Editorial
The New York Times
August 13, 2008
This country made a terrible mistake when it began routinely trying youthful offenders as adults. This get-tough approach was supposed to deter crime. But a growing number of government-financed studies have shown that minors prosecuted as adults commit more crimes — and are more likely to become career criminals — than ones processed through juvenile courts.
The value of specialized courts for young people is underscored in a new report from the Justice Department’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. After evaluating the available research, it concludes that transferring juveniles for trial and sentencing to an adult criminal court has increased recidivism, especially among violent offenders, and has led many young people to a permanent life of crime.
The juvenile justice system was one of the great reforms of the Progressive Era. The push to go back to trying children as adults began in the mid-1990s, when state lawmakers fixated on a few, high-profile crimes by young people and — convinced there was a youth crime wave — came up with a politically convenient solution.
Young people who commit serious, violent crimes deserve severe punishment. But reflexively transferring juvenile offenders — many of whom are accused of nonviolent crimes — into the adult system is not making anyone safer. When they are locked up with adults, young people learn criminal behaviors. They are also deprived of the counseling and family support that they would likely get in the juvenile system, which is more focused on rehabilitation. And once they are released, their felony convictions make it hard for them to find a job and rebuild their lives.
Nearly every state now has laws that encourage prosecutors to try minors as adults. The recent studies of this approach should lead legislatures to abandon these counterproductive policies.
A version of this article appeared in print on August 14, 2008, on page A22 of the New York edition.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/opinion/14thu3.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Passes S.3155
On July 31, 2008, the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary marked-up and passed, by voice vote, S. 3155, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2008, bi-partisan legislation to reauthorize the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) and originally co-sponsored by Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R-PA), and Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI).
As introduced, S. 3155:
The ACT4JJ Campaign has developed a two-page summary of the bill as introduced. Click below to view.
ACT4JJ Summary of S. 3155
As introduced, S. 3155:
- Encourages states to make critical improvements to juvenile justice systems, including the avoidance of dangerous practices and the adoption of evidence based practices;
- Gives states authority to retain delinquent offenders under juvenile jurisdiction after they have reached the age of majority, in keeping with state law;
- Places common sense limits on the pretrial detention of juveniles in adult jails;
- Creates a meaningful approach for reducing racial and ethnic disparities in juvenile justice by strengthening the disproportionate minority contact (DMC) core requirement;
- Dramatically increases federal authorizations for core juvenile justice programs;
- Creates new incentives for improving mental health and substance abuse assessment, treatment and diversion, as well as for improving case management and re-entry services:
- Reaffirms the federal-state partnership by supporting states’ efforts to comply with JJDPA core requirements, strengthening research and technical assistance to be conducted by the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Policy (OJJDP), and increasing transparency on the part of OJJDP and the states.
- Phase-out use of the valid court order over a three-year period, with a 1-2 year hardship extension for those states that need additional time to make needed changes;
- Sharpen the focus on mental health and substance abuse services in State Plans and add opportunities for behavioral health improvements under the new Incentive Grants program; and
- Improve fiscal and performance accountability by juvenile justice-related agencies at the federal level.
The ACT4JJ Campaign has developed a two-page summary of the bill as introduced. Click below to view.
ACT4JJ Summary of S. 3155
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
S. 3155: Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2008
Here is the information we have located on S. 3155 - Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2008:
The Senate Judiciary Committee will consider S. 3155, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2008, for markup in the coming days. The bill was introduced June 18, 2008.
This legislation will reauthorize the Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention Act (JJDPA), which has provided states and localities with federal standards and supports for improving juvenile justice and delinquency prevention practices, and has contributed to safeguards for youth, families and communities since its inception in 1974.
The bill adds critical additions to the JJPDA to keep youth out of adult jails and prisons. Youth placed in adult jails with adults are at risk of physical and sexual assault. According to the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 21% and 13% of all substantiated victims of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence in jails in 2005 and 2006 respectively, were youth under the age of 18, though only 1% of inmates are juveniles.
It strengthens provisions to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system. This is a critical change because at every level of the juvenile justice system, youth of color are disproportionately represented. This overrepresentation is evidenced at many stages of the juvenile justice system process.
It focuses on conditions of confinement in juvenile facilities, and assists States in their capacity to comply with the federal law. S. 3155 requires States to collect data regarding restraints and isolation and to adopt policies and procedures to eliminate the use of dangerous practices in juvenile detention and correctional facilities, such as hog-tying, use of pepper spray, and any forms of sexual abuse. It also ensures that States will receive technical assistance to comply with the law, and for States not in compliance, JJDPA funds that would otherwise have been withheld can be used by the States as improvement grants to regain compliance in that specific area.
Source: Campaign for Youth Justice
The following information is available at: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-3155.
This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills go first to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills never make it out of committee. Keep in mind that sometimes the text of one bill is incorporated into another bill, and in those cases the original bill, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned.
Sponsor:
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D-VT]
Co-Sponsors [as of 2008-07-26]:
Sen. Norm Coleman [R-MN]
Sen. Susan Collins [R-ME]
Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL]
Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]
Sen. Herbert Kohl [D-WI]
Sen. Olympia Snowe [R-ME]
Sen. Arlen Specter [R-PA]
You can read and download the bill from our file-sharing site at the following link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/4285876/S-3155-Juvenile-Justice-and-Delinquency-Prevention-Reauthorization-Act-of-2008
The Senate Judiciary Committee will consider S. 3155, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2008, for markup in the coming days. The bill was introduced June 18, 2008.
This legislation will reauthorize the Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention Act (JJDPA), which has provided states and localities with federal standards and supports for improving juvenile justice and delinquency prevention practices, and has contributed to safeguards for youth, families and communities since its inception in 1974.
The bill adds critical additions to the JJPDA to keep youth out of adult jails and prisons. Youth placed in adult jails with adults are at risk of physical and sexual assault. According to the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 21% and 13% of all substantiated victims of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence in jails in 2005 and 2006 respectively, were youth under the age of 18, though only 1% of inmates are juveniles.
It strengthens provisions to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system. This is a critical change because at every level of the juvenile justice system, youth of color are disproportionately represented. This overrepresentation is evidenced at many stages of the juvenile justice system process.
It focuses on conditions of confinement in juvenile facilities, and assists States in their capacity to comply with the federal law. S. 3155 requires States to collect data regarding restraints and isolation and to adopt policies and procedures to eliminate the use of dangerous practices in juvenile detention and correctional facilities, such as hog-tying, use of pepper spray, and any forms of sexual abuse. It also ensures that States will receive technical assistance to comply with the law, and for States not in compliance, JJDPA funds that would otherwise have been withheld can be used by the States as improvement grants to regain compliance in that specific area.
Source: Campaign for Youth Justice
The following information is available at: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-3155.
This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills go first to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills never make it out of committee. Keep in mind that sometimes the text of one bill is incorporated into another bill, and in those cases the original bill, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned.
Sponsor:
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D-VT]
Co-Sponsors [as of 2008-07-26]:
Sen. Norm Coleman [R-MN]
Sen. Susan Collins [R-ME]
Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL]
Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]
Sen. Herbert Kohl [D-WI]
Sen. Olympia Snowe [R-ME]
Sen. Arlen Specter [R-PA]
You can read and download the bill from our file-sharing site at the following link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/4285876/S-3155-Juvenile-Justice-and-Delinquency-Prevention-Reauthorization-Act-of-2008
Friday, July 25, 2008
Life Without Parole Unfair to Juveniles?
by Dana DiFilippo
Philadelphia Daily News
difilid@phillynews.com
July 25, 2008
For being a traitorous friend, Stacey Torrance was thrown into jail for life.
Torrance was just 14 when an older cousin convinced him in 1988 to lure a rich kid to a North Philadelphia corner, where the cousin and an accomplice kidnapped and later shot and strangled him.
Torrance didn't kill 16-year-old Alexander Porter and insisted he never knew of his cousin's murderous intent. But 20 years later, he sits in a state prison in Chester, with no prospect for parole or eventual freedom.
Such cases concern lawmakers like state Sen. Stewart Greenleaf, R-Montco-Bucks, who said he began to question the system's fairness when he learned that Pennsylvania leads the nation in the number of juveniles sentenced to life in prison without parole.
Greenleaf will convene a public hearing on Sept. 22 in Harrisburg to examine whether legislative relief is warranted.
"The purpose of this fact-finding session is to hear the experts in regards to what's going on and make sure there's no injustice being done," Greenleaf said.
Pennsylvania has 444 people serving life-without-parole sentences for crimes they committed as juveniles, according to Human Rights Watch. Nationally, 2,484 lifers are behind bars for crimes they committed as juveniles. No youth outside the United States are serving such sentences, said Alison Parker, deputy director of the group's U.S. program.
Pennsylvania also has the dubious distinction of ranking second nationally, behind Connecticut, in the racial disparity of juveniles sentenced to life without parole, Parker wrote in a report she released in May. In Pennsylvania, she said, black juveniles are 1.5 times more likely to be sentenced to life without parole as white youth, despite commensurate crimes.
Hearings like Greenleaf's are crucial to reforming the system, Parker said.
"We're absolutely supportive of any moves by legislators both at the state and the federal level to eliminate the sentence of life without parole for children," said Parker, who has studied the issue since 2005. "The sentence violates human rights; it's unjust and inappropriate for a child."
Some experts strongly disagree.
"We don't think it needs reform; [life without parole] is only applied in the most serious cases," said Christopher Mallios, assistant chief of District Attorney Lynne Abraham's legislation unit. "It's used because of the horrible nature of the crime, [when the defendant has] an extensive record as a juvenile and there's a finding that they're no longer amenable to treatment in the juvenile system."
Mallios, an assistant district attorney, said his office likely will participate in Greenleaf's public hearing.
The issue is landing on more states' legislative agendas.
Lawmakers in California, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan and Nebraska have considered providing parole relief for juvenile lifers, Parker said. Colorado in 2006 became the only state to pass legislation eliminating life-without-parole sentences for juveniles, she said.
"The idea is simply to give them access to a parole hearing, which is not a guarantee of release," Parker said. "It's not: 'Let's throw open the jail doors and let out dangerous people.' It's simply: 'Grant them a hearing.' "
At least one federal lawmaker also has moved to make early release possible for juvenile lifers.
Rep. Robert C. Scott of Virginia last December introduced the Juvenile Justice Accountability and Improvement Act, a bill that would require that juveniles get at least one parole hearing during the first 15 years of their life sentence, followed by at least one parole hearing every three years thereafter.
That bill was referred to a crime subcommittee in January.
Experts say Pennsylvania's top ranking results from tough state laws such as charging murder suspects as adults regardless of their age.
Some prosecutors argue that some kids commit such heinous crimes that they deserve to lose their freedom for good. But civil-rights activists say life-without-parole sentences are unfair for young people who are impaired by poor judgment and have a chance of being rehabilitated.
Source: http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20080725_Life_without_parole_unfair_to_juveniles_.html
Philadelphia Daily News
difilid@phillynews.com
July 25, 2008
For being a traitorous friend, Stacey Torrance was thrown into jail for life.
Torrance was just 14 when an older cousin convinced him in 1988 to lure a rich kid to a North Philadelphia corner, where the cousin and an accomplice kidnapped and later shot and strangled him.
Torrance didn't kill 16-year-old Alexander Porter and insisted he never knew of his cousin's murderous intent. But 20 years later, he sits in a state prison in Chester, with no prospect for parole or eventual freedom.
Such cases concern lawmakers like state Sen. Stewart Greenleaf, R-Montco-Bucks, who said he began to question the system's fairness when he learned that Pennsylvania leads the nation in the number of juveniles sentenced to life in prison without parole.
Greenleaf will convene a public hearing on Sept. 22 in Harrisburg to examine whether legislative relief is warranted.
"The purpose of this fact-finding session is to hear the experts in regards to what's going on and make sure there's no injustice being done," Greenleaf said.
Pennsylvania has 444 people serving life-without-parole sentences for crimes they committed as juveniles, according to Human Rights Watch. Nationally, 2,484 lifers are behind bars for crimes they committed as juveniles. No youth outside the United States are serving such sentences, said Alison Parker, deputy director of the group's U.S. program.
Pennsylvania also has the dubious distinction of ranking second nationally, behind Connecticut, in the racial disparity of juveniles sentenced to life without parole, Parker wrote in a report she released in May. In Pennsylvania, she said, black juveniles are 1.5 times more likely to be sentenced to life without parole as white youth, despite commensurate crimes.
Hearings like Greenleaf's are crucial to reforming the system, Parker said.
"We're absolutely supportive of any moves by legislators both at the state and the federal level to eliminate the sentence of life without parole for children," said Parker, who has studied the issue since 2005. "The sentence violates human rights; it's unjust and inappropriate for a child."
Some experts strongly disagree.
"We don't think it needs reform; [life without parole] is only applied in the most serious cases," said Christopher Mallios, assistant chief of District Attorney Lynne Abraham's legislation unit. "It's used because of the horrible nature of the crime, [when the defendant has] an extensive record as a juvenile and there's a finding that they're no longer amenable to treatment in the juvenile system."
Mallios, an assistant district attorney, said his office likely will participate in Greenleaf's public hearing.
The issue is landing on more states' legislative agendas.
Lawmakers in California, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan and Nebraska have considered providing parole relief for juvenile lifers, Parker said. Colorado in 2006 became the only state to pass legislation eliminating life-without-parole sentences for juveniles, she said.
"The idea is simply to give them access to a parole hearing, which is not a guarantee of release," Parker said. "It's not: 'Let's throw open the jail doors and let out dangerous people.' It's simply: 'Grant them a hearing.' "
At least one federal lawmaker also has moved to make early release possible for juvenile lifers.
Rep. Robert C. Scott of Virginia last December introduced the Juvenile Justice Accountability and Improvement Act, a bill that would require that juveniles get at least one parole hearing during the first 15 years of their life sentence, followed by at least one parole hearing every three years thereafter.
That bill was referred to a crime subcommittee in January.
Experts say Pennsylvania's top ranking results from tough state laws such as charging murder suspects as adults regardless of their age.
Some prosecutors argue that some kids commit such heinous crimes that they deserve to lose their freedom for good. But civil-rights activists say life-without-parole sentences are unfair for young people who are impaired by poor judgment and have a chance of being rehabilitated.
Source: http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20080725_Life_without_parole_unfair_to_juveniles_.html
Thursday, July 24, 2008
D.C. Council Considers Bill to Separate Youth and Adult Offenders
by James Wright
AFRO Staff Writer
Two of the D.C. City Council’s key committee chairmen are co-sponsoring a bill that would remove offenders below the age of 18 out of the D.C. jail and give judges more latitude in sentencing them for adult crimes.
Councilmembers Phil Mendelson (D-At-Large) and Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6), who lead the Public Safety and Judiciary Committee and Committee on Human Services, respectively, decided to sponsor a bill, the Juvenile Justice Improvement Amendment Act of 2008, after the two held a joint hearing on the topic of “Youth Incarcerated at the D.C. Jail” on July 14. The hearing came on the heels of a report released by Mayor Adrian Fenty (D) which criticized the practice of kids and adults sharing the same jails.
“We want to see what is in the best interest of the kids,” Wells said. “We want to know what benefit is it, if any, to have kids in the same jail as adults. Even though these kids have committed crimes, they are still kids and should be treated differently than adult criminals.
“We want to see what options are available to us to combat this problem.”
The act would authorize the Criminal Division of the D.C. Superior Court to consider whether a child who is charged as an adult should be adjudicated as a juvenile, and prohibit any juvenile from being detained in an adult facility.
More than 40 states permit youth offenders who have been locked up for adult offenses to be incarcerated with adults. In the District, the policy is to send a youth accused of a serious offense to the D.C. Jail.
If a youth offender is found guilty of a serious crime, he or she can be sent as far away as Montana to serve their sentence.
Fenty’s findings, “Report on Youth in the Adult Jail” found that:
*Ninety-nine percent of all youth at the D.C. Jail are Black or Latino;
*Most of the youth are not charged with the FBI’s list of most serious offenses; and
*About half of the youth charges are dismissed or are found not guilty.
Mendelson said at present there are 26 juveniles in the D.C. jail. There were as many as 45 in 2007, he said, which he called unacceptable.
“That is still too many young people in a place that is really not designed for them,” he said.
Liz Ryan, president and chief executive officer of the Campaign for Youth Justice, said at the hearing that the real travesty was incarcerating youth who are found not guilty or their cases are thrown out.
The youth ends up traumatized and emotionally scarred because of the experience, she said. She said that “it is important for D.C. to follow the example of Chicago and Los Angeles and end the practice.”
The law which governs this area, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, states that youth who commit adult offenses can be incarcerated with grown-up criminals. The problem, Ryan said, is that oftentimes the youth is neglected by the criminal justice system and is not provided the support services that are needed.
William Rivera, a budding writer who served several months in the D.C. jail in 2005 as a youth, testified that the jail is indifferent to the needs of young people.
“When I was in jail, I was the only Latino youth there,” Rivera said. “While I was there, I was jumped and beaten. Nobody tried to help me.
“When I requested mental health services, I could not get it. I tried to get my GED, but I saw that the classes were a joke.
“Several times, I saw suicide attempts. I even talked one guy down from hanging himself.”
Jail guards ignored most fights, Rivera said. They seemed more concerned with their careers than the care of the inmates, he said.
Devon Brown, director of the D.C. Department of Corrections, said that he believes, in theory, that youth should not be placed with adult offenders. However, there is the matter of what the law is, he said.
“It is important to note that everyone who is committed to the custody of the Department of Corrections is considered to be an adult in the eyes of the law, irrespective of their chronological age,” Brown said.
While Brown did not discuss Rivera’s experiences in the D.C. Jail, he did talk about programs that are offered to youth that are designed for rehabilitation.
“Juveniles are engaged in activities throughout the day designed to promote their physical, mental and social well-being,” he said. He mentioned programs such as a book clubs, art therapy, indoor and outdoor recreation, religious services, chess therapy and moral training.
Brown said that the Fenty administration is committed to seeing that youth offenders are treated fairly. He cited a town hall meeting in the spring held by the mayor at the jail for youth in which they talked about the problems that they had.
The bill proposed by Mendelson and Wells will not be considered until after the summer recess, which ends the week after Labor Day. The bill will have to go through public hearings and votes in both committees before it can be scheduled for the full council.
Fenty has said that he supports legislation ending youth incarceration at the D.C. Jail.
AFRO Staff Writer
Two of the D.C. City Council’s key committee chairmen are co-sponsoring a bill that would remove offenders below the age of 18 out of the D.C. jail and give judges more latitude in sentencing them for adult crimes.
Councilmembers Phil Mendelson (D-At-Large) and Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6), who lead the Public Safety and Judiciary Committee and Committee on Human Services, respectively, decided to sponsor a bill, the Juvenile Justice Improvement Amendment Act of 2008, after the two held a joint hearing on the topic of “Youth Incarcerated at the D.C. Jail” on July 14. The hearing came on the heels of a report released by Mayor Adrian Fenty (D) which criticized the practice of kids and adults sharing the same jails.
“We want to see what is in the best interest of the kids,” Wells said. “We want to know what benefit is it, if any, to have kids in the same jail as adults. Even though these kids have committed crimes, they are still kids and should be treated differently than adult criminals.
“We want to see what options are available to us to combat this problem.”
The act would authorize the Criminal Division of the D.C. Superior Court to consider whether a child who is charged as an adult should be adjudicated as a juvenile, and prohibit any juvenile from being detained in an adult facility.
More than 40 states permit youth offenders who have been locked up for adult offenses to be incarcerated with adults. In the District, the policy is to send a youth accused of a serious offense to the D.C. Jail.
If a youth offender is found guilty of a serious crime, he or she can be sent as far away as Montana to serve their sentence.
Fenty’s findings, “Report on Youth in the Adult Jail” found that:
*Ninety-nine percent of all youth at the D.C. Jail are Black or Latino;
*Most of the youth are not charged with the FBI’s list of most serious offenses; and
*About half of the youth charges are dismissed or are found not guilty.
Mendelson said at present there are 26 juveniles in the D.C. jail. There were as many as 45 in 2007, he said, which he called unacceptable.
“That is still too many young people in a place that is really not designed for them,” he said.
Liz Ryan, president and chief executive officer of the Campaign for Youth Justice, said at the hearing that the real travesty was incarcerating youth who are found not guilty or their cases are thrown out.
The youth ends up traumatized and emotionally scarred because of the experience, she said. She said that “it is important for D.C. to follow the example of Chicago and Los Angeles and end the practice.”
The law which governs this area, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, states that youth who commit adult offenses can be incarcerated with grown-up criminals. The problem, Ryan said, is that oftentimes the youth is neglected by the criminal justice system and is not provided the support services that are needed.
William Rivera, a budding writer who served several months in the D.C. jail in 2005 as a youth, testified that the jail is indifferent to the needs of young people.
“When I was in jail, I was the only Latino youth there,” Rivera said. “While I was there, I was jumped and beaten. Nobody tried to help me.
“When I requested mental health services, I could not get it. I tried to get my GED, but I saw that the classes were a joke.
“Several times, I saw suicide attempts. I even talked one guy down from hanging himself.”
Jail guards ignored most fights, Rivera said. They seemed more concerned with their careers than the care of the inmates, he said.
Devon Brown, director of the D.C. Department of Corrections, said that he believes, in theory, that youth should not be placed with adult offenders. However, there is the matter of what the law is, he said.
“It is important to note that everyone who is committed to the custody of the Department of Corrections is considered to be an adult in the eyes of the law, irrespective of their chronological age,” Brown said.
While Brown did not discuss Rivera’s experiences in the D.C. Jail, he did talk about programs that are offered to youth that are designed for rehabilitation.
“Juveniles are engaged in activities throughout the day designed to promote their physical, mental and social well-being,” he said. He mentioned programs such as a book clubs, art therapy, indoor and outdoor recreation, religious services, chess therapy and moral training.
Brown said that the Fenty administration is committed to seeing that youth offenders are treated fairly. He cited a town hall meeting in the spring held by the mayor at the jail for youth in which they talked about the problems that they had.
The bill proposed by Mendelson and Wells will not be considered until after the summer recess, which ends the week after Labor Day. The bill will have to go through public hearings and votes in both committees before it can be scheduled for the full council.
Fenty has said that he supports legislation ending youth incarceration at the D.C. Jail.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Child's Play: Congress Must Act on Juvenile Justice Bill
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Monday, July 21, 2008
The poet William Wordsworth observed that "the child is father of the man." The truth of those words is seen every day in a setting that has no place for poetry -- the criminal justice system and its many crowded halls of despair.
Yet the poet's wisdom has to be accounted for in that part of the system that deals with children and young people, the juvenile justice system.
Truly, the child is father of the man (or woman). Young people are vulnerable, impressionable and sometimes trouble. When they commit crimes, how the authorities treat them can make the difference between whether they later waste their lives or become productive citizens.
The recognition that youths who commit crime deserve a separate system to adjudicate them is more than a century old. The earliest courts focused on rehabilitating young offenders instead of merely punishing them, a philosophy that also recognized that immature kids could hardly be held as responsible for wrongdoing as adults who knew better.
Not always wisely, the pendulum has swung back in recent years with various states passing laws that allow children to be tried as adults for serious offenses, a trend fed by a public opinion unsympathetic to anyone who commits a crime, regardless of age.
While the states are responsible for their juvenile justice systems, the federal government offers funding in return for state adherence to federal standards. In 1974, Congress passed a landmark piece of legislation, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, which has been updated over the years, the last time in 2002.
Now it is being reconsidered again as S. 3155 in the Senate Judiciary Committee. This is an opportunity to bring both a greater touch of humanity to the treatment of youth offenders and also incorporate practical steps based on the latest findings on what works best with them.
A co-sponsor of the bill is Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, who brings a prosecutor's experience and wisdom to discussing its merits. He believes it strikes a balance between providing federal support and guidance to state programs while respecting the individual criminal justice policies of states. In a statement after the bill was introduced last month, Mr. Specter praised the provisions for mentoring and other programs to prevent delinquency and promote rehabilitation.
The bill would make it harder to put kids in adult jails, which gives some officials in Allegheny County pause about whether those charged with very serious crimes should be held with other youthful offenders. But the principle of keeping kids out of adult facilities is an important one and the practical problems for juvenile facilities shouldn't stand in its way.
The legislation will increase federal funding, perhaps by as much as $272 million for fiscal year 2009, no small thing at a time of deficits. But this is a very good investment for the future. Congress should pass S. 3155.
Source: http://www.pittsburghpost-gazette.com/pg/08203/898340-192.stm
Monday, July 21, 2008
The poet William Wordsworth observed that "the child is father of the man." The truth of those words is seen every day in a setting that has no place for poetry -- the criminal justice system and its many crowded halls of despair.
Yet the poet's wisdom has to be accounted for in that part of the system that deals with children and young people, the juvenile justice system.
Truly, the child is father of the man (or woman). Young people are vulnerable, impressionable and sometimes trouble. When they commit crimes, how the authorities treat them can make the difference between whether they later waste their lives or become productive citizens.
The recognition that youths who commit crime deserve a separate system to adjudicate them is more than a century old. The earliest courts focused on rehabilitating young offenders instead of merely punishing them, a philosophy that also recognized that immature kids could hardly be held as responsible for wrongdoing as adults who knew better.
Not always wisely, the pendulum has swung back in recent years with various states passing laws that allow children to be tried as adults for serious offenses, a trend fed by a public opinion unsympathetic to anyone who commits a crime, regardless of age.
While the states are responsible for their juvenile justice systems, the federal government offers funding in return for state adherence to federal standards. In 1974, Congress passed a landmark piece of legislation, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, which has been updated over the years, the last time in 2002.
Now it is being reconsidered again as S. 3155 in the Senate Judiciary Committee. This is an opportunity to bring both a greater touch of humanity to the treatment of youth offenders and also incorporate practical steps based on the latest findings on what works best with them.
A co-sponsor of the bill is Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, who brings a prosecutor's experience and wisdom to discussing its merits. He believes it strikes a balance between providing federal support and guidance to state programs while respecting the individual criminal justice policies of states. In a statement after the bill was introduced last month, Mr. Specter praised the provisions for mentoring and other programs to prevent delinquency and promote rehabilitation.
The bill would make it harder to put kids in adult jails, which gives some officials in Allegheny County pause about whether those charged with very serious crimes should be held with other youthful offenders. But the principle of keeping kids out of adult facilities is an important one and the practical problems for juvenile facilities shouldn't stand in its way.
The legislation will increase federal funding, perhaps by as much as $272 million for fiscal year 2009, no small thing at a time of deficits. But this is a very good investment for the future. Congress should pass S. 3155.
Source: http://www.pittsburghpost-gazette.com/pg/08203/898340-192.stm
Monday, July 14, 2008
Juvenile Justice: Some Changes Would Improve Legislation in the Senate
Editorial
The Washington Post
Sunday, July 13, 2008; Page B06
SINCE 1974, federal law has required that juveniles picked up for breaking the law be kept separate from alleged adult offenders -- and for good reason. Juveniles held in adult facilities are more likely to be attacked, more likely to commit crimes once released and more likely to commit suicide than those held in facilities that house only minors. This week, the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to consider reauthorizing an updated version of the 1974 bill. The Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2008 strengthens protections for juveniles while safeguarding judicial discretion to deal with exceptional cases. It also calls for preservation and expansion of programs that have been particularly effective in combating delinquency and crime among youth, including mentoring and after-school supervision. The bill should be passed, with some changes.
Over the past decade, an increasing number of states have adopted laws allowing juveniles to be charged as adults for certain serious crimes; prosecutors in these jurisdictions often have the last word on charging decisions. Those jurisdictions often also require that these juveniles be held in adult facilities. Under the proposed bill, even juveniles charged as adults must be held in juvenile facilities or out of "sound and sight" of adults in adult facilities unless a judge specifically orders otherwise. A judge must take into account the alleged offender's age, his physical and mental maturity, and the nature of the crime, among other factors; a judge must review every 30 days the decision to send a juvenile to an adult facility. This approach is sensible. The bill should be amended to explicitly allow prosecutors and other state officials to flag for the judge juveniles they believe would be a danger to other minors and so would be better held in adult quarters.
The legislation also takes a step in the right direction by setting stricter limits on detentions for status offenders -- those youths who are picked up for skipping school or running away from home. Such youths have not committed crimes and would not have been locked up for these infractions had they been adults. Studies show that these juveniles -- and the community -- are better served when they are directed to mentoring or school-based programs. As it is, judges in many jurisdictions may hold juveniles indefinitely for status offenses; the proposed bill would limit that to seven days. That's an improvement, but lawmakers should consider eliminating these detentions altogether.
The Congressional Budget Office has not yet estimated the cost of the new juvenile justice bill. According to Justice Department figures, the existing version of the law cost taxpayers just under $300 million last year -- real money but a fair price to pay for smart and effective programs.
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/12/AR2008071201481.html
The Washington Post
Sunday, July 13, 2008; Page B06
SINCE 1974, federal law has required that juveniles picked up for breaking the law be kept separate from alleged adult offenders -- and for good reason. Juveniles held in adult facilities are more likely to be attacked, more likely to commit crimes once released and more likely to commit suicide than those held in facilities that house only minors. This week, the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to consider reauthorizing an updated version of the 1974 bill. The Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2008 strengthens protections for juveniles while safeguarding judicial discretion to deal with exceptional cases. It also calls for preservation and expansion of programs that have been particularly effective in combating delinquency and crime among youth, including mentoring and after-school supervision. The bill should be passed, with some changes.
Over the past decade, an increasing number of states have adopted laws allowing juveniles to be charged as adults for certain serious crimes; prosecutors in these jurisdictions often have the last word on charging decisions. Those jurisdictions often also require that these juveniles be held in adult facilities. Under the proposed bill, even juveniles charged as adults must be held in juvenile facilities or out of "sound and sight" of adults in adult facilities unless a judge specifically orders otherwise. A judge must take into account the alleged offender's age, his physical and mental maturity, and the nature of the crime, among other factors; a judge must review every 30 days the decision to send a juvenile to an adult facility. This approach is sensible. The bill should be amended to explicitly allow prosecutors and other state officials to flag for the judge juveniles they believe would be a danger to other minors and so would be better held in adult quarters.
The legislation also takes a step in the right direction by setting stricter limits on detentions for status offenders -- those youths who are picked up for skipping school or running away from home. Such youths have not committed crimes and would not have been locked up for these infractions had they been adults. Studies show that these juveniles -- and the community -- are better served when they are directed to mentoring or school-based programs. As it is, judges in many jurisdictions may hold juveniles indefinitely for status offenses; the proposed bill would limit that to seven days. That's an improvement, but lawmakers should consider eliminating these detentions altogether.
The Congressional Budget Office has not yet estimated the cost of the new juvenile justice bill. According to Justice Department figures, the existing version of the law cost taxpayers just under $300 million last year -- real money but a fair price to pay for smart and effective programs.
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/12/AR2008071201481.html
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Eliminate Life Without Parole Sentences for Children in Nebraska Video
Did you know 24 people are serving life without parole in Nebraska for crimes they committed when they were under the age of 18?
In the rest of the world, outside of the United States, there are zero.
Support LB 843 and eliminate the possibility of a sentence of life without parole for minors.
Video created out of the kindness and generosity of Root Down Creative in Lincoln, Nebraska. For more info email robbie@rootdowncreative.com
In the rest of the world, outside of the United States, there are zero.
Support LB 843 and eliminate the possibility of a sentence of life without parole for minors.
Video created out of the kindness and generosity of Root Down Creative in Lincoln, Nebraska. For more info email robbie@rootdowncreative.com
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Survey Shows Michigan Willing to Give Youths Second Chance
By Marilyn King
Michigan residents believe juvenile offenders deserve second chances such as rehabilitation or parole, according to surveys conducted over two years by MSU associate professor of social work Sheryl Kubiak.
The survey also shows most residents oppose sending young offenders to adult prisons while they are still under 18 years old, Kubiak said.
“What was very clear was that a vast majority of people thought that, even if young people should serve long sentences, they shouldn’t serve them in an adult facility,” she said.
Out of 1,390 residents surveyed, 5 percent believed youths should be sent to an adult prison for life without parole for a serious crime, such as homicide. About 66.5 percent of respondents said youths should serve an intermediate sentence until they are 18, where they can be sent to an adult prison with the opportunity of parole.
Michigan is one of 19 states that allow children of any age to be tried and punished as adults. Kubiak, who became involved in surveys pertaining to juvenile offenders during her time at Wayne State University, said residents support second chances because of the possibility of rehabilitation.
Ingham County Circuit Court Judge Richard Garcia said the juvenile system is a treatment, not punishment-based, system. Most juvenile offenders first go through programs to help prevent high-risk behaviors before taking further action.
For sentencing, the court also examines factors such as involvement in the crime, past offenses and any previous rehabilitation program, Garcia said.
“It just depends on if there’s any hope yet to redirect that young person and make sure that they won’t offend again,” Garcia said. “The public still deserves to be protected.”
A hearing held by a family court judge then determines whether it is in the best interest of the community for the juvenile to be tried as an adult.
Other factors could help determine whether or not a juvenile offender deserves a second chance, said MSU alumna Erin Gantz.
“If you’re 17 or 18 (years old) and you’re committing a violent crime, then you should know better,” Gantz said. “But it would depend on the crime and where the person came from.”
Youth younger than the age of 17 years old who break the law may be tried before the Family Division of the Ingham County Circuit Court. Kubiak said since releasing the results, other researchers across the nation have inquired about conducting a similar survey in their area.
Kubiak said only three countries have a policy allowing juveniles to be sentenced to life in prison without parole, including the United States.
“I definitely think this is information that our legislators can use to think about and realign the policies to what the public is thinking,” Kubiak said.
Published on Sunday, June 15, 2008
Monday, June 16, 2008
Report Finds Racial Disparities in the Severity of Punishment
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 13, 2008; Page B02
Friday, June 13, 2008; Page B02
The nation's juvenile justice system metes out harsher punishment to black and Latino youths, locks up thousands of children for relatively minor offenses and ultimately makes them more dangerous, according to a national study released yesterday.
"We are generating more violence and criminality in our effort to interrupt it," said Douglas W. Nelson, president and chief executive of the Annie E. Casey Foundation, which conducted the study, during a news conference yesterday. "We routinely fail to recognize that children are different than adults. We need to alter the context in which we serve kids."
Nelson's remarks came with the release of the foundation's annual Kids Count report, which measures the well-being of America's children in 10 categories. The report shows reductions in the rates of child deaths, teenage births, high school dropouts and teens who are not in school or working. Four areas increased: low-birthweight infants, children in single-parent homes, children in poverty and children in families in which no parent works full time.
Nationally, infant mortality remained steady during the period.
Maryland tied New Hampshire, at 10 percent, for the lowest rate of children living in poverty. The national rate was 11 percent for white children, 36 percent for blacks and American Indians and 28 percent for Hispanics.
Virginia improved in all but three categories: low-birthweight babies, infant mortality and children in single-parent homes.
The District lost ground in half of the 10 categories: infant mortality, teen deaths, teen births, children living with no parents working full time and children in poverty.
But the primary focus of this year's report was the fate of the 400,000 youths who cycle through the juvenile justice system each year. During a two-hour news conference yesterday at the Cannon House Office Building, a panel of experts said the problem has largely been fueled by fear and racism that often lead police to take young white offenders home and minorities to jail.
In 2006, for example, three youths of color were in custody for every one white youth, the report said. Two thirds of all youths in custody were incarcerated for a nonviolent offense.
In the 1990s, 49 states made it easier to try youths as adults. On any given night, 100,000 minors are in jails, prisons, boot camps or residential facilities. A succession of speakers yesterday said these places often cause more problems than they solve. Grace Bauer of Lake Charles, La., said her son, who had been sent to a boot camp for being "ungovernable," was raped when he was 13.
Bauer said her son, now 21, carries the scars. She later learned that the program had a 95 percent failure rate. "On my first visit to see him, he had welts on his face," she said.
Rep. Robert C. Scott (D-Virginia) said many "get tough" crime measures are "nonsense that does not reduce crime."
"It helps [politicians] get elected," he said. "If you can get it to rhyme, even better."
Vincent Schiraldi, director of the District's Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services, said it would be more rational to lock up only the most violent offenders and use less restrictive options for the others, particularly those without long criminal records.
Reginald Dwayne Betts, now in his mid-20s, said he should not have been sent to adult jail when he was arrested at 16 for carjacking in Fairfax County. He had no previous criminal record and was an honor roll student.
But instead of being sent to a juvenile jail, he was placed with adults and served eight years in prison. He never received any mental health treatment.
After he was released, Betts attended Prince George's Community College. He now goes to the University of Maryland on a poetry scholarship.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Annie E. Casey Foundation Releases Important Juvenile Reports
2008 KIDS COUNT Data Book ReleasedThe Annie E. Casey Foundation’s 19th annual KIDS COUNT Data Book, released on June 12, 2008, is a national and state-by-state profile of the well-being of America’s children that ranks states on 10 key measures and provides data on the economic, health, education, and social conditions of America’s children and families.
- Find more than 100 indicators of child well-being in the KIDS COUNT Data Center >>
This year's Data Book essay outlines key action steps and model programs with the potential to change the reality and prospects for the nearly 100,000 youth confined in U.S. juvenile facilities on any given night. Casey's Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative has worked to is a movement to reduce to strengthen juvenile justice systems, make communities safer, help youth, and save tax dollars since 1992.
- Learn about Casey's Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative and its core strategies, results, and more than 100 sites across the country.
- Find Casey's resources on juvenile justice, including research reports and practice guides >>
Video (13 min.): These Are Our Kids: Transforming Juvenile Justice in Three American Cities >>
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Abolish Juvenile Life WIthout Parole Sentences in the USA - Facebook Group
The Abolish Juvenile Life Without Parole Sentences in the USA - Facebook Group has reached 700 members as of Sunday, June 9, 2008. This is a significant development. It is a reflection that our message is growing across the nation.
For those of you who do not know, Facebook is the fastest growing social networking site in the world. Millions of users access their Facebook accounts daily and share information with people in their networks. Supporters of the movement to abolish juvenile life without parole sentences in the USA are encouraged to create a Facebook account, join the group, and invite others to join as well.
We can send messages to the entire group and ask them to help us mobilize into action when necessary. We can also ask group members to do other things to further our efforts as well. Let's continue harnessing the enormous power of the Internet and using every available resource to advance this cause.
Abolish Juvenile Life Without Parole Sentences in the USA - Facebook Group
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7564082075
For those of you who do not know, Facebook is the fastest growing social networking site in the world. Millions of users access their Facebook accounts daily and share information with people in their networks. Supporters of the movement to abolish juvenile life without parole sentences in the USA are encouraged to create a Facebook account, join the group, and invite others to join as well.
We can send messages to the entire group and ask them to help us mobilize into action when necessary. We can also ask group members to do other things to further our efforts as well. Let's continue harnessing the enormous power of the Internet and using every available resource to advance this cause.
Abolish Juvenile Life Without Parole Sentences in the USA - Facebook Group
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7564082075
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Juvenile Justice Accountability and Improvement Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)
Juvenile Justice Accountability and Improvement
Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)
Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)
HR 4300 IH
December 6, 2007
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia (for himself and Mr. CONYERS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
- Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
- This Act may be cited as the `Juvenile Justice Accountability and Improvement Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
- Congress finds the following:
- (1) Historically, courts in the United States have recognized the undeniable differences between adult and youth offenders.
- (2) In fact, while writing for the majority in Roper v. Simmons (125 S. Ct. 1183), a recent Supreme Court decision abolishing use of the death penalty for juveniles, Justice Kennedy declared such differences to be `marked and well understood.'
- (3) Notwithstanding such edicts, many youth are being sentenced in a manner that has typically been reserved for adults. These sentences include a term of imprisonment of life without the possibility of parole.
- (4) The decision to sentence youthful offenders to life without parole is an issue of growing national concern.
- (5) While only about a dozen youth are serving such sentences in the rest of the world, research indicates that there are at least 2,225 youth offenders serving life without parole in the United States.
- (6) The estimated rate at which the sentence is imposed on children nationwide remains at least three times higher today than it was fifteen years ago.
- (7) The majority of youth sentenced to life without parole are first-time offenders.
- (8) Sixteen percent of these individuals were fifteen or younger when they committed their crimes.
- (9) Denying such individuals the possibility of a meaningful opportunity for parole is both cruel and unwise. It sends a message to our youth that they are beyond rehabilitation. It also demonstrates a complete lack of confidence in the ability of our penal institutions to accomplish one of their main goals and responsibilities.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHING A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY FOR PAROLE FOR CHILD OFFENDERS.
- (a) In General- For each fiscal year after the expiration of the period specified in subsection (d)(1), each State shall have in effect laws and policies under which each child offender who is under a life sentence receives, not less than once during the first 15 years of incarceration, and not less than once every 3 years of incarceration thereafter, a meaningful opportunity for parole. Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall issue guidelines and regulations to interpret and implement this section. This provision shall in no way be construed to limit the access of child offenders to other programs and appeals which they were rightly due prior to the passage of this Act.
- (b) Definition- In this section, the term `child offender who is under a life sentence' means an individual who--
- (1) is convicted of an offense committed before the individual attained the age of 18; and
- (2) is sentenced to a term of natural life, or the functional equivalent in years, for that offense.
- (c) Applicability- This section applies to an individual who is sentenced on or after the date of the enactment of this Act as well as to an individual who had already been sentenced as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
- (d) Compliance and Consequences-
- (1) COMPLIANCE DATE- Each State shall have not more than 3 years from the date of enactment of this Act to be in compliance with this section, except that the Attorney General may grant a 2-year extension to a State that is making a good faith effort to comply with this section.
- (2) CONSEQUENCE OF NONCOMPLIANCE- For any fiscal year after the expiration of the period specified in paragraph (1), a State that fails to be in compliance with this section shall not receive 10 percent of the funds that would otherwise be allocated for that fiscal year to that State under subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3750 et seq.), whether characterized as the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs, the Local Government Law Enforcement Block Grants program, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, or otherwise.
- (3) REALLOCATION- Amounts not allocated under a program referred to in paragraph (2) to a State for failure to be in compliance with this section shall be reallocated under that program to States that have not failed to be in compliance with this section.
SEC. 4. ESTABLISHING A PARALLEL SYSTEM FOR CHILD OFFENDERS SERVING LIFE SENTENCES AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.
- In addition to any other method of early release that may apply, the Attorney General shall establish and implement a system of early release for each child offender who is under a life sentence (as defined in section 3) in a Federal facility. The system shall conform as nearly as practicable to the laws and policies required of a State under section 3.
SEC. 5. GRANT PROGRAM TO IMPROVE LEGAL REPRESENTATION OF CHILDREN FACING LIFE IN PRISON.
- (a) In General- The Attorney General shall award grants to States for the purpose of improving the quality of legal representation provided to child defendants charged with an offense which could potentially subject them to the sentence of life in prison.
- (b) Defined Term- In this section, the term `legal representation' means legal counsel and investigative, expert, and other services necessary for competent representation.
- (c) Use of Funds- Grants awarded under subsection (a) shall be used to establish, implement, or improve a system for providing competent legal representation to--
- (1) individuals charged with committing, before the individual attained the age of 18, an offense subject to life imprisonment; and
- (2) individuals convicted of, and sentenced to life for, committing such an offense who seek appellate or collateral relief, including review in the Supreme Court of the United States.
- (d) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may be necessary.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Children in Adult Jails
May 23, 2008
Editorial
Children who are confined to adult jails are at greater risk of being raped, battered or pushed to suicide. They also are more likely to become violent criminals than children handled through the juvenile justice system. When Congress reauthorizes the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, it should press the states to end this barbaric practice.
The juvenile justice law provides federal aid to states that agree to humanize their often Dickensian systems — and to refrain from placing children in adult jails. The bargain worked well enough until the 1990s, when there was an outbreak of hysteria about so-called super predators and an adolescent crime wave that never materialized.
States classified ever larger numbers of young offenders as adults. Today, laws in more than 40 states permit adult courts to try children as young as 14. Perhaps as many as half the young people who are transferred into the adult system are never convicted as adults — and some are never convicted at all. But by the time the system is finished with them, many will have spent more than six months in adult jails, according to a report by the Campaign for Youth Justice, an advocacy group based in Washington.
Not surprisingly, these young people are much more likely to harm themselves in adult jails than in juvenile facilities. Those who survive often return to their communities as damaged people who are much more likely to commit crimes and return to prison.
The current system is counterproductive and inhumane. Congress could remedy this with one simple fix. It should require all states that receive federal juvenile justice aid to refrain from housing people under the age of 18 in adult jails, except for those accused of the most serious crimes like rape and murder.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Some States Consider Repealing Life Without Parole for Teens
Legislatures in several states, including California, Illinois, and Michigan, are considering proposals to end the practice of sentencing offenders under the age of 18 to life in prison without parole.
According to Human Rights Watch, there are at least 2,380 individuals currently serving life sentences in the United States for crimes they committed when they were 17 years old or younger. The offenders were tried in state courts under laws allowing the transfer of children, in certain circumstances, from the juvenile justice system to the adult courts and in states that have lowered the age of jurisdiction in adult criminal court to 17 years old or younger. Thirty-eight states allow life without parole for teenage offenders, according to Human Rights Watch, which has been campaigning against the practice for several years.
Backers of legislation to eliminate life without parole for youth offenses say the practice does not take into consideration neuroscientific research indicating that immature brains lack impulse control and the ability that adults have to use judgment.
Researchers have documented that children cannot be expected to have achieved the same level of psychological and neurological development as an adult even when they become teenagers. Additionally, the practice has been shown to disproportionally affect racial minorities, and that teenagers who receive such sentences often had poor legal representation.
A package of bills that would eliminate life without parole for children is pending in the Michigan legislature. Currently, 300 individuals are serving that sentence in Michigan. The legislation makes these individuals eligible for parole consideration and allows judges to use discretion when deciding what type of punishment best fits the crime.
Excerpt from: Criminal Justice Newsletter, February 15, 2008
According to Human Rights Watch, there are at least 2,380 individuals currently serving life sentences in the United States for crimes they committed when they were 17 years old or younger. The offenders were tried in state courts under laws allowing the transfer of children, in certain circumstances, from the juvenile justice system to the adult courts and in states that have lowered the age of jurisdiction in adult criminal court to 17 years old or younger. Thirty-eight states allow life without parole for teenage offenders, according to Human Rights Watch, which has been campaigning against the practice for several years.
Backers of legislation to eliminate life without parole for youth offenses say the practice does not take into consideration neuroscientific research indicating that immature brains lack impulse control and the ability that adults have to use judgment.
Researchers have documented that children cannot be expected to have achieved the same level of psychological and neurological development as an adult even when they become teenagers. Additionally, the practice has been shown to disproportionally affect racial minorities, and that teenagers who receive such sentences often had poor legal representation.
A package of bills that would eliminate life without parole for children is pending in the Michigan legislature. Currently, 300 individuals are serving that sentence in Michigan. The legislation makes these individuals eligible for parole consideration and allows judges to use discretion when deciding what type of punishment best fits the crime.
Excerpt from: Criminal Justice Newsletter, February 15, 2008
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Disposing of Children: The Eighth Amendment and Juvenile Life Without Parole After Roper
Massey, Hillary J. "Disposing of Children: The Eighth Amendment and Juvenile Life Without Parole After Roper." 47 Boston College Law Review 1083 (2006)
Click here to view the research paper in full-screen.
Click here to view the research paper in full-screen.
Video of Angela Arboleda Discussing Disproportionate Number of Latinos in Juvenile Justice System
Click here to view a short video of Angela Arboleda, National Council of La Raza, on the disproportionate number of Latinos in the juvenile justice system (time 02:29).
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Links to Wrtings Related to Adolescent Brain Development
Criminal Justice, Robert E. Shepard, Criminal Justice, The Relevance of Brain Research to Juvenile Defense, Winter 2005
Jeffrey Fagan, American Prospect Online, Adolescents, Maturity and the Law, August 2005
Ruben C. Gur, Brain Maturation in Juveniles: Some Implications of Behavior and Control, 2005
Adolescent Brains Show Lower Activity in Areas That Control Risky Choices
Allstate Insurance ad highlights adolescent brain development research
He's a Man, as Charged, Washington Post, May 6, 2008
Wall Street Journal Science Journal Article "Teenage Brains Seem Set for Recklessness" Nov. 30, 2007
What are the Implications of Adolescent Brain Development for Juvenile Justice --- Part I Emergincg Concepts, Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2006
What Are the Implications of Adolescent Brain Development for Juvenile Justice? Part II - Applying Research to Practice, Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2007
Frontline: Inside the Teenage Brain (A Work in Progress) - Interview with Dr. Jay Giedd
Adolescence, Brain Development and Legal Culpability - Juvenile Justice Center, January 2004
Jeffrey Fagan, American Prospect Online, Adolescents, Maturity and the Law, August 2005
Ruben C. Gur, Brain Maturation in Juveniles: Some Implications of Behavior and Control, 2005
Adolescent Brains Show Lower Activity in Areas That Control Risky Choices
Allstate Insurance ad highlights adolescent brain development research
He's a Man, as Charged, Washington Post, May 6, 2008
Wall Street Journal Science Journal Article "Teenage Brains Seem Set for Recklessness" Nov. 30, 2007
What are the Implications of Adolescent Brain Development for Juvenile Justice --- Part I Emergincg Concepts, Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2006
What Are the Implications of Adolescent Brain Development for Juvenile Justice? Part II - Applying Research to Practice, Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2007
Frontline: Inside the Teenage Brain (A Work in Progress) - Interview with Dr. Jay Giedd
Adolescence, Brain Development and Legal Culpability - Juvenile Justice Center, January 2004
Sunday, May 18, 2008
US: California May End ‘Life Without Parole’ for Youth
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.
(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.
Friday, May 16, 2008
"Three Wise Men" by Arthur Argomaniz
"Three Wise Men" by Arthur Argomaniz is an essay by a University of Southern California (USC) McNair Scholar which addresses the need to abolish juvenile life without parole (JLWOP) sentences in the USA. Argomaniz specifically mentions and quotes Efren Paredes, Jr., Mario Rocha, and Anthony Throop throughout the essay and shares their insight into the issue of JLWOP with the reader. A well-written and compelling essay that should be read and circulated widely.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Adjudication of Youths as Adults in the Criminal Justice System
2005 American Psychiatric Association (APA) position paper regarding the adjudication of youths as adults in the criminal justice system. The APA opposes these transfers.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Student Financial Aid and Scholarships
There have been several requests from people about where students can find grants, scholarships, and financial aid to assist them with college, particularly those interested in researching adolescent development and juvenile justice. Below are some links that may be helpful:
Source: http://www.scholarships.com/
Guaranteed Scholarships
The scholarships listed on this page are all guaranteed.
By guaranteed scholarships, we mean those which are unlimited in number, and require no interview, essay, portfolio, audition, competition or other "secondary" requirement. Just meet the criteria listed, adhere to the application deadlines set by the individual colleges and universities, gain admission, enroll, and receive your scholarship or scholarships. Remember that, in many cases, the scholarships are mutually exclusive...you will generally receive the largest scholarship or grant for which you qualify.
Source: http://www.guaranteed-scholarships.com/
Additional Sources
Open Society Institute - Grants, Scholarships & Fellowships
http://www.soros.org/grants
Student Financial Aid
http://studentaid.ed.gov/PORTALSWebApp/students/english/index.jsp
Financial Aid Finder
http://www.financialaidfinder.com/
- 2.7 million scholarships & grants worth over $19 billion
- Scholarships match your academics, talents & interests
- Complete source for local & national college scholarships
- Review your scholarships by deadline, dollar amount
- Create custom scholarship application request letters
- University & college search & admissions info
Guaranteed Scholarships
The scholarships listed on this page are all guaranteed.
By guaranteed scholarships, we mean those which are unlimited in number, and require no interview, essay, portfolio, audition, competition or other "secondary" requirement. Just meet the criteria listed, adhere to the application deadlines set by the individual colleges and universities, gain admission, enroll, and receive your scholarship or scholarships. Remember that, in many cases, the scholarships are mutually exclusive...you will generally receive the largest scholarship or grant for which you qualify.
Source: http://www.guaranteed-scholarships.com/
Additional Sources
Open Society Institute - Grants, Scholarships & Fellowships
http://www.soros.org/grants
Student Financial Aid
http://studentaid.ed.gov/PORTALSWebApp/students/english/index.jsp
Financial Aid Finder
http://www.financialaidfinder.com/
Thursday, May 8, 2008
"End Natural Life Sentences for Juveniles" by Dr. Jeffrey Fagan
Monday, May 5, 2008
Abolish Life Without Parole Sentence for Children in the USA - Google Group
If you would like to join an e-mail group to receive updates about Michigan House Bills 4402-4405 whenever they are released please visit the group and join it. The group's URL is http://groups.google.com/group/abolish-juvenile-life-
without-parole-sentences-in-the-usa.
By becoming a member you will also be able to access past e-mail threads that remain on the group's page. You can also help us add relevant resource material to the group's page for people to access and share by sending us links to the information for us to post.
There is a serious need to educate supporters who are seeking to abolish LWOP sentences for children. They need to have as much information at their disposal to use. Working to equip them with these resources is important for all of us.
The more supporter e-mail addresses we can have become a part of the Google Group the more people we can educate, the further we can broaden our influence, and the more support we can garner.
Please send a link to this blog post to everyone you know who supports the campaign to abolish LWOP sentence for children and ask them to do the same.
without-parole-sentences-in-the-usa.
By becoming a member you will also be able to access past e-mail threads that remain on the group's page. You can also help us add relevant resource material to the group's page for people to access and share by sending us links to the information for us to post.
There is a serious need to educate supporters who are seeking to abolish LWOP sentences for children. They need to have as much information at their disposal to use. Working to equip them with these resources is important for all of us.
The more supporter e-mail addresses we can have become a part of the Google Group the more people we can educate, the further we can broaden our influence, and the more support we can garner.
Please send a link to this blog post to everyone you know who supports the campaign to abolish LWOP sentence for children and ask them to do the same.
Categorically Less Culpable: Children Sentenced to Life Without Possibility of Parole in Illinois
The Illinois Coalition For Fair Sentencing of Children is a group of attorneys, academics, child advocates, and concerned citizens who are pursuing judicial, legislative, and other avenues designed to end the practice of sentencing children under the age of 18 to life without the possibility of parole (“JLWOP”) in Illinois. On February 13, 2008 we released a report, “Categorically Less Culpable: Children Sentenced to Life Without Possibility of Parole in Illinois.”
▸ View the official press release (pdf)
▸ View the Report: "Categorically Less Culpable: Children Sentenced to Life Without Possibility of Parole in Illinois" (pdf)
▸ View the Executive Summary (pdf)
Coalition Members | Contact Us | Media and Related Links
Coalition Members
American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois
Children and Family Justice Center, Bluhm Legal Clinic, Northwestern University School of Law
DLA Piper US LLP
Edwin F. Mandel Legal Aid Clinic, University of Chicago School of Law
Human Rights Watch, Chicago Committee
John Howard Association of Illinois
Juvenile Justice Initiative
Law Office of the Cook County Public Defender
Contact Us
Phone: 312-503-0396
E-mail: cfjc@law.northwestern.edu
Media and Related Links
National Media Coverage
New York Times, A Shameful Record, February 6, 2008 : “Juvenile crime should not be taken lightly, but young people should not be completely written off….Locking up juveniles for life without parole is unfair and a poor use of criminal justice resources.”
San Francisco Chronicle, Redemption and Rehabilitation, January 18, 2008: “[a]ll of those arguments [in Roper v. Simmons, which invalidated the juvenile death penalty] also could be applied to laws that put juveniles in prison without the possibility of parole. . .”
Los Angeles Times, Locking up Kids for Life: California can sentence criminals under 18 to life without parole. It's cruel and unusual punishment, January 16, 2008: Citing international law and new neuroscience, “…it is perverse to condemn a minor to prison for life for committing a crime that he or she might find unthinkable on reaching adulthood.”
St. Petersburg Times, When It's Wrong to Throw Away the Key , January 6, 2008 : In supporting legislation aimed at giving kids sentenced to life a second chance, the Times rhetorically asked: “[h]as the state simply given up on any possibility that teenagers might one day turn their lives around?”
Chicago Tribune, Parole Proposed for Youths Who Kill, November 27, 2007
New York Times, Lifers as Teenagers, Now Seeking Second Chance, October 17, 2007
Nationally Published Reports
When I Die, They'll Send Me Home, Human Rights Watch, California (January 2008)
Sentencing Our Children to Die in Prison, Global Law and Practice, University of San Francisco School of Law (November 2007)
Cruel and Unusual: Sentencing 13- and 14-year old Children to Die in Prison, Equal Justice Initiative, (November 2007)
The Rest of Their Lives, Human Rights Watch (October 2005)
Second Chances: Juveniles Serving Life Without Parole in Michigan Prisons, Michigan ACLU (2004)
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
"When I Die, That's When They'll Send Me Home"
When I Die, They'll Send Me HomeYouth Sentenced to Life Without Parole in California
Summary
Approximately 227 youth have been sentenced to die in California’s prisons. They have not been sentenced to death: the death penalty was found unconstitutional for juveniles by the United States Supreme Court in 2005. Instead, these young people have been sentenced to prison for the rest of their lives, with no opportunity for parole and no chance for release. Their crimes were committed when they were teenagers, yet they will die in prison. Remarkably, many of the adults who were codefendants and took part in their crimes received lower sentences and will one day be released from prison.
In the United States atleast 2,380 people are serving life without parole for crimes they committed when they were under the age of 18. In the rest of the world, just seven people are known to be serving this sentence for crimes committed when they were juveniles. Although ten other countries have laws permitting life without parole, in practice most do not use the sentence for those under age 18. International law prohibits the use of life without parole for those who are not yet 18 years old. The United States is in violation of those laws and out of step with the rest of the world.
Human Rights Watch conducted research in California on the sentencing of youth offenders to life without parole. Our data includes records obtained from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and independent research using court and media sources. We conducted a survey that garnered 130 responses, more than half of all youth offenders serving life without parole in California. Finally, we conducted in-person interviews of about 10 percent of those serving life without parole for crimes committed as youth. We have basic information on every person serving the sentence in the state, and we have a range of additional information in over 170 of all known cases. This research paints a detailed picture of Californians serving life without parole for crimes committed as youth.
In California, the vast majority of those 17 years old and younger sentenced to life without the possibility of parole were convicted of murder. This general category for individuals’ crimes, however, does not tell the whole story. It is likely that the average Californian believes this harsh sentence is reserved for the worst of the worst: the worst crimes committed by the most unredeemable criminals. This, however, is not always the case. Human Rights Watch’s research in California and across the country has found that youth are sentenced to life without parole for a wide range of crimes and culpability. In 2005 Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch published a report showing that nationally 59 percent of youth sentenced to life without parole are first-time offenders, without a single juvenile court adjudication on their records.
In 2007, Human Rights Watch surveyed youth offenders serving life without parole in California. In 45 percent of cases surveyed, youth who had been sentenced to life without parole had not actually committed the murder. Cases include that of a youth who stood by the garage door as a look-out during a car theft, a youth who sat in the get-away car during a burglary, and a youth who participated in a robbery in which murder was not part of the plan. Forty-five percent of youth reported that they were held legally responsible for a murder committed by someone else. He or she may have participated in a felony, such as robbery, but had no idea a murder would happen. She or he may have aided and abetted a crime, but not been the trigger person. While they are criminally culpable, their actions certainly do not fall into the category of the worst crimes.
Murder is a horrible crime, causing a ripple-effect of pain and suffering well beyond that of the victim. Families, friends, and communities all suffer. The fact that the perpetrator is legally a child does nothing to alleviate the loss. But societies make decisions about what to weigh when determining culpability. California’s law as it stands now fails to take into consideration a person’s legal status as a child at the time of the crime. Those who cannot buy cigarettes or alcohol, sign a rental agreement, or vote are nevertheless considered culpable to the same degree as an adult when they commit certain crimes and face adult penalties. Many feel life without parole is the equivalent of a death sentence. “They said a kid can’t get the death penalty, but life without, it’s the same thing. I’m condemned…I don’t understand the difference,” said Robert D., now 32 years of age, serving a life without parole sentence for a crime he committed in high school. He participated in a robbery in which his codefendant unexpectedly shot the victim.
The California law permitting juveniles to be sentenced to life without parole for murder was enacted in 1990. Since that time, advances in neuroscience have found that adolescents and young adults continue to develop in ways particularly relevant to assessing criminal behavior and an individual’s ability to be rehabilitated. Much of the focus on this relatively new discovery has been on teenagers’ limited comprehension of risk and consequences, and the inability to act with adult-like volition. Just as important, however, is the conclusion that teens are still developing. These findings show that young offenders are particularly amenable to change and rehabilitation. For most teens, risk-taking and criminal behavior is fleeting; they cease with maturity. California’s sentencing of youth to life without parole allows no chance for a young person to change and to prove that change has occurred.
In California, it is not just the law itself that is out of step with international norms and scientific knowledge. The state’s application of the law is also unjust. Eighty-five percent of youth sentenced to life without parole are people of color, with 75 percent of all cases in California being African American or Hispanic youth. African American youth are sentenced to life without parole at a rate that is 18.3 times the rate for whites. Hispanic youth in California are sentenced to life without parole at a rate that is five times the rate of white youth in the state.
California has the worst record in the country for racially disproportionate sentencing. In California, African American youth are sentenced to life without parole at rates that suggest unequal treatment before sentencing courts. This unequal treatment by sentencing courts cannot be explained only by white and African American youths’ differential involvement in crime.
Significantly, many of these crimes are committed by youth under an adult’s influence. Based on survey responses and other case information, we estimate that in nearly 70 percent of California cases, when juveniles committed their crime with codefendants, at least one of these codefendants was an adult. Acting under the influence and, in some cases, the direction of an adult, however, cannot be considered a mitigating factor by the sentencing judge in California. In fact, the opposite appears to be true. Juveniles with an adult codefendant are typically more harshly treated than the adult. In over half of the cases in which there was an adult codefendant, the adult received a lower sentence than the juvenile.
Poor legal representation often compromises a just outcome in juvenile life without parole cases. Many interviewees told us that they participated in their legal proceedings with little understanding of what was happening. “I didn’t even know I got [life without parole] until I talked to my lawyer after the hearing,” one young man said. Furthermore, in nearly half the California cases surveyed, respondents to Human Rights Watch reported that their own attorney did not ask the court for a lower sentence. In addition, attorneys failed to prepare youth for sentencing and did not tell them that a family member or other person could speak on their behalf at the sentencing hearing. In 68 percent of cases, the sentencing hearings proceeded with no witness speaking for the youth.
While some family members of victims support the sentence of life without parole for juveniles, the perspective of victims is not monolithic. Interviews with the families of victims who were murdered by teens show the complex and multi-faceted beliefs of those most deeply affected. Some families of victims believe that sentencing a young person to a sentence to life without parole is immoral.
California’s policy to lock up youth offenders for the rest of their lives comes with a significant financial cost: the current juvenile life without parole population will cost the state approximately half a billion dollars by the end of their lives. This population and the resulting costs will only grow as more youth are sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in prison.
California is not the only state that sentences youth to life without parole. Thirty-eight others apply the sentence as well. However, movement to change these laws is occurring across the country. Legislative efforts are pending in Florida, Illinois, and Michigan and there are grassroots movements in Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, and Washington. Most recently, Colorado outlawed life without parole for children in 2006.
If life without parole for youth under age 18 were eliminated in California, other existing state law provides ample protection for public safety. California’s next harshest penalty for murder secures a minimum of 25 years in prison. There are no reductions in the minimum time served for a murder conviction. Even then, parole is merely an option and won only through the prisoner’s demonstrating rehabilitation. If they do earn release after 25 years or more, they are statistically unlikely to commit a new crime of any type. Prisoners released after serving a sentence for a murder have the lowest recidivism rate of all prisoners.
Public awareness about this issue has increased recently through newspaper and magazine articles and television coverage. With a significant number of the country’s juvenile life without parole cases in its prisons, California has the opportunity to help lead the nation by taking immediate steps to change this unnecessarily harsh sentencing law.
Related Material
Download summary and recommendations
(97 kb, 12 pages)
Download PDF file of this report Purchase a printed version of this report More on Human Rights Watch's work on Juvenile Justice
(4.3 Mb, 102 pages)
Download PDF file of this report with cover
(4.6 Mb, 104 pages)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
