Louis, was sentenced to 11 years and two months in federal prison for his role in an armed carjacking in February 2018, which would have made Roberts 17 at the time.
• In May 2025, Bryant Hoskins, 20, and Samuel Fancher Jr., 19, of Indianapolis were each sentenced to 17 years in federal prison after pleading guilty to two counts of armed carjacking in May 2024.
• In April 202621-year-old Jaquell Blackwell – a member of the “5zzly” crew, a gang from the Bronx – was sentenced to 63 months in prison for three armed carjackings. Another member, 21-year-old Abodul Azika, was sentenced to 87 months in prison in December 2025 for his involvement in an armed carjacking involving Blackwell and two other armed carjackings. The carjackings took place between June 2022 and June 2023, which would have made the men around 18 years vintage at the time.

Hard to fire

Once incarcerated, it can be complex to be released. Deandre Govan was in February 2024 sentenced to nine years in federal prison at age 21 for a series of armed carjackings he committed three years earlier. His request for compassionate release was rejected on March 11, 2026.

In his application, he argued that these offenses were committed before the age of 25, placing him “fully within the class of juvenile offenders now recognized by the Sentencing Commission and the courts as having increased capacity for rehabilitation.”

The U.S. Sentencing Commission, an independent federal agency, was created to respond to widespread inequality in federal sentencing.

Govan also argued that due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, his sentence was more severe than the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana originally intended, and that he had to endure “prolonged lockdowns, suspension of rehabilitation programs, and increased disease burden while suffering from multiple mental illnesses.”[s] what he was diagnosed with [with] as a child,” court records state.

Nevertheless, the court ruled that such circumstances did not constitute exceptional and compelling reasons for release.