Juveniles Sentenced to Life Without Parole Cost the State Millions

by Eartha Jane Melzer
The Michigan Messenger
2/24/09 7:16 AM

Michigan’s prison system holds 346 inmates who are serving life without parole for crimes they committed as children. As the state struggles with a $1.5 billion deficit and a prison system that eats up 20 percent of the budget, a bill to end the controversial practice of sending minors to prison for life may gain momentum in the state Legislature.

The United States is the only nation that allows life without parole for juvenile offenders and, according to a report by Human Rights Watch, Michigan ranks third among states for number of people serving such sentences.

Shelli Weisberg, legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, an advocate for banning mandatory life sentences for children, explained that Michigan’s large number of juvenile lifers is a result of legislation enacted in the 1980s during a period of fear about a wave of juvenile crime.

“People were worried about ‘super predators,’” she said. “States around the country started really cracking down, with laws that were intended to get the worst of the worst — kids so far gone that there is nothing that can help them.”

But the fear was a scare tactic, Weisberg said. “In fact the juvenile crime wave was temporary and has gone down.”

In a third of the cases in which Michigan juveniles are sentenced to life without parole, she said, the crime is their first offense.

But tough-on-crime laws beginning in 1988 mandated life without parole sentences for certain crimes, and allowed children as young as 14 to be tried as adult without a special hearing.

Legislation introduced this month by state Sen. Liz Brater (D-Ann Arbor), which has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, would ban life without parole for juveniles. It would also allow those already serving mandatory life sentences for crimes committed as juveniles to apply for parole after a portion of their sentence is served.

“It is inhumane and it is inappropriate to take children before their brains are fully developed and subject them to same sentence that adults would get,” Brater said. “Many of them were sentenced along with an adult defender who got a lesser sentence and many of these youth were victims of abuse or neglect in their homes or are people with mental illness or disability.”

In addition to the ethical problems, she said, incarcerating young people for their full lives represents a significant expenditure for taxpayers and this money could probably do more to prevent crime if spent earlier in life on services like pre-school.

It costs at least $30,000 per year to keep an inmate in the state prison system, according to the Department of Corrections. With 346 mostly still-young lifers serving time for juvenile crime, the current law that prohibits rehabilitation and release will cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars over the next several decades.

Brater, who has introduced this same legislation in the last two legislative session, said that she feels it has developed some momentum. Last year the House held a hearing on the legislation and then passed it with strong bipartisan support.

Gary Walker is president of the Michigan Prosecutors Association, a group that has historically opposed bills to end mandatory life sentences for juveniles.

The legislation proposed by Brater could represent a “monumental change in terms” for the Michigan criminal justice system, Walker said, because the general age of criminal responsibility is 17 in Michigan and a large number of criminal offences are committed by people between 17 and 18 years old.

In Michigan, as in 13 other states, people who are 17 years old are considered adults by the criminal justice system, Walker said. Prosecutors have the option of charging younger offenders as juveniles, Walker said, and generally charge them as adults only in cases involving “horrific” crimes.

The legislation to end juvenile life without parole would in effect change the age of criminal responsibility to 18, Walker said.

“There is no real magic to the age of responsibility,” he said. Some people as young as 16 are fully aware of the meaning of their actions and decades ago the age of majority was 21.

“If we were to be starting out now, 18 may well be an appropriate choice.”

Walker said that Michigan prosecutors are open to working the legislation’s supporters.

“We are always willing to discuss legislation and we try to shape it in a way that is appropriate to Michigan citizens,” he said. “I want to see the kids in caps and gowns, not in jump suits.”

While Brater’s legislation has been referred to the Judiciary Committee, it remains unclear whether the bill will be considered further.

Source: http://michiganmessenger.com/13585/juveniles-sentenced-to-life-without-parole-cost-the-state-millions

The Cradle to Prison Pipeline: America's New Apartheid

by Marian Wright Edelman
The Huffington Post
February 9, 2009

Incarceration is becoming the new American apartheid and poor children of color are the fodder. It is time to sound a loud alarm about this threat to American unity and community, act to stop the growing criminalization of children at younger and younger ages, and tackle the unjust treatment of minority youths and adults in the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems with urgency and persistence. The failure to act now will reverse the hard-earned racial and social progress for which Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and so many others died and sacrificed. We must all call for investment in all children from birth through their successful transition to adulthood, remembering Frederick Douglass's correct observation that "it is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men."

So many poor babies in rich America enter the world with multiple strikes against them: born without prenatal care, at low birthweight, and to a teen, poor, and poorly educated single mother and absent father. At crucial points in their development after birth until adulthood, more risks pile on, making a successful transition to productive adulthood significantly less likely and involvement in the criminal justice system significantly more likely. As Black children are more than three times as likely as White children to be poor, and are four times as likely to live in extreme poverty, a poor Black boy born in 2001 has a one in three chance of going to prison in his lifetime and is almost six times as likely as a White boy to be incarcerated for a drug offense.

The past continues to strangle the present and the future. Children with an incarcerated parent are more likely to become incarcerated. Black children are nearly nine times and Latino children are three times as likely as White children to have an incarcerated parent. Blacks constitute one-third and Latinos one-fifth of the prisoners in America, and 1 in 3 Black men, 20 to 29 years old, is under correctional supervision or control. Of the 2.3 million in jail or prison, 64 percent are minority. Of the 4.2 million persons on probation, 45 percent are minority; of the 800,000 on parole, 59 percent are minority. Inequitable drug sentencing policies including mandatory minimums have greatly escalated the incarceration of minority adults and youths.

Child poverty and neglect, racial disparities in systems that serve children, and the pipeline to prison are not acts of God. They are America's immoral political and economic choices that can and must be changed with strong political, corporate and community leadership.

No single sector or group can solve these child- and nation-threatening crises alone but all of us can together. Leaders must call us to the table and use their bully pulpits to replace our current paradigm of punishment as a first resort with a paradigm of prevention and early intervention. That will save lives, save families, save taxpayer money, and save our nation's aspiration to be a fair society. Health and mental health care and quality education cost far less than prisons.

If called to account today, America would not pass the test of the prophets, the Gospels, and all great faiths. Christians who profess to believe that God entered human history as a poor vulnerable baby, and that each man, woman and child is created in God's own image, need to act on that faith. The Jewish Midrash says God agreed to give the people of Israel the Torah only after they offered their children as guarantors, deeming neither their prophets nor elders sufficient. It is time to heed the prophets' call for justice for the orphans and the weak.

America's Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...." After more than two centuries, it is time to make those truths evident in the lives of poor children of color and to close our intolerable national hypocrisy gap. America's sixth child is waiting for all of us to welcome him or her to the table in our rich land and show the world whether democratic capitalism is an oxymoron or whether it can work. Our national creed demands it. All great faiths demand it. Common sense and self-interest require it. And our moral redemption and credibility in the world we seek to lead compels it.

Ending child poverty is not only an urgent moral necessity, it is economically beneficial. Dr. Robert M. Solow, M.I.T. Nobel Laureate in Economics, wrote in Wasting America's Future that "ending child poverty is, at the very least, highly affordable" and would be a boost to the economy. A healthy Social Security and Medicare system for our increasing elderly population need as many productive workers as possible to support them. We can ill afford to let millions of our children grow up poor, in poor health, uneducated, and as dependent rather than productive citizens.

What then can leaders do to help build the spiritual and political will needed to help our nation pass the test of the God of history and better prepare for America's future? What steps can you take to heed Dr. King's warning not to let our wealth become our destruction but our salvation by helping the poor Lazaruses languishing at our closed gates? How can our nation use its blessings to bless all the children entrusted to our care and rekindle America's dimming dream?

As President Obama and Congress contemplate ways to stimulate our economy, let them begin by investing in a healthy, fair, head, and safe start for every American child and measures to ensure their successful transition to college and productive adulthood.

Learn more about CDF's Cradle to Prison Pipeline® Campaign.

Marian Wright Edelman, whose latest book is The Sea Is So Wide And My Boat Is So Small: Charting a Course for the Next Generation, is president of the Children's Defense Fund. For more information about the Children's Defense Fund, go to www.childrensdefense.org.

ACLU-Cooley Chapter Presents Juvenile Injustice Speaker Series

The ACLU of Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan, is hosting a juvenile injustice speaker series.  The following three events have been scheduled in Lansing.

Supporters of the movement to abolish juvenile life without parole (JLWOP) sentences are highly encouraged to attend the the March 5, 2009 event.  Shelli Weisberg, Legislative Director, ACLU of Michigan, will be speaking at this event about the subject of JLWOP sentences.

As additional information is made available about these events we will include it in this post to share with everyone.

Thursday, February 12th
The School to Prison Pipeline
Room 911 Cooley Center
Thomas M. Cooley Law School
300 S. Capitol Ave.
Lansing MI
12p.m.- 2p.m

Thursday, February 26th
Indigent Defense
Christiancy Room-Temple Building
Thomas M. Cooley Law School
217 S. Capitol Ave.
Lansing MI
12p.m.- 2p.m.

Thursday, March 5th
Juvenile Life Without Parole
Christiancy Room-Temple Building
Thomas M. Cooley Law School
217 S. Capitol Ave.
Lansing MI
12p.m.- 2p.m.

Reforming Juvenile Justice

If you consider yourself "tough on crime" and support trying teenagers and children as adults, I challenge you to volunteer as a mentor to an inner city kid for six months and we'll see if you have the same opinion. Or work in a youth ministry setting with economically disadvantaged minority kids for a while. You just might change your tune.

PBS ran a story this week called Juvenile Life Without Parole and it's worth a look. The Supreme Court has rejected the death penalty for juvenile offenders, but 44 states still can sentence them to life without parole. In my opinion, that's a tragedy, and I think our entire society will be held accountable if we don't move away from this trend.

One of the cornerstones of some political conservatives' opposition to affirmative action is the principle of "equality of opportunity, but not equality of outcomes." In other words, leveling the playing field is good, but quotas are bad. In principle, I agree with this. But if you've hung out with the urban poor for any length of time, you know that equality of opportunity is a myth. There are several reasons why:

• There is a cycle of poverty and hopelessness. There is no such thing as equality of public education in lower income communities... rich school districts get the best teachers and the most money. Urban kids have figured this out and many of them feel like second class citizens. The kids who do want to be honest see drug dealers living the "good life" while they're working for 7 bucks an hour (if they can actually get a job). I've had to talk Christian teenagers out of selling drugs when some of the higher level dealers tried to recruit them.
• Materialism is a problem with the poor, too. Cable TV and cell phones are considered essentials today, not luxuries. Wealth is an idol, even among many people who aren't wealthy. But this attitude is instilled in kids from a young age, learned by example and reinforced by popular music and culture. So we're dealing with a mindset, a stronghold if you will, often a spiritual one. Those aren't easily brought down with a conversation or two.
• Fatherlessness is an epidemic in urban communities. At one point in youth ministry, I counted four kids out of 50 who had dads in the home, and three of those guys were brothers! I understand that there are single moms out there who are doing the best they can, and I applaud them, but the fact is, children (especially boys) need fathers.

While we all have some sense of right and wrong (Scripture confirms this), that sense can become warped and often hasn't been fully developed among at-risk youth. I've dealt with "good kids" who had never even been challenged on "little transgressions" like littering or sneaking food out of a buffet restaurant. When I've pointed these problems out, I've met resistance, but guess what? Things began to change. Not overnight, but light has a way of overcoming darkness if you keep shining it. If nothing else, horizons expand. I've even had kids who aren't Christian tell me that by hanging out at church, they find they can't steal anymore because their consciences start getting to them.

I can't give you a statistic, but I'll go out on a limb and say that most juvenile crimes are probably committed by disadvantaged teenagers. How can we as a society lock them up, throw away the key and offer no chance for redemption? We say we treat everyone fairly, but when our whole economic system is stacked against poor minority kids, how do we in good conscience punish them like we would punish a 40 year-old?

James 2:13 says that "judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment." This scripture is, not coincidentally, immediately after an admonition not to show favoritism to the rich. In a democratic society, I believe God holds us accountable as a nation for structures that screw the poor and perpetuate poverty. When we sit in the suburbs, protect our own kids and allow them to benefit from better schools while inner city kids remain caught in a cycle of poverty and hopelessness, I think God is going to deal with us. With some of the felony murder laws, kids can simply be in the wrong place at the wrong time, or be influenced by the wrong adult and end up doing life in prison. That grieves me.

I'm not advocating a system that allows minors to commit crimes without any personal cost. What I am advocating is a system that administers justice with mercy, especially for young people who, for whatever reason, are dealing with obstacles that many of us in middle class America couldn't even imagine. Sure, there's always the person who, through determination, overcomes these obstacles and breaks the cycle. But those are few and far between. And that desire to overcome is often instilled by strong parents. What if there isn't anyone there to instill that attitude?

If you want to learn more about how to make a difference, or to get involved in juvenile justice ministry, check out Straight Ahead, an organization established by Dr. Scott Larson. The more you learn, the more you'll realize that this is a whole lot more complicated than the talking points you hear on cable news shows. Straight Ahead also has information on becoming a mentor to an "at-risk" kid. I urge you to get involved, whether you think you're gifted at this or not. Helping the poor is not a spiritual gift, it's an expectation God has of every Christian.

Source: http://www.wesleyreport.com/2009/02/juvenile-justice.html

Letter to Nebraska Legislature Judiciary Chairman Brad Ashford on Legislative Bill 307

In support of abolishing the sentence of life without parole for children

February 2, 2009

Chairman Brad Ashford
Judiciary Committee
Nebraska Legislature
Room 1103, State Capitol
Lincoln, NE 68509

Dear Chairman Ashford and Members of the Judiciary Committee:

Human Rights Watch urges Nebraska's Judiciary Committee to vote in favor of Legislative Bill 307, which will abolish the sentence of life without parole for children[1] in your state. We oppose the sentence of life without parole for juveniles because it is cruel, inappropriate (particularly so given recent scientific research), and a violation of international law.

Human Rights Watch has been analyzing the issue of life without parole sentences for children since 2004. In the past four years, our research has culminated in four publications: The Rest of Their Lives: Life Without Parole for Child Offenders in the United States[2] (a 2005 report on juveniles sentenced to life without parole throughout the United States); an updated executive summary[3] to The Rest of Their Lives (which reflects 2008 findings); Thrown Away[4] (a 2005 report on life without parole for juveniles in Colorado); and, When I Die They'll Send Me Home[5] (a 2008 report on life without parole for juveniles in California). Based on our research, we urge the Committee to vote in favor of Legislative Bill 307 for three main reasons.

First, in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 561 (2005), the US Supreme Court found that the differences between juveniles and adults render suspect any conclusion that a juvenile falls among the worst offenders. Neuroscience reveals the process of cognitive brain development, including the formation of impulse control and decision-making skills, continues into early adulthood-well beyond age 18. The fact that juveniles are still developing their identity and ability to think and plan ahead means that even a heinous crime committed by a juvenile is not "evidence of an irretrievably depraved character."[6]

The sentence of life without parole was created for the worst criminal offenders, who are deemed to have no possibility of reform. While the crimes they commit cause undeniable suffering, juvenile offenders are not the "worst of the worst."

Human Rights Watch estimates that 59 percent of the youth serving life without parole in the United States received this sentence for their very first offense-they had no prior criminal convictions whatsoever, arising from either juvenile or adult courts. We also estimate that 26 percent of the youth serving the sentence of life without parole in the United States received it for aiding and abetting or felony murder.

Second, the United States is the world's worst human rights violator in terms of sentencing youthful offenders to life without parole. There are currently 2,502 persons serving the sentence of juvenile life without parole in the United States; as of May 2008, to our knowledge, not a single youth is serving this sentence anywhere else in the rest of the world.

International human rights law prohibits life without parole sentences for those who commit their crimes before the age of 18, a prohibition that is universally applied outside of the United States. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) explicitly addresses the contradiction between the particular rights and needs of children and life without parole sentences.[7] Underpinning several of the treaty's provisions is the fundamental recognition of the child's potential for rehabilitation. Recognizing the unacceptability of sentences that negate the potential of children to make changes for better over time, Article 37(a) of the CRC flatly prohibits sentencing children to life without the possibility of parole.[8]

Third, we are deeply concerned that racial discrimination enters into the determination of which youth serve life without possibility of parole sentences, and which youth enjoy the possibility of release. Nationwide, African-American youth serve life without parole sentences at a rate that is ten times higher than that of Caucasian youth.[9] In Nebraska, racial disparities in sentencing practices raise serious concerns: African-American youth arrested for murder are sentenced to life without parole at a rate that is 1.13 times higher than it is for Caucasian youth arrested for murder.

Children can and do commit terrible crimes. When they do, they should be held accountable and face appropriate consequences. Children are different from adults, however, and the punishment imposed for their offenses should reflect their age and level of development. At a minimum, laws should preserve the opportunity for parole for juvenile offenders, and the ability to review whether someone sentenced to life in prison as a child has been rehabilitated.

For the foregoing reasons, Human Rights Watch urges Nebraska to take the opportunity to make its laws more just and eliminate the sentence of life without parole for children by enacting Legislative Bill 307.

Thank you for your consideration, and please feel free to contact me if I can provide you with any further information.

Sincerely,

Carol Chodroff
Advocacy Director, US Program

CC: Senators Mark Christensen, Colby Coash, Brenda Council, Steve Lathrop, Scott Lautenbaugh, Amanda McGill, and Kent Rogert
_____________________________

[1] The terms "children" and "juveniles" in this letter refer to anyone who was below the age of 18 at the time of the offense.

[2] http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2005/10/11/rest-their-lives-0

[3] http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2008/05/01/executive-summary-rest-their-li...

[4] http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2008/12/09/thrown-away

[5] http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2008/01/13/when-i-die-they-ll-send-me-home

[6] Id. at 570.

[7] Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), adopted November 20, 1989, entered into force September 2, 1990, available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm.

[8] Although the United States has not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, it is a signatory. As such, it has the obligation to refrain from actions which would defeat the treaty's object and purpose.

[9] The Rest of Their Lives: Life Without Parole for Child Offenders in the United States, p. 39 (2005).

Source: http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/02/02/letter-nebraska-legislature-judiciary-chairman-brad-ashford-legislative-bill-307

Click here to view or download the PDF version of this letter.

Juvenile Life Without Parole

Click here to view a comeplling story about the imposition of life without parole (LWOP) sentences on juvenile offenders in the USA. The story was aired Friday, January 30, 2009 on Religion & Ethics, a show that appears on PBS. The segment is 10 minutes and 45 seconds long. Please share this story with advocates who are working to end LWOP sentences for juveniles across the country.

Iowa Bill to End Life Without Parole

The bill reduces the sentence for a class "A" felony to 15 years certain followed by possible parole for youth who were under 18 at the time the offense was committed. After serving the mandated sentence, individuals may apply for parole as frequently as every two years.

The parole board must consider the age and maturity level of the offender at the time the offense was committed; the applicant's susceptibility to outside pressures at the time the offense was committed; the potential for rehabilitation; the nature and severity of the offense; prior juvenile and criminal history; the overall behavioral record while incarcerated; and the likelihood to commit other offenses if released.

Click here to view the text of the entire bill on our file-sharing site.  Click here to learn more information about the bill from the State of Iowa web site.

"Roper v. Simmons: Unveiling Juvenile Purgatory: Is Life Really Better than Death?" by Elizabeth Cepparulo

The following text is the conclusion to the above-titled research paper. Click here to view the text of the entire paper.

Roper v. Simmons was an important landmark in modern juvenile justice. While abolishing the juvenile death penalty was momentous, it was merely the tip of the iceberg in providing juveniles the privileges they deserve as persons, as well as the rights they deserve as minors.

While violent juvenile offenders are out of place in the juvenile justice system, they appear inappropriate in the adult system as well. Without establishing a separate system for these offenders, juveniles nonetheless require consideration as such in the adult criminal court.

Instead of treating juveniles like adults, just because there is no severe punishment in the juvenile system, it is fundamental to recognize that they are not adults, and should not be denied their status as such.

Mandatory life without parole (LWOP) turns a blind eye to juvenile individuality at sentencing. As a result, the opportunity to present pressing evidence of the juvenile’s psychological and neurological immaturity is thwarted. However, never have the state courts been in such a position of powerlessness to sentence juveniles brought before them.

To deny an individual specific and personal consideration before mandating that he be incarcerated for fifty, sixty, or seventy years is cruel. To deny this right to a child, but not an adult, is unusual.

More than a constitutional privilege, proportionality between crime and punishment is an individual right. The penalogical goals of our system are extraneous if they are not matched to the individual. Punishments that exclusively serve society’s benefit or exclusively that of the juvenile do not yield a productive nor well-designed system of justice.

Judges considering a punishment should consider the rationale behind it, and the balance of benefits to society as well as the individual. Mandatory LWOP only benefits society, and leaves no hope or purpose for rehabilitating the juvenile.

By allowing a proportionality review, and the possibility of life with parole, juveniles are afforded hope. This alone gives them a reason to live, and to learn. It takes little from society; seventy years is still an extreme sentence and one unlikely to permit release before natural death. It is a small alteration for society, yet a large step forward for our nation’s children.

Too Young for Life: Hinojosa Seeks Sentencing Equity

One of the Legislature’s leading voices on criminal justice issues has decided that teenage killers too young to face execution should also be exempt from being sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

“To me it’s a matter of fairness and consistency,” said state Sen. Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa, D-McAllen. “If the U.S. Supreme Court said to Texas and all the other states, ‘You cannot give these juvenile offenders the death penalty’ [which the Supreme Court did in 2005], then I believe the state of Texas should not be sending them to prison for life without parole.”

Hinojosa, a long-serving lawmaker who sits on the Senate Criminal Justice Committee (and led the House Corrections Committee during his final years as an eight-term state representative), plans to introduce legislation this session that would cap sentences for youthful offenders convicted of capital murder at life in prison, with the possibility of parole after 40 years behind bars.

Such a sentence would be in line with non–capital punishment death sentences handed down before the 2005 Legislature’s enactment of the life-without-parole law. Hinojosa says he decided to push for the new legislation after reading a recent article in the Observer examining the effects of the law (“The Life Penalty,” Nov. 28, 2008).

That law draws no distinction between offenders who commit capital murder before turning 18 and those who kill as adults.

“I think, for someone so young, there is a chance to rehabilitate their lives,” Hinojosa said.

Four under-18 offenders are now serving life-without-parole sentences in Texas. All were sentenced before the 2007 Legislature required the state’s district courts to report demographic information on capital murder cases to the state Office of Court Administration.

When the Nov. 28 Observer went to press, the Office of Court Administration had no information about the ages of the offenders serving life without parole. That information was made available by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in December, after Hinojosa’s office requested a closer examination of life-without-parole cases.

State Sen. Eddie Lucio, who advocated the life-without-parole law for six years before it was finally enacted, says he’s open to Hinojosa’s proposed exclusion of youthful offenders, but he wants to see the fine print before committing.

“While I have not seen the language in the proposed bill, I would certainly support an effort to allow juveniles convicted of capital offenses to receive sentences whereby they might be considered for parole after 40 years,” Lucio said. “This was an additional option to life without parole that I also supported for adult offenders. I have faith in Texas jurors and believe juries should be given as many options as possible to be appropriate for the crime.”

Gov. Rick Perry, who signed Lucio’s 2005 legislation into law, is withholding judgment on Hinojosa’s proposal, his office says.

—John Moritz

Source: http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2940

Human Rights Groups Call on Obama Administration To Implement Recommendations by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

ATLANTA - January 14 - The Bush administration's last-minute report to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination was grossly inadequate and full of omissions, according to a coalition of human rights organizations. Instead of reporting on its implementation of recommendations issued by the Committee a year ago, the government yesterday submitted a report that attempts to whitewash the ongoing racial discrimination suffered by people of color in the United States.

"The U.S. government's report fails to address the persistence of structural racism and inequality in this country, such as the continuing widespread racial and ethnic profiling of Muslim and Arab Americans and people of South Asian descent after 9/11," said Jamil Dakwar, Director of the ACLU Human Rights Program. "President-elect Obama can signal a departure from the policies of the Bush administration by taking a fresh look at the Committee recommendations and implementing vigorous and proactive measures against racial and ethnic discrimination."

The Committee is an independent group of experts that oversees compliance with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), which the U.S. signed and ratified in 1994. In March 2008, the Committee issued a strongly worded critique of the U.S. record on racial discrimination and recommendations for U.S. compliance with the CERD treaty. Governments are expected to implement the Committee's recommendations, and yesterday's report was the U.S. government's one-year follow up.

According to the human rights coalition, the Bush administration's report glosses over significant issues of racial inequality during his tenure, including the post-9/11 racial profiling of Muslims and people of Arab and South Asian descent; the denial of adequate housing assistance in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina; the disproportionate representation of African Americans and Latinos among the 2,500 juveniles sentenced to life sentences without parole; and the deprivation of Western Shoshone American Indians of their ancestral lands.

"Instead of assisting people to return home and recover as recommended by the U.N. committee, the Bush administration's response to Hurricane Katrina is driving African Americans out of our communities in violation of our human rights to non-discrimination and adequate housing," said Monique Harden, Co-Director and Attorney of Advocates for Environmental Human Rights in New Orleans, Louisiana. "The Bush administration is delusional if it thinks that people of color in the Gulf region believe we've been helped by FEMA or any other federal agency."

"The refusal of the Bush administration to correct the racism inherent in current U.S. sentencing practices has resulted in a disproportionate number of children of color being sentenced to life in prison without parole," said Deborah LaBelle, Director of the Juvenile Life Without Parole Initiative. "It is a stain on the U.S. to be the only nation in the world that commits the human rights violation of sentencing children to life in prison, and the fact that it disproportionately affects children of color is one more reason to end this unfair practice."

"It is important that President-elect Obama takes action to ensure racial equality by fulfilling the requirements of the CERD treaty," said Ajamu Baraka, Executive Director of the US Human Rights Network. "We look forward to working with the Obama administration to submit a corrected report and a plan of action for implementing the recommendations of the U.N. committee."

The Bush administration's final report to the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination can be viewed online at: www.state.gov/documents/organization/113905.pdf

The Committee's recommendations to the U.S. are available here: www.ushrnetwork.org/files/ushrn/images/linkfiles/CO_USA_adopted-1%20.doc

An U.S. Human Rights Network shadow report to the Committee on the state of racial discrimination in the U.S. and other relevant documents can be found online here: www.ushrnetwork.org/projects/cerd

The ACLU's shadow report to the Committee and more information about CERD is available at: www.aclu.org/cerd

The Human Rights Watch USA World Report 2008 report is available for viewing at http://www.scribd.com/doc/10440320/Human-Rights-Watch-USA-World-Report-2008

Source: http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/01/14-18

New Citizens for Juvenile Justice (CFJJ) Juvenile Life Without Parole Fact Sheet

Below is a link to the December 2008 Citizens for Juvenile Justice Fact Sheet regarding the subject of juvenile life without parole sentences. Please review the document and circulate widely throughout the country to your contacts.

http://www.cfjj.org/Pdf/LWOP_FactSheet_12_1_08-1.pdf

US: Michigan Moves to End Life Without Parole for Juveniles

Senate Committee Should Approve Historic Bills Passed by House

December 9, 2008

(Washington, DC) - Michigan's Senate Judiciary Committee should approve four bills abolishing life sentences without parole for juveniles in the state, Human Rights Watch said today in a letter to the committee. The practice is cruel, inappropriate, discriminatory, and a violation of human rights, Human Rights Watch said.

"Michigan has 321 young offenders sentenced to die in prison," said Alison Parker, deputy director of the US Program of Human Rights Watch. "Last week, the House rejected the notion that juveniles are beyond redemption. If these bills pass the Senate, they may be able to earn a chance at freedom."

On December 4, Michigan's 110-seat House of Representatives voted to pass the bills, by margins ranging from 12 to 61 votes, and the bills now move to the Senate. Michigan joins California, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Nebraska, and the federal government in taking steps toward ending the sentence of life without parole for offenders under age 18.

In a 2008 update to a series of reports on the sentencing of youth to life without parole, Human Rights Watch reported that Michigan's population of youth serving the sentence is the third-highest in the country, just behind Louisiana and Pennsylvania. There are no youth serving the sentence in the rest of the world.

"Michigan and certain other states in the United States stand alone in locking up kids and throwing away the key," Parker said. "Not a single other country in the world incarcerates offenders under 18 for life without providing them some chance of demonstrating rehabilitation and remorse."

In its letter, Human Rights Watch noted that both brain science research and the 2005 Supreme Court case of Roper v. Simmons recognize that some child offenders have the capacity to turn their lives around even after committing a heinous crime. Acknowledging the suffering of victims and their families because of youth crime, the letter points out that many youth serving life without parole did not physically commit the crime for which they were sentenced. Nearly half of youth sentenced to life without parole surveyed in Michigan were sentenced for aiding and abetting or for an unplanned killing in the course of a felony.

Human Rights Watch also highlighted the racial disparities in sentencing. In Michigan, black youth are serving life without parole at a per capita rate 10 times higher than that of white youth.

Two UN oversight and enforcement bodies, the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, have found that the practice of sentencing juveniles to life without parole violates US human rights treaty obligations.

Source: http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/09/us-michigan-moves-end-life-without-parole-juveniles

Click here to view or download the PDF version of the letter written by Human Rights Watch to the Michigan Senate Judiciary Committee.

"Narcissistic Sovereignty" Has Kept U.S. from Ratifying U.N. Treaty on Children’s Rights

By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer

CNSNEWS.COM

Monday, November 24, 2008

Washington, D.C. (CNSNews.com) – Advocates for a United Nations treaty on children’s rights blamed American arrogance for it not being ratified by the United States, but critics charge signing onto the Convention on the Rights of the Child could mean international law trumping U.S. state and federal laws and the rights of parents to make decisions about raising and educating their children.

The treaty, adopted by the United Nations on Nov. 20, 1989, has been ratified by 193 countries. The United States and Somalia are the two countries that have not ratified it, groups that support ratification said at a press conference at the Capitol on Thursday.

“It might sound dismissive, but I think it has something to do with what I would call, and some other people call, narcissistic sovereignty,” Harold Cook, a non-governmental organization representative at the U.N. and a fellow with the American Psychological Association, told CNSNews.com.

But critics say national self-determination is at the heart of why the treaty should not be ratified.

“This would be one of the most invasive things we could do as far as the sovereignty of our nation,” Michael Smith, president of the Homeschool Legal Defense Association, told CNSNews.com.

Smith said that if Congress ratifies the treaty, it would give the United Nations authority to object to federal and state laws that it thinks violate the treaty and give Congress the power to pass laws to make the country comply with its tenants – a fact advocates do not deny.

“Every national government in the world, except the United States, has developed in response to the Convention of the Rights of the Child official detailed national reports on how children are fairing in their country,” Howard Davidson, director of the American Bar Association Center for Children and the Law, said at the press conference.

“And child protection and advocacy watchdog groups have been able to react to those reports by doing their own shadow reporting to the international committee on the rights of the child,” Davidson added.

But Austin Ruse, president of the conservative United Nations watchdog group Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, told CNSNews.com that the conventions reflect a worldview that rejects the idea of sovereign nations.

“They no longer want independent nations deciding what to do, but good citizens in a new international order,” Ruse said.

Ruse said that the very idea of children’s rights is “problematic,” because it sees children as having rights apart from their parents.

“It separates parents from their children,” Ruse told CNSNews.com. “The rights of children can only be seen in the context of the rights and responsibilities of the parents.”

Panelists at the news conference portrayed the convention as a way to help children in the United States whose needs are not being met, including every child having access to health care, good nutrition and safe living conditions.

“The convention’s articles on non-discrimination and adequate standard of living charge us to seek out exactly those children, families, and communities that live on the margins of society and design equitable policies that meet their needs,” said Dr. Jennifer Kasper, who represented the American Academy of Pediatrics at the press conference.

“It states explicitly that nations must not only actively protect children from discrimination, but they also must refrain from actions that may have a discrimination effect on some children.”

Ruse said the United States does not need to be regulated by those he describes as “radicals” on the U.N. committees that oversee such treaties.

“U.S. laws for protecting children are the best in the world,” Ruse said, “and we don’t need a treaty to help us.”

He also said Cook’s remarks about narcissism are a “smear” on the United States and show how his and other groups advocating ratification of the treaty want to promote a liberal global agenda.

“It’s a power grab, pure and simple, by radicals like him,” Ruse said.

Smith said the most dangerous thing about the convention is that rather than building stronger families, it could damage relationships by giving children “rights” to question their parents’ decisions on a range of issues, including discipline, religious training and education.

“It pits children against their parents,” Smith said.

When asked about the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the campaign trail, President-elect Barack Obama expressed a willingness to consider sending the treaty to Congress for ratification.

“It is embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land,” Obama said. “I will review this.”

Groups at the press conference expressed optimism about the new administration, including Meg Gardinier, acting chairwoman of the Campaign for the U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

“We are very excited to think we are finally in a moment in time when the U.S. might very well join that ratification process and we can join the other 193 countries who are currently using this important rights treaty as a pivotal guide to improve the child’s survival, protection and development,” Gardinier said.

Source: http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/article.aspx?RsrcID=39799

Anita D. Colón Before the Pennsylvania State Senate Judiciary Committee

As requested by State Senator Steward Greenleaf
Monday, September 22, 2008, 9:30 AM
In Hearing Room #1, North Office Building, Harrisburg, PA
on
Juveniles Sentenced to Life without Parole in Pennsylvania

Good morning Senator Greenleaf and Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. My name is Anita Colón. I am the sister of Robert Holbrook, a man currently serving a life sentence in Pennsylvania for a crime he was convicted of participating in at the age of 16. First, I would like to thank you, Senator Greenleaf, for holding this hearing on the issue of sentencing juveniles to life without the possibility of parole in Pennsylvania and allowing me to testify before you today. I praise both your concern about this issue as well as your willingness to step forward to address it.

My brother Robert was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for a crime that occurred on his sixteenth birthday. That day, lured by the promise of $500 made by a neighborhood drug dealer, Robert agreed to serve as a lookout for four adult males for what he thought was going to be a simple drug deal. My brother soon found himself in the midst of a robbery of a drug dealer’s young wife inside her home. Although he desperately wanted to run once he realized what was happening, he was terrified of the drug dealer that had ordered him to stay, and oblivious to the consequences that would await him if he remained.

As a result of that terrible night, an innocent young woman lost her life and my brother’s freedom was taken away forever. As with the majority of juvenile offenders charged in a murder case, attempts to have the case transferred back to juvenile court were denied. Having no prior experience with the court system, my brother accepted his attorney’s advice and pled guilty to murder generally. This attorney had told us that if he did not do this, the D.A. would seek the death penalty for all involved.

Despite Robert’s age and the fact that he did not participate in the actual murder of this woman, the judge convicted of him of first degree murder for aiding and abetting in the crime and due to the mandatory sentencing laws in Pennsylvania, he was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. At the sentencing, the judge stated that my brother had most certainly been the least culpable of the offenders, but that the law did not permit him to use discretion in his sentencing. That was 18 years ago. My brother is now 34 years old. While his friends continued high school, got their drivers licenses, went on to college, got married and now have children, he sits confined to a cell. Most of his early years were spent in isolation, separated from the adult offenders.

My brother’s conviction and incarceration was devastating to my family, especially my mother. My mother wrote to her son in prison each and every day right up until the end of her life four years ago. At that time she was diagnosed with Cancer and within months she passed away. Robert was not even able to attend her funeral because the Department of Corrections had stopped allowing the transportation of lifers to attend funerals, even when their parents die.

In spite of the lack of hope afforded him, my brother has refused to give up on his life. While in prison, he obtained his GED, completed a paralegal course, and became an avid reader and writer. He has had several articles published and works closely with many human rights organizations fighting against injustice and unfair sentencing such as his. Whereas I believe that my brother did deserve to be punished for what he did, I know that he does not deserve to spend the rest of his life, what could turn out to be 60, 70, even 80 years in prison, for one horrible choice he made at barely 16.

Although my initial concern over juveniles sentenced to life without the possibility of parole came as a result of my brother’s conviction, after truly researching this human rights issue, I became an advocate for juvenile justice, and I stand before you today on behalf of all 450 juveniles currently sentenced to die in prison in Pennsylvania.

I feel it is also important to note that I am not only a family member of a juvenile offender but that my family has also experienced senseless tragedy and victimization due to violent crime yet still I advocate for second chances for offenders. As a society we must begin to seek justice as opposed to vengeance and a thirst for revenge and keep in mind that it is not the job of the Criminal Justice System to exact revenge, it is to seek justice.

Much of the background on this serious human rights issue we are addressing today may have been said already, but I feel it is important to highlight several points. The United States is currently the only country in the world known to have children sentenced to and serving life without the possibility of parole. This alone screams that there is something wrong with this policy. The District Attorney’s Office claims that only the worst child offenders are sentenced to life without parole, and only in exceptional circumstances, but that is simply not true.

Here in Pennsylvania, over 50 percent of the prisoners serving life without parole for crimes they committed as juveniles were first time offenders, never having been convicted of a previous crime. And 26 percent were convicted of JLWOP because they participated in a crime that led to a murder but did not themselves kill anyone. In most of the cases, these sentences were a result of mandatory sentencing currently in place for adults convicted of murder.

The U.S. Supreme Court made the distinction between the culpability of juvenile offenders and adult offenders when it abolished the death penalty for juvenile offenders in 2005. Citing both clinical and academic research, they acknowledged that adolescents are immature, incapable of clear adult decision making, and prone to peer pressure. Using this same logic, it is time that Pennsylvania sets the stage for our country, and abolishes life without parole sentences for juvenile offenders.

Our laws do not allow juveniles to assume the same responsibilities as adults (such as driving, voting, drinking, or joining the military) because we know that they are not mature or mentally developed enough to make these decisions about or control these actions. Yet, we hold these same children as accountable as adults when it comes to crime.

Finally, JLWOP, like most forms of unusually harsh punishment, does not serve as a deterrent. FBI Statistics show that from 1994-2004 the number of juveniles arrested for murder rose by over 24%. Research studies have shown that juvenile offenders are more susceptible to rehabilitation and treatment than adult offenders. These children are not beyond redemption, but currently they are without hope. We imprison children for the rest of their lives, without any hope of rehabilitation or re-entry into society and call it justice. Well, I call it inhumane.

While I acknowledge that here in Pennsylvania, especially Philadelphia, those fighting crime face daunting challenges, the answer is not to throw away the lives of our children forever. The fact that a child commits a crime does not negate the fact that they are still a child.

Please understand that I am in no way suggesting that you open the prison gates and free everyone that was incarcerated as a juvenile. Instead, I only ask that you afford them the prospect, not guarantee, of parole after a reasonable period of incarceration. I find it ironic that heinous mass murderers such as Charles Manson are regularly provided the opportunity for parole, yet thousands of children whose crimes could never begin to compare to theirs are not.

These juvenile offenders should be given a second chance, a chance to prove that an extremely poor choice made during adolescence does not have to define who they are or who can become as an adult within society. Senator Greenleaf, Committee members, I implore you to do just that.

Again, thank you for allowing me to testify here today.

Testimony of Elizabeth Calvin, Children’s Rights Advocate, in Support of H.R. 4300 the “Juvenile Justice Accountability

House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security

September 17, 2008

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for holding this hearing and for inviting me to testify on the important topic of the sentencing of youth who were below the age of 18 at the time of their offenses to life without the possibility of parole. I am here to testify in support of legislation that would end this practice in the United States and provide meaningful access to parole hearings or other review for youth offenders serving this sentence.

The decision to sentence a juvenile to life without the possibility of parole is a decision to sentence that young person to die in prison. There is no time off for good behavior, no opportunity to prove that you have become a different person, responded with remorse and chosen paths of rehabilitation. Next to the death penalty, there is no harsher condemnation, no clearer judgment by our criminal courts that this is a life to be thrown away. The federal government and 39 states sentence under-18 offenders to life without the possibility of parole.

In the US we believe that people under the age of 21 lack the judgment needed to drink alcohol responsibly; that those below 18 are too immature to understand the implications of signing a contract; and that someone younger than 16 cannot assess the risks and consequences inherent in driving a car. Yet, in this country we have also decided that children as young as 13 are mature enough to be sentenced to die in prison.

The United States stands alone in its imposition of this sentence on children. In the US there are currently more than 2,484 people who were convicted of crimes committed as children and sentenced to life without parole. There is not a single individual serving this sentence in the rest of the world.

The Juvenile Justice Accountability and Improvement Act of 2007 would allow states and the federal government to ensure that young offenders receive serious punishments to hold them accountable for actions that have caused enormous suffering to victims and their families. H.R. 4300 would, however, also provide youth—who are different from adults in their capacity to change—with an incentive to work towards rehabilitation in prison. Access to a parole hearing or another form of meaningful review is not a “get out of jail free” card. It is a chance to earn one’s release from prison through rehabilitation. Parole hearings would assess a youth offender’s rehabilitation, and they would also provide a necessary opportunity for victims and their families to be heard.

Through in-depth statistical and legal research, in-person interviews with youth, judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys, lawmakers and victims, Human Rights Watch has investigated the use of life without parole for youth throughout the United States since 2004. We have found that not only is the US now the sole country imposing this sentence on children, but the sentence is also imposed unfairly and disproportionately upon racial and ethnic minorities. Based on our research, we support the passage of H.R. 4300 for three main reasons. The use of this sentence for juveniles is frequently disproportionate, racially discriminatory, and a violation of international law.

One example of the disproportionate use of the sentence is the case of Sara K. Sara was raised by her mother who was addicted to drugs and abusive. She was 16 years old at the time of her crime. At age 11 Sara met “G.G.,” a 31-year-old man. Soon after, he sexually assaulted Sara and began grooming her to become a prostitute. At age 13, Sara began working as a prostitute for G.G. He continued sexually assaulting Sara and using her as a prostitute for almost three years. Shortly after turning 16, Sara shot and killed G.G. She was sentenced to life in prison without parole.

It is not just the facts of individual cases that show the disproportionate use of this sentence. There are more systemic problems. The sentence of life without parole was created for the worst criminal offenders. But we have found that life without parole is not reserved for juveniles who commit the worst crimes or who show signs of being irredeemable criminals. For example, this sentence is routinely used with young people who have never before been in trouble with the law. Human Rights Watch found that nationally an estimated 59 percent of youth sentenced to life without parole are first-time offenders. They had no prior juvenile or criminal record whatsoever—not even a shoplifting conviction. [1]

Additionally, our research found that these young people often acted under the influence or at times specific direction of adults when they committed their crimes. For example, in California, in an estimated 70 percent of cases in which a teen was acting with codefendants, at least one codefendant was an adult. [2] Even more disturbing, however, is that in an estimated 56 percent of cases with adult codefendants, the adult received a lower sentence than the youth who is now serving life without parole. [3]

Also troubling is the fact that often youth sentenced to life without parole were not the primary actors in the crime: they did not pull the trigger; they did not physically commit the crime. Nearly half of youth sentenced to life without parole surveyed in Michigan were sentenced for aiding and abetting or an unplanned murder in the course of a felony. [4] Thirty-three percent of youth sentenced to life without parole whose cases we investigated in Colorado had convictions based on the felony murder rule. [5] In 45 percent of California cases surveyed, youth sentenced to life without parole had not actually committed a murder and were convicted for their role in aiding and abetting or participating in a felony. [6] These are all cases in which someone else was the primary actor. A significant number of these cases involved an attempted crime gone awry—a tragically botched robbery attempt, for example—rather than premeditated murder.

We also have serious concerns that racial discrimination and disparities plague the sentencing of youth to life without parole throughout the United States. On average across the country, black youth are serving life without parole at a per capita rate that is 10 times that of white youth. Many states have racial disparities that are far greater. Among the 26 states with five or more youth offenders serving life without parole for which we have race data, the highest black-to-white ratios are in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and California, where black youth are between 18 and 48 times more likely to be serving a sentence of life without parole than white youth. [7]

Poor legal assistance afforded to many teen defendants appears to further compromise just outcomes. Some of those Human Rights Watch interviewed or surveyed described a level of legal representation that falls well below professional norms. In California, one of the most salient errors reported to Human Rights Watch is attorneys’ failure to adequately represent youth offenders at the sentencing hearing. In 46 percent of cases, respondents reported that their attorney failed to argue for a lower sentence.

We support H.R. 4300 because it is sound public policy. Lawmakers do not face a choice between being “soft on crime” and supporting life without parole for teen offenders. Lawmakers can protect community safety, save on incarceration costs, and save youth from a lifetime in prison.

Proponents of life without parole believe the sentence is necessary in order to ensure retribution—that society metes out the worst punishment for the worst offenses. However, while teens can commit the same acts as adults, by virtue of their immaturity they are not as blameworthy or culpable. Recent developments in neuroscience have found that teens do not have adults’ developed abilities to think, to weigh consequences, to make sound decisions, to control their impulses, and to resist group pressures; their brains are anatomically different, still evolving into the brains of adults. These findings suggest that sentencing laws should be revised to ensure that youth offenders are not sentenced as if they were adults.

Supporters of the life without parole sentence also claim that teens who pause to consider the consequences before committing crimes will be deterred if they face harsh sentences such as life in prison without parole. But young people are less likely than adults to pause before acting, and when they do, research has failed to show that the threat of adult punishment deters them from crime. Deterrence is also unlikely given research showing that adolescents cannot really grasp the true significance of the sentence.

Some proponents claim that incapacitation justifies the use of life without parole sentences. No one can deny that life without parole makes some contribution to public safety to the extent that locking up youth offenders prevents them from committing additional crimes. It is undeniable, however, that many youth offenders can be rehabilitated and become productive members of society. The need to incapacitate a particular offender ends once he or she has been rehabilitated. There is no basis for believing that all or even most of the teens who receive life without parole sentences would otherwise have engaged in a life of crime. Our research indicates that many teens received life without parole for their first offense. There is little in their histories to warrant the assumption that they would not mature and be rehabilitated if they were spared a lifetime in prison.

Finally, we support H.R. 4300 because the US practice of sentencing youth to life without parole violates international law. International law prohibits life without parole sentences for those who commit their crimes before the age of 18, a prohibition that is universally applied outside of the United States. Oversight and enforcement bodies for two treaties to which the United States is a party (the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination) have found the practice of sentencing juvenile offenders to life without parole to be a clear violation of US treaty obligations.

There is movement to change these laws occurring across the country. Legislative efforts are pending in California, 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.

H.R. 4300 would eliminate life without parole for juvenile offenders in the United States and bring our country into compliance with international law and standards of justice. It would recognize that youth are different from adults and provide incentives for rehabilitation that reflect their unique ability to change. Human Rights Watch urges you to support this bill.

[1] Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, The Rest of Their Lives: Life Without Parole for Child Offenders in the United States, October 2005, http://hrw.org/reports/2005/us1005/, pp. 27-28.

[2] Human Rights Watch, When I Die, They’ll Send Me Home: Youth Sentenced to Life without Parole in California, January 2008, http://www.hrw.org/reports/2008/us0108/, p. 35.

[3] Ibid, p. 36.

[4] American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, “Second Chances, Juveniles Serving Life without Parole in Michigan’s Prisons,” 2004, http://www.aclumich.org/pubs/juvenilelifers.pdf (accessed September 2, 2008), p. 4.

[5] Human Rights Watch, Thrown Away: Children Sentenced to Life without Parole in Colorado, February 2005, http://hrw.org/reports/2005/us0205/, pp.18-19.

[6] Human Rights Watch, When I Die, They’ll Send Me Home: Youth Sentenced to Life without Parole in California, January 2008, http://www.hrw.org/reports/2008/us0108/, p. 21.

[7] Human Rights Watch, Executive Summary, The Rest of Their Lives: Life without Parole for Youth Offenders in the United States in 2008, May 2008, http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/2008/us1005/us1005execsum.pdf, pp.5-7.

Source: http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/09/17/testimony-elizabeth-calvin-children-s-rights-advocate-support-hr-4300-juvenile-justi

The Case for Juvenile Courts

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

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:

• 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.

During the July 31 mark-up, S. 3155 was further strengthened to:

• 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

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

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

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.

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

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