Committee Approves Bill to Reform Sentencing of Young Offenders
(Sacramento, April 8, 2008) – The California Senate’s Public Safety Committee has taken a historic step toward ending the practice of sentencing youth to die in prison by passing a reform bill, Human Rights Watch said today.
The committee voted 3 to 2 in favor of the Juvenile Life Without Parole Reform Act (Senate Bill 1199), which would eliminate life-without-parole sentences for offenders under age 18. It would instead impose a sentence of 25 years to life, giving young offenders access to parole after 25 years if they show convincing evidence of rehabilitation.
“Today’s vote shows that California can give young people a parole hearing – which is not a get-out-of-jail-free card – without compromising public safety,” said Alison Parker, deputy director of the US program at Human Rights Watch. “The full California Senate should pass SB 1199 so that young prisoners will have a chance to redeem themselves.”
Human Rights Watch and a wide range of organizations and individuals across California called upon the full Senate and Assembly to pass SB 1199, which requires a two-thirds majority to become law. The bill was authored by Senator Leland Yee of San Francisco and San Mateo counties, together with four co-authors.
Parker, a contributor to Human Rights Watch’s January 2008 report “When I Die, They’ll Send Me Home: Youth in California Sentenced to Life without Parole”, testified on the report’s findings at the Public Safety Committee hearing in Sacramento on April 8, 2008. She explained that California has sentenced youth to life without parole in ways that undermine standards of justice and fair play.
In nearly 70 percent of California cases reported to Human Rights Watch in which a youth committed a crime with others and was sentenced to life without parole, at least one codefendant was an adult. Survey responses indicate that in 56 percent of those cases, the adult received a more lenient sentence than the juvenile. Also, 45 percent of California youth sentenced to life without parole for involvement in a murder did not actually kill the victim. Many were convicted of felony murder, or for aiding and abetting crimes.
“It’s shocking that California actually punishes young offenders more harshly than their adult co-defendants, even when the kids aren’t the ones pulling the trigger,” Parker said. “Juveniles aren’t adults and shouldn’t be treated like them, but California sends under-18s off to die in prison without even the possibility of a second chance.”
California has the worst record in the nation for racial disparities in the sentencing of juveniles to life without parole: black youth are serving the sentence at a per-capita rate that is 18 times the rate for white youth. This difference in treatment cannot be explained by higher levels of arrest of black youth. Black youth arrested for murder in California are sentenced to life without parole at a rate that is 5.8 times that of white youth arrested for murder.
Randall Hagar, director of governmental affairs for the California Psychiatric Association, based his testimony in support of SB 1199 on current scientific research showing that the brains of youth are still developing and maturing. Jim Lindburg, of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California, testified on behalf of SB 1199 as an appropriate response to the very high costs of California’s prisons, and because “redemption still has value in our society.”
International law prohibits life-without-parole sentences for those who commit their crimes before the age of 18, and no country outside the United States applies the sentence to youth. There are 227 California prisoners serving sentences of life without parole for crimes committed when they were under 18.
For more information about SB 1199 please click here, and here.
Showing posts with label sentencing our children to die in prison juvenile life without parole sentence jlwop second life in prison incarcerated youth juveniles chance legislation scl convention rights child crc article 37. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sentencing our children to die in prison juvenile life without parole sentence jlwop second life in prison incarcerated youth juveniles chance legislation scl convention rights child crc article 37. Show all posts
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Monday, May 5, 2008
Give the Kids a Break
Give the Kids a Break
It's time to ease the too-tough, and ill-conceived, sentencing of juveniles.
By Annette Fuentes
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
USA TODAY
Vengeance and harsh retribution have been the guiding principles in our treatment of youth in the criminal justice system since the crack-cocaine tinged crime wave of the late 1980s crested and then fell in the mid-1990s. States got tough with laws that allowed the prosecution of juveniles as adults in certain felony crimes, as well as the sentencing of youth convicted of murder-related crimes to life without the chance of parole.
Now a downturn in violent juvenile crime, coupled with more data on the development of the adolescent brain, are prompting some states to rethink whether the harsh punishments still fit the crimes.
The time for change is right, even in cases involving juveniles arrested and convicted of murder and related crimes, such as aiding and abetting a murder. There are rumblings for reform in several statehouses.
In 2006, Colorado led the way by outlawing sentences of life without the possibility of parole for youth offenders. In California, state Sen. Leland Yee just introduced a bill to prohibit such sentences for offenders who were younger than 18 at the time of the crime. His measure would allow judges discretion in sentencing. Absent a national movement for juvenile sentencing reform, the battles are often being waged by individual legislators such as Yee or through grassroots activism in states, such as in Washington, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska and Massachusetts.
Why should we change course now?
First, look at crime trends. For a decade, violent and property crimes by juveniles have fallen nationwide. In every category of crime from violent felonies such as homicide and rape, to property crimes of auto theft or robbery, juvenile rates have been steadily falling, according to the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics:
• For murder and non-negligent (not accidental) murder, the number of people under 18 arrested dropped from 1,224 in 1997 to 710 in 2006. That's a 42% decline. For those over 18, there was a 13% dip.
• Youth arrests for theft fell 45%; for aggravated assault, by 21%; auto thefts, by 53%.
• Arrests of young people for violent crimes fell by 20% from 1997 to 2006.
Experts see various reasons for the dramatic drop: the end of the crack-cocaine epidemic and its attendant violence; effective policing strategies in major urban areas, especially those that focused on illegal gun possession; and generally rosier economic times.
But it was during the height of the earlier crime wave that today's laws were crafted. Criminologists warned of a new breed of juvenile offender, dubbed "superpredator" by John Dilulio, who would bring a "blood bath" of violent crime, according to James Alan Fox. That hysteria proved wrong, as evidenced by the falling crime rates among adolescents and youth.
Biological reasons also provide a strong basis for reform. Current research has identified critical differences between the young brain and the adult one, especially in terms of decision-making skills and impulse control.
These adolescent development issues are what prompted Sen. Yee to spearhead reform in his state. Yee, a child psychologist, told The Oakland Tribune: "Adolescent impulse control, planning and critical thinking skills are still not yet fully developed. Children have an extraordinary capacity for rehabilitation."
Still not convinced? Human Rights Watch provides a sobering analysis in its recent report titled, "When I die, that's when they'll send me home." It reveals that in California, 227 people in prison today were sentenced to life without parole when they were juveniles, and all but four were sentenced since that state passed its sentencing law in 1990. Of those, 45% did not commit the actual murder. They were convicted as accessories to murder, often as lookouts during a robbery gone awry.
Another argument for reform: According to data from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention at the Department of Justice, about two-thirds of youth ages 16-17 who committed crimes as juveniles including assaults, theft, and vandalism did not commit crimes into their early adult years, ages 18-19.
Advocates for crime victims have staunchly opposed sentencing reforms such as Yee's, and that's understandable, says Elizabeth Calvin, co-author of the Human Rights Watch report.
"What makes it difficult when you are talking about a crime like murder, which is so horrible and causes so much pain to families and communities, is that it doesn't help their pain if the offender is a juvenile," Calvin says. "But sentencing laws and how we treat our young say a lot about our society."
In some cases, youth convicted of brutal crimes might not be deserving of consideration. But at a minimum, for those 45% identified by the report as convicted of accessory to murder, there is every reason to believe redemption is possible.
Justice strategies for juveniles conceived during a crime-wave hysteria shouldn't become the template for our society, and life-without-parole sentencing is a good place to start.
Let's replace Old Testament retribution with New Testament redemption. After all, if young people don't deserve a second chance, does anyone?
Annette Fuentes is an adjunct professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.
Source: http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080213/opledewednesday.art.htm
It's time to ease the too-tough, and ill-conceived, sentencing of juveniles.
By Annette Fuentes
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
USA TODAY
Vengeance and harsh retribution have been the guiding principles in our treatment of youth in the criminal justice system since the crack-cocaine tinged crime wave of the late 1980s crested and then fell in the mid-1990s. States got tough with laws that allowed the prosecution of juveniles as adults in certain felony crimes, as well as the sentencing of youth convicted of murder-related crimes to life without the chance of parole.
Now a downturn in violent juvenile crime, coupled with more data on the development of the adolescent brain, are prompting some states to rethink whether the harsh punishments still fit the crimes.
The time for change is right, even in cases involving juveniles arrested and convicted of murder and related crimes, such as aiding and abetting a murder. There are rumblings for reform in several statehouses.
In 2006, Colorado led the way by outlawing sentences of life without the possibility of parole for youth offenders. In California, state Sen. Leland Yee just introduced a bill to prohibit such sentences for offenders who were younger than 18 at the time of the crime. His measure would allow judges discretion in sentencing. Absent a national movement for juvenile sentencing reform, the battles are often being waged by individual legislators such as Yee or through grassroots activism in states, such as in Washington, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska and Massachusetts.
Why should we change course now?
First, look at crime trends. For a decade, violent and property crimes by juveniles have fallen nationwide. In every category of crime from violent felonies such as homicide and rape, to property crimes of auto theft or robbery, juvenile rates have been steadily falling, according to the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics:
• For murder and non-negligent (not accidental) murder, the number of people under 18 arrested dropped from 1,224 in 1997 to 710 in 2006. That's a 42% decline. For those over 18, there was a 13% dip.
• Youth arrests for theft fell 45%; for aggravated assault, by 21%; auto thefts, by 53%.
• Arrests of young people for violent crimes fell by 20% from 1997 to 2006.
Experts see various reasons for the dramatic drop: the end of the crack-cocaine epidemic and its attendant violence; effective policing strategies in major urban areas, especially those that focused on illegal gun possession; and generally rosier economic times.
But it was during the height of the earlier crime wave that today's laws were crafted. Criminologists warned of a new breed of juvenile offender, dubbed "superpredator" by John Dilulio, who would bring a "blood bath" of violent crime, according to James Alan Fox. That hysteria proved wrong, as evidenced by the falling crime rates among adolescents and youth.
Biological reasons also provide a strong basis for reform. Current research has identified critical differences between the young brain and the adult one, especially in terms of decision-making skills and impulse control.
These adolescent development issues are what prompted Sen. Yee to spearhead reform in his state. Yee, a child psychologist, told The Oakland Tribune: "Adolescent impulse control, planning and critical thinking skills are still not yet fully developed. Children have an extraordinary capacity for rehabilitation."
Still not convinced? Human Rights Watch provides a sobering analysis in its recent report titled, "When I die, that's when they'll send me home." It reveals that in California, 227 people in prison today were sentenced to life without parole when they were juveniles, and all but four were sentenced since that state passed its sentencing law in 1990. Of those, 45% did not commit the actual murder. They were convicted as accessories to murder, often as lookouts during a robbery gone awry.
Another argument for reform: According to data from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention at the Department of Justice, about two-thirds of youth ages 16-17 who committed crimes as juveniles including assaults, theft, and vandalism did not commit crimes into their early adult years, ages 18-19.
Advocates for crime victims have staunchly opposed sentencing reforms such as Yee's, and that's understandable, says Elizabeth Calvin, co-author of the Human Rights Watch report.
"What makes it difficult when you are talking about a crime like murder, which is so horrible and causes so much pain to families and communities, is that it doesn't help their pain if the offender is a juvenile," Calvin says. "But sentencing laws and how we treat our young say a lot about our society."
In some cases, youth convicted of brutal crimes might not be deserving of consideration. But at a minimum, for those 45% identified by the report as convicted of accessory to murder, there is every reason to believe redemption is possible.
Justice strategies for juveniles conceived during a crime-wave hysteria shouldn't become the template for our society, and life-without-parole sentencing is a good place to start.
Let's replace Old Testament retribution with New Testament redemption. After all, if young people don't deserve a second chance, does anyone?
Annette Fuentes is an adjunct professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.
Source: http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080213/opledewednesday.art.htm
Sentencing Our Children to Die in Prison
Juvenile Life Without ParoleThe Center For Law and Global Justice has issued a report on the sentencing of child offenders - those convicted of crimes committed when younger than 18 years of age -to a term of life imprisonment without the possibility of release or parole ("LWOP"). The sentence condemns a child to die in prison. It is the harshest sentence an individual can receive short of death and violates international human rights standards of juvenile justice.
New Information on Juvenile LWOP Global Practice
FEBRUARY 2008--The Center has now confirmed with Israeli officials that children given life sentences, including those in the Occupied Territories which have been the subject of serious concern by the Center and other human rights groups, are entitled to parole review. There remains the concern that parole review is difficult to pursue and rarely granted. The new confirmation by Israel means that the United States, with 2,381 such cases, is now the only country in the world known to either issue the sentence or to have children serving life without parole.
Authors:
Michelle Leighton
Director, Human Rights Programs
Center for Law and Global Justice
mleighton@usfca.edu
University of San Francisco School of Law
Professor Connie de la Vega
Director, Frank C. Newman International Human Rights Law Clinic
delavega@usfca.edu
University of San Francisco School of Law
This report may be accessed in .pdf format here.
Read the official press release here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
