Posts
Wednesday, August 31, 2022
Friday, March 11, 2022
Amber Graduates College
The student has been awarded an AA in American studies and an AA in Social & Behavioral sciences for the Fall 2021 semester.
We have CC’ed our graduation office to notify the student via mail.
Friday, January 28, 2022
Another Child Dies In Custody
Kansas governor orders investigation into death of Black teen restrained at juvenile center
"This situation is tragic, and we must find a way to ensure something like this never happens again," Gov. Laura Kelly said.
The governor of Kansas ordered an investigation into a private foster care agency following the death of Cedric Lofton, 17, a Black foster child who became unresponsive as he was being restrained facedown for more than 30 minutes at a juvenile center in Wichita.
Lofton was a foster child at the foster care agency, DCCCA, according to a report by Sedgewick County District Attorney Marc Bennett
Lofton was described as being "paranoid," and he was "behaving erratically," the Kansas Bureau of Investigation said.
A struggle ensues, the video shows, and Lofton is put into a "wrap" restraint, which is used to hold down a person's legs and torso, officials have said. Lofton was taken to the juvenile center and seated upright on the floor in a holding room. The officers removed all the restraints before they left the room, the bodycam video shows.
A coroner ruled the death a homicide, listing the cause as "complications of cardiopulmonary arrest sustained after physical struggle while restrained in the prone position."
His family has demanded charges, but the district attorney has said no charges would be filed because of the state's "stand your ground law" and because staff members were defending themselves.
Wednesday, August 8, 2018
10 Innocent Kids Sentenced To Life In Prison
10 Innocent Kids Sentenced To Life In Prison >
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RirOyRSCe0k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RirOyRSCe0k
Florida holds highest rate of juveniles in adult prison
Florida holds the highest rate of juveniles in adult prison
By Alicia Adams
Northwest Florida Daily News
@aliciaNWFDN
Posted Apr 26, 2018 at 6:15 AM
MILTON — Since leaving her family practice, retired physician Dr. Paula Montgomery spends her time advocating for juvenile delinquents along with the League of Women Voters. Florida has the highest number of juveniles in the adult prison system in the country.
According to data from the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, Circuit 1 — Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa and Walton Counties — has the highest rate of direct-filed children, compared to all eligible for a direct file, at 24.4 percent. The state average is 8.8 percent. The state’s direct-file statute allows prosecutors to move a range of juvenile cases to adult court without a judge’s input.
“That will blow your mind,” Montgomery said. “Why is it that way?”
According to the 2017 report on Florida by the State of America’s Children, a total of 131 children were in adult jails or prisons in Florida in 2015. That same year, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that juveniles not convicted of murder may not be sentenced to life in prison, and those convicted of murder may not be sentenced to life without parole, citing that children are less liable and more agreeable to rehabilitation.
But is the adult prison system rehabilitating these children? Montgomery says no.
“The juvenile system is set up to include education and rehabilitation,” Montgomery said. “There’s really no arrangement for that in the adult prisons. Some of them have a way the kid can get a GED eventually... In Florida, you’re not eligible for [college coursework] until three years before your release... The adult system is keyed in on punishment.”
Montgomery said she talks to different organizations — most recently, the Milton Rotary Club — and people are resistant to believe these facts. Montgomery gets some of her data from the Florida Legislature Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability, which shows that the average age of juvenile cases directly filed into adult criminal court by the state attorney is 16.4, and the most common offense is burglary.
The 2017 Florida Policy Institute Report found that 63 percent of youth in prison are incarcerated for drug use, disorderly conduct, probation violations, property crimes and status offenses, such as running away.
“Research has shown that committing every youth offender to prison runs counter to the dual goals of making Florida safer and rehabilitating offenders to become productive and contributing members of the community,” the report said. “Youth imprisonment is ineffective and has produced a range of negative outcomes for affected youth, communities and taxpayers.”
This is the same stance Montgomery has and continues to fight for. So why are the juvenile delinquents of Circuit 1 continuing to be filed into the adult prison system?
“The reason that my numbers are higher is a number of things,” Bill Eddins, State Attorney of Circuit 1, said. “If you go back 13 years since I’ve been in office, you will see that the number of juveniles that were transferred from juvenile court to adult court initially went down until a few years ago when it trended back up.”
Eddins cites a crisis in the first circuit approximately three years ago where juvenile gangs burglarized cars and homes.
“I decided to take a very aggressive approach about transferring juvenile gang members who committed a large number of burglaries... or who committed violent crimes to adult court,” Eddins said. “As a result, the numbers... increased pretty dramatically. However, those numbers have now begun to trend back down.”
Eddins said in the past, he transferred a lot of older juveniles — teens up to 19 years old the juvenile justice system was overseeing for crimes they committed before they turned 18 — to adult court. However, he has recently changed his philosophy.
“I decided that unless it’s a violent crime, or... they have a bad record, I’m not going to be as aggressive about transferring older juveniles to adult court,” Eddins said.
According to Eddins, transferring a child to the adult court system does not mean they will be sent to an adult prison rather than a juvenile justice facility. Under state law, the judge has the final say on the child’s sentence.
The number of direct-filed children has been decreasing statewide — down 24 percent in the last five years — but the numbers in Santa Rosa County are beginning to rise again after a decline. Santa Rosa’s rate is down 2 percent from five years ago, but up 6 percent since last year.
http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/20180426/florida-holds-highest-rate-of-juveniles-in-adult-prison
By Alicia Adams
Northwest Florida Daily News
@aliciaNWFDN
Posted Apr 26, 2018 at 6:15 AM
MILTON — Since leaving her family practice, retired physician Dr. Paula Montgomery spends her time advocating for juvenile delinquents along with the League of Women Voters. Florida has the highest number of juveniles in the adult prison system in the country.
According to data from the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, Circuit 1 — Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa and Walton Counties — has the highest rate of direct-filed children, compared to all eligible for a direct file, at 24.4 percent. The state average is 8.8 percent. The state’s direct-file statute allows prosecutors to move a range of juvenile cases to adult court without a judge’s input.
“That will blow your mind,” Montgomery said. “Why is it that way?”
According to the 2017 report on Florida by the State of America’s Children, a total of 131 children were in adult jails or prisons in Florida in 2015. That same year, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that juveniles not convicted of murder may not be sentenced to life in prison, and those convicted of murder may not be sentenced to life without parole, citing that children are less liable and more agreeable to rehabilitation.
But is the adult prison system rehabilitating these children? Montgomery says no.
“The juvenile system is set up to include education and rehabilitation,” Montgomery said. “There’s really no arrangement for that in the adult prisons. Some of them have a way the kid can get a GED eventually... In Florida, you’re not eligible for [college coursework] until three years before your release... The adult system is keyed in on punishment.”
Montgomery said she talks to different organizations — most recently, the Milton Rotary Club — and people are resistant to believe these facts. Montgomery gets some of her data from the Florida Legislature Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability, which shows that the average age of juvenile cases directly filed into adult criminal court by the state attorney is 16.4, and the most common offense is burglary.
The 2017 Florida Policy Institute Report found that 63 percent of youth in prison are incarcerated for drug use, disorderly conduct, probation violations, property crimes and status offenses, such as running away.
“Research has shown that committing every youth offender to prison runs counter to the dual goals of making Florida safer and rehabilitating offenders to become productive and contributing members of the community,” the report said. “Youth imprisonment is ineffective and has produced a range of negative outcomes for affected youth, communities and taxpayers.”
This is the same stance Montgomery has and continues to fight for. So why are the juvenile delinquents of Circuit 1 continuing to be filed into the adult prison system?
“The reason that my numbers are higher is a number of things,” Bill Eddins, State Attorney of Circuit 1, said. “If you go back 13 years since I’ve been in office, you will see that the number of juveniles that were transferred from juvenile court to adult court initially went down until a few years ago when it trended back up.”
Eddins cites a crisis in the first circuit approximately three years ago where juvenile gangs burglarized cars and homes.
“I decided to take a very aggressive approach about transferring juvenile gang members who committed a large number of burglaries... or who committed violent crimes to adult court,” Eddins said. “As a result, the numbers... increased pretty dramatically. However, those numbers have now begun to trend back down.”
Eddins said in the past, he transferred a lot of older juveniles — teens up to 19 years old the juvenile justice system was overseeing for crimes they committed before they turned 18 — to adult court. However, he has recently changed his philosophy.
“I decided that unless it’s a violent crime, or... they have a bad record, I’m not going to be as aggressive about transferring older juveniles to adult court,” Eddins said.
According to Eddins, transferring a child to the adult court system does not mean they will be sent to an adult prison rather than a juvenile justice facility. Under state law, the judge has the final say on the child’s sentence.
The number of direct-filed children has been decreasing statewide — down 24 percent in the last five years — but the numbers in Santa Rosa County are beginning to rise again after a decline. Santa Rosa’s rate is down 2 percent from five years ago, but up 6 percent since last year.
http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/20180426/florida-holds-highest-rate-of-juveniles-in-adult-prison
Monday, July 23, 2018
7 Juveniles Sentenced To LWOp In Minneapolis
List Of Juveniles Sentenced To Life Without Parole In Minn.
MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – There have been seven juveniles in Minnesota sentenced to life in prison
without parole since the year 1996. All were sentenced on first-degree murder charges, among others.
Timothy Chambers, now 33,
Tony Roman Nose, now 29
Jeffrey Pendleton, Jr., now 23
Lamonte Martin, now 23
Prentis Jackson, now 23,
Brian Flowers, now 21
Mahdi Hassan Ali, now 19,
https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/06/26/list-of-juveniles-sentenced-to-life-without-parole-in-minn/
MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – There have been seven juveniles in Minnesota sentenced to life in prison
without parole since the year 1996. All were sentenced on first-degree murder charges, among others.
Timothy Chambers, now 33,
Tony Roman Nose, now 29
Jeffrey Pendleton, Jr., now 23
Lamonte Martin, now 23
Prentis Jackson, now 23,
Brian Flowers, now 21
Mahdi Hassan Ali, now 19,
https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/06/26/list-of-juveniles-sentenced-to-life-without-parole-in-minn/
Isolation & Abuse : New York Teens
By Ashley Southall and Jan Ransom, New York Times
NATIONAL NEWS
New York City’s Young Inmates Are Held in Isolation Upstate Despite Ban
Posted 11:49 p.m. yesterday
NEW YORK — Three years ago, when New York City banned solitary confinement for inmates younger than 22 and curtailed it for others, Mayor Bill de Blasio held up the policy as a model for reform.
But since the rules were approved, the city has stepped up a long-standing practice of transferring some inmates to correctional facilities elsewhere in the state where no such restrictions exist. Dozens of New York City inmates, including several teenagers, have ended up in solitary confinement
Transfers of inmates 21 and younger increased sharply starting in 2015, the year the city adopted the solitary ban, and except for a drop in 2017, the number of such transfers has remained well above the levels seen before the ban, according to Correction Department data.
At least 10 young inmates have been transferred from New York City this year, including eight who are in solitary at one upstate jail, the Albany County Correctional Facility, according to their lawyers.
Defense lawyers say transferring inmates allows city officials to avoid responsibility for harsher conditions of confinement. A few of the lawyers are challenging the transfers in court on the grounds that they violate inmates’ due process rights, as well as state law and city rules.
Isolation of inmates has been shown to heighten the risks of suicide and depression, especially among young people, and the city has not only limited the use of solitary confinement but has begun moving 16- and 17-year-olds off Rikers Island to comply with a new state law that raised the age at which a person could be charged as an adult to 18. But some of the reform efforts have faced resistance, most notably from the union representing guards, which has said serious sanctions like solitary must be preserved for violent inmates.
All the inmates sent to Albany said through their attorneys or in interviews that they have been beaten by guards and put into solitary confinement for months.
Steven Espinal, 19, said guards stomped and kicked him so badly when he arrived that he lost hearing in his left ear and passed blood in his urine. He was hospitalized, then sentenced to 600 days in solitary confinement for violating jail rules, his lawyer said.
Currently, 10 young New York City inmates are being held in outside jails, according to the Correction Department. There are 811 inmates younger than 21 in the city’s jails.
Detailed information about how transfers have been used under de Blasio was not available because orders granted for safety reasons were destroyed three years after they expired. That practice ended in April, when the state Commission of Correction, which approves transfers
Since city jails implemented alternatives to solitary confinement for inmates 21 and younger, officers have complained they lost an effective tool for controlling young inmates.
Inmates sent to the Albany jail described a pattern of abuse that begins with made up misconduct and weapons violations. In written complaints and in interviews with The New York Times and their lawyers, they said the charges serve as a pretext for beating and isolating them.
https://www.wral.com/new-york-city-s-young-inmates-are-held-in-isolation-upstate-despite-ban/17714114/
NATIONAL NEWS
New York City’s Young Inmates Are Held in Isolation Upstate Despite Ban
Posted 11:49 p.m. yesterday
NEW YORK — Three years ago, when New York City banned solitary confinement for inmates younger than 22 and curtailed it for others, Mayor Bill de Blasio held up the policy as a model for reform.
But since the rules were approved, the city has stepped up a long-standing practice of transferring some inmates to correctional facilities elsewhere in the state where no such restrictions exist. Dozens of New York City inmates, including several teenagers, have ended up in solitary confinement
Transfers of inmates 21 and younger increased sharply starting in 2015, the year the city adopted the solitary ban, and except for a drop in 2017, the number of such transfers has remained well above the levels seen before the ban, according to Correction Department data.
At least 10 young inmates have been transferred from New York City this year, including eight who are in solitary at one upstate jail, the Albany County Correctional Facility, according to their lawyers.
Defense lawyers say transferring inmates allows city officials to avoid responsibility for harsher conditions of confinement. A few of the lawyers are challenging the transfers in court on the grounds that they violate inmates’ due process rights, as well as state law and city rules.
Isolation of inmates has been shown to heighten the risks of suicide and depression, especially among young people, and the city has not only limited the use of solitary confinement but has begun moving 16- and 17-year-olds off Rikers Island to comply with a new state law that raised the age at which a person could be charged as an adult to 18. But some of the reform efforts have faced resistance, most notably from the union representing guards, which has said serious sanctions like solitary must be preserved for violent inmates.
All the inmates sent to Albany said through their attorneys or in interviews that they have been beaten by guards and put into solitary confinement for months.
Steven Espinal, 19, said guards stomped and kicked him so badly when he arrived that he lost hearing in his left ear and passed blood in his urine. He was hospitalized, then sentenced to 600 days in solitary confinement for violating jail rules, his lawyer said.
Currently, 10 young New York City inmates are being held in outside jails, according to the Correction Department. There are 811 inmates younger than 21 in the city’s jails.
Detailed information about how transfers have been used under de Blasio was not available because orders granted for safety reasons were destroyed three years after they expired. That practice ended in April, when the state Commission of Correction, which approves transfers
Since city jails implemented alternatives to solitary confinement for inmates 21 and younger, officers have complained they lost an effective tool for controlling young inmates.
Inmates sent to the Albany jail described a pattern of abuse that begins with made up misconduct and weapons violations. In written complaints and in interviews with The New York Times and their lawyers, they said the charges serve as a pretext for beating and isolating them.
https://www.wral.com/new-york-city-s-young-inmates-are-held-in-isolation-upstate-despite-ban/17714114/
Wednesday, May 23, 2018
TAKE ACTION FOR CA. YOUTH
Fair Sentencing for Youth
Learn, get support, and take action for justice.
Join families and friends of youth sentenced to prison.
Dear Friends and Families-
Take action!
Let's never send a 14- & 15-year-old to adult court again.
Two easy things you can do to help change California's law.
Dig up a picture of yourself at age 14 or 15.
Support SB 1391 by finding a picture of yourself at age 14 or 15 and help remind Californians just how young kids sentenced as adults can be. We're asking people to post pictures of themselves at age 14 or 15 with a statement of support for SB 1391 and hashtags: #LifeAt14 / #LifeAt15, #CareNotCages, #PassSB1391. Ask others to join in! Please let us know - click here - if you can find a photo of yourself by May 17. We'll send a reminder when the campaign starts the following week, along with suggested tweets, Facebook, etc.
Make a 30-second call to your senator, and ask others to do the same.
Right now is the time to send in letters or just make a call. You can find who represents you and an easy sample letter or instructions on
making a 30-second call to your senator by clicking here. >
http://fairsentencingforyouth.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/SB-1391-Sample-Support-Letters-Individual-multi-to-SEN-ASM-FINAL.pdf
With gratitude for you all,
Elizabeth Calvin
Human Rights Watch
and
Dennis Flynn
CARES for Youth
LEARN ABOUT SB 1391.
They can't get a driver's license, buy a lottery ticket, go to an R-rated movie, or purchase a beer or cigarettes. Yet, if they commit a crime, they can be treated just like an adult and lose the real chances to grow and mature in the juvenile system.
Read about the bill here. Take two minutes out of your day, and write a letter to your Senator and Assembly Member, or, take 30 seconds to call! Get a sample letter by clicking on this link, or click here for a script and instructions for a 30-second call to your senator.
Watch this video of Daniel, who is a successful college student now, but at age 14 he was facing 35-years-to-life in prison.
Help us get the word out! Tweet or post these on Facebook and link to: www.fairsentencingforyout h.org/take-action/
A 14- or 15-year-old is #NotAnAdult #PassSB1391 @FairS entencing
Prison sentences are #NotRightforaChild #PassSB1391 @FairSentencing
Our youth deserve #CareNotCages #PassSB1391 @FairSentencing
GET YOURS!
THE UPDATED
YOUTH OFFENDER
PAROLE GUIDE
For people inside and
their families and friends.
Click here to get yours!
http://fairsentencingforyouth.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Youth-Offender-Parole-Guide_Working_v9-oct-4-2017-final.pdf
Learn, get support, and take action for justice.
Join families and friends of youth sentenced to prison.
Dear Friends and Families-
Take action!
Let's never send a 14- & 15-year-old to adult court again.
Two easy things you can do to help change California's law.
Dig up a picture of yourself at age 14 or 15.
Support SB 1391 by finding a picture of yourself at age 14 or 15 and help remind Californians just how young kids sentenced as adults can be. We're asking people to post pictures of themselves at age 14 or 15 with a statement of support for SB 1391 and hashtags: #LifeAt14 / #LifeAt15, #CareNotCages, #PassSB1391. Ask others to join in! Please let us know - click here - if you can find a photo of yourself by May 17. We'll send a reminder when the campaign starts the following week, along with suggested tweets, Facebook, etc.
Make a 30-second call to your senator, and ask others to do the same.
Right now is the time to send in letters or just make a call. You can find who represents you and an easy sample letter or instructions on
making a 30-second call to your senator by clicking here. >
http://fairsentencingforyouth.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/SB-1391-Sample-Support-Letters-Individual-multi-to-SEN-ASM-FINAL.pdf
With gratitude for you all,
Elizabeth Calvin
Human Rights Watch
and
Dennis Flynn
CARES for Youth
LEARN ABOUT SB 1391.
They can't get a driver's license, buy a lottery ticket, go to an R-rated movie, or purchase a beer or cigarettes. Yet, if they commit a crime, they can be treated just like an adult and lose the real chances to grow and mature in the juvenile system.
Read about the bill here. Take two minutes out of your day, and write a letter to your Senator and Assembly Member, or, take 30 seconds to call! Get a sample letter by clicking on this link, or click here for a script and instructions for a 30-second call to your senator.
Watch this video of Daniel, who is a successful college student now, but at age 14 he was facing 35-years-to-life in prison.
Help us get the word out! Tweet or post these on Facebook and link to: www.fairsentencingforyout h.org/take-action/
A 14- or 15-year-old is #NotAnAdult #PassSB1391 @FairS entencing
Prison sentences are #NotRightforaChild #PassSB1391 @FairSentencing
Our youth deserve #CareNotCages #PassSB1391 @FairSentencing
GET YOURS!
THE UPDATED
YOUTH OFFENDER
PAROLE GUIDE
For people inside and
their families and friends.
Click here to get yours!
http://fairsentencingforyouth.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Youth-Offender-Parole-Guide_Working_v9-oct-4-2017-final.pdf
Tuesday, May 1, 2018
14 Yrs Old Doing 25-Life
Clemency for 14 year old sentenced in 2007 to 25 years, serving a mandatory time of 100%.
What were you doing at the age of 14? Now imagine facing a 25 year to life prison sentence at this age? Do you feel a split second should determine your whole life? And are you the same person now that you were then? This was the case for one young man 10 years ago, a child being punished as an adult.
In 2007 Brian Harrington Jr. was 14 years old when he found himself in an inexplicable situation with the law for the first time in his life. An older relative of Brian had set up a gun sale with another young man, who he had brought into the neighborhood where Brian resided. On this day a split second changed the lives of those involved forever; ultimately the unfortunate loss of a life and the imprisonment of Brian. In the process of the sale, the gun was handed to Brian by an 18 year old relative, and without the knowledge that the gun was loaded, Brian reached in to display the gun. In this moment the buyer attempted to drive away. Brian's instinctive reaction to pull back from a moving vehicle caused the gun to discharge. This was the moment that changed everything. Later Brian would be in custody along with the others involved. He was facing involuntary manslaughter charges in juvenile court. Brian was interrogated without representation or even the presence of a legal guardian. He was told he was lying, this was not an accident, and the goal was to rob the young man. The three other young men also involved were all questioned and had consistent stories of a gun deal and the accidental discharge of the gun. Subsequently police offered all the young men the option to admit to a robbery, thereby promising leniency in their sentencing in return placing all fault on Brian, they complied. Brian however, maintained all along that it was an accident and thereby being the only one refusing to change his statement to suit the desired narrative of the detectives, he thus became the target of a felony murder charge. Brian was transferred to adult court and tried as an adult. At 14 years old Brian was sentenced under the same previsions and guidelines as an adult would if found in the same situation. Facing a 25 to a life sentence, Brian took a plea of 25 years and was placed under Illinois's Truth in Sentencing law. This TIS is a mandatory 100% time given by the court to be served, no possibility of parole.
Now 10 years in to his sentence, Brian still thinks of the young man and his family. He wishes the best for them, and would hope for them to know he never intentionally meant to hurt anyone. Brian has seen 7 different facilities, and has made the decision to make the best out of his situation and self educate. He has achieved his G.E.D, he received his Associate Degree with honors, studies law, active in the basketball team and coaches the baseball team, is an extremely talented portrait artist and writer, and works within the facility as an art instructor. Our goal is to have his sentence revisited and clemency granted by the governor of Illinois, in hopes of bringing Brian home sooner. If Brian receives no relief he will return to the world as a 40 year old man after completing his entire sentence for something that was ultimately an accident, 14-40? By bringing attention to this inequity, and with your support we hope to reach our goal. Thank you.
Instagram: @kingmoosaproject Facebook: King Moosa Project
What were you doing at the age of 14? Now imagine facing a 25 year to life prison sentence at this age? Do you feel a split second should determine your whole life? And are you the same person now that you were then? This was the case for one young man 10 years ago, a child being punished as an adult.
In 2007 Brian Harrington Jr. was 14 years old when he found himself in an inexplicable situation with the law for the first time in his life. An older relative of Brian had set up a gun sale with another young man, who he had brought into the neighborhood where Brian resided. On this day a split second changed the lives of those involved forever; ultimately the unfortunate loss of a life and the imprisonment of Brian. In the process of the sale, the gun was handed to Brian by an 18 year old relative, and without the knowledge that the gun was loaded, Brian reached in to display the gun. In this moment the buyer attempted to drive away. Brian's instinctive reaction to pull back from a moving vehicle caused the gun to discharge. This was the moment that changed everything. Later Brian would be in custody along with the others involved. He was facing involuntary manslaughter charges in juvenile court. Brian was interrogated without representation or even the presence of a legal guardian. He was told he was lying, this was not an accident, and the goal was to rob the young man. The three other young men also involved were all questioned and had consistent stories of a gun deal and the accidental discharge of the gun. Subsequently police offered all the young men the option to admit to a robbery, thereby promising leniency in their sentencing in return placing all fault on Brian, they complied. Brian however, maintained all along that it was an accident and thereby being the only one refusing to change his statement to suit the desired narrative of the detectives, he thus became the target of a felony murder charge. Brian was transferred to adult court and tried as an adult. At 14 years old Brian was sentenced under the same previsions and guidelines as an adult would if found in the same situation. Facing a 25 to a life sentence, Brian took a plea of 25 years and was placed under Illinois's Truth in Sentencing law. This TIS is a mandatory 100% time given by the court to be served, no possibility of parole.
Now 10 years in to his sentence, Brian still thinks of the young man and his family. He wishes the best for them, and would hope for them to know he never intentionally meant to hurt anyone. Brian has seen 7 different facilities, and has made the decision to make the best out of his situation and self educate. He has achieved his G.E.D, he received his Associate Degree with honors, studies law, active in the basketball team and coaches the baseball team, is an extremely talented portrait artist and writer, and works within the facility as an art instructor. Our goal is to have his sentence revisited and clemency granted by the governor of Illinois, in hopes of bringing Brian home sooner. If Brian receives no relief he will return to the world as a 40 year old man after completing his entire sentence for something that was ultimately an accident, 14-40? By bringing attention to this inequity, and with your support we hope to reach our goal. Thank you.
Instagram: @kingmoosaproject Facebook: King Moosa Project
Thursday, March 15, 2018
Staff Recommends Sentence Reduction For Amber
4 Laudatory Chronos signed by my the correctional Leiutentants to commend me for a positive attitude towards both staff & my peers.
The Chrono Reads>
This CDC 12&B is being submitted in order to commend Inmate Amber Riley #WA3123
for her positive programming efforts. I have known inmate Riley for 4 years since she transfored from VSPW. She continuously displays a confident and positive attitude.Inmate Riley is always respectful towards staff and has not received any RVR'S while being housed at Central California Women's Facility .I have also observed that she is liked & respected by her peers. She contributes to the facilities programming atmosphere and is constantly seeking to better herself in order to prepare her transition into the community. I think Inmate Riley should be commended for her hard work and personal achievements. It should be noted that Inmate Riley reports to work,ducats, and other activities in which she is involved,punctually and enthusiastically.
Signed: J.Pimentel Correctional Lieutenant
May 9/2016:
---------------------
7/7/2017
Correctional Officer M. Shabbar
This CDC 128-B is being Submitted on Behalf of Inmate Riley #WA3123.
I have been able to supervise Inmate Riley since 2017, in the building as one one of her job supervisors (Building 703/"A" Yard Program Office where Inmate Riley is assigned Facility "A" Lieutenants Clerk. Inmate Riley maintains a positive and respectful attitude staff & peers. Riley abides bt the rules and regulations. I have never seen Inmate Riley behave in a negative or disruptive manner, and therefore should be commended for the character she consistently presents to the prison community.
Signed: Facility "A: Third Watch
M. Shabbar, Correctional Officer.
7/7/2017
--------------------------
128-B Chrono /8/18/2017
E-File/ Laudatory/Informational Chrono
Signed: Relief Officer
C.Celestin, Correctional Officer
The purpose of this 128-B Chrono is to commend Inmate Riley #WA3123.
I have observed Inmate Riley's good report with the staff and her peers, despite all the different attitudes within the institutional environment.
Inmate Riley is always consistent with her attitude & behavior.he also practices integrity. She stays focused and committed to being herself. Inmate Riley has participated in some of our self help groups,she is learning skills to take with her when released.
Inmate Riley should be commended for having a good outlook on life and for her behavior and the progress she has attained regarding her personal growth.
-----------------Please Sign Amber's New Petition For A Sentence Reduction
PLEASE Help Amber To Come Home
https://www.change.org/p/governor-edmund-brown-please-help-amber-riley-come-home?j=229259&sfmc_sub=50997977&l=32_HTML&u=41927255&mid=7233052&jb=846
http://rileyj240.blogspot.com/2012/01/age-of-child-interrogating-juveniles.html
>
Jan. 19th 2018>>
My name is Amber R Riley and I was arrested for murder at the age of 16.
It has been 15 years ago that I was charged as an adult & sentenced to 26 To
Life.I had not been in trouble before this nor have I sence.I have a good reort with staff & my peers. I have spent the last 16 years aay from my family, my mom & dad whom I love very much & need to be with as they are elderly now & not in the best of health.
I have worked on my education all these years obtaing my GED & I have almost completed my AA degree in Social and Behavioral studies as well as a Certificate
in Business. I have worked to better myself through peer groups for myself & others by mentoring the younger inmates charged as adults. I am currently training rescue dogs for mentally & physically disabled through a program called Little Angels Service Dogs & this coming week will mentor to my first Juvenile from the New Youth Diverson Program where I hope to make a difference in Teenagers decisions they make & hopefully help them from making bad choices that could lead them to prision.
>
4 Laudatory Chronos signed by my the correctional Lieutenants to commend me for a positive attitude towards both staff & my peers.
The Chrono Reads>
This CDC 12&B is being submitted in order to commend Inmate Amber Riley #WA3123
for her positive programming efforts. I have known inmate Riley for 4 years since she transferred from VSPW. She continuously displays a confident and positive attitude.Inmate Riley is always respectful towards staff and has not received any RVR'S while being housed at Central California Women's Facility .I have also observed that she is liked & respected by her peers. She contributes to the facilities programming atmosphere and is constantly seeking to better herself in order to prepare her transition into the community. I think Inmate Riley should be commended for her hard work and personal achievements. It should be noted that Inmate Riley reports to work,ducats, and other activities in which she is involved,punctually and enthusiastically.
Signed: J.Pimentel Correctional Lieutenant
May 9/2016:
---------------------
7/7/2017
Correctional Officer M. Shabbar
This CDC 128-B is being Submitted on Behalf of Inmate Riley #WA3123.
I have been able to supervise Inmate Riley since 2017, in the building as one one of her job supervisors (Building 703/"A" Yard Program Office where Inmate Riley is assigned Facility "A" Lieutenants Clerk. Inmate Riley maintains a positive and respectful attitude staff & peers. Riley abides bt the rules and regulations. I have never seen Inmate Riley behave in a negative or disruptive manner, and therefore should be commended for the character she consistently presents to the prison community.
Signed: Facility "A: Third Watch
M. Shabbar, Correctional Officer.
7/7/2017
--------------------------
128-B Chrono /8/18/2017
E-File/ Laudatory/Informational Chrono
Signed: Relief Officer
C.Celestin, Correctional Officer
The purpose of this 128-B Chrono is to commend Inmate Riley #WA3123.
I have observed Inmate Riley's good report with the staff and her peers, despite all the different attitudes within the institutional environment.
Inmate Riley is always consistent with her attitude & behavior.he also practices integrity. She stays focused and committed to being herself. Inmate Riley has participated in some of our self help groups,she is learning skills to take with her when released.
Inmate Riley should be commended for having a good outlook on life and for her behavior and the progress she has attained regarding her personal growth.
-----------------Please Sign Amber's New Petition For A Sentence Reduction
PLEASE Help Amber To Come Home
https://www.change.org/p/governor-edmund-brown-please-help-amber-riley-come-home?j=229259&sfmc_sub=50997977&l=32_HTML&u=41927255&mid=7233052&jb=846
http://rileyj240.blogspot.com/2012/01/age-of-child-interrogating-juveniles.html
The Chrono Reads>
This CDC 12&B is being submitted in order to commend Inmate Amber Riley #WA3123
for her positive programming efforts. I have known inmate Riley for 4 years since she transfored from VSPW. She continuously displays a confident and positive attitude.Inmate Riley is always respectful towards staff and has not received any RVR'S while being housed at Central California Women's Facility .I have also observed that she is liked & respected by her peers. She contributes to the facilities programming atmosphere and is constantly seeking to better herself in order to prepare her transition into the community. I think Inmate Riley should be commended for her hard work and personal achievements. It should be noted that Inmate Riley reports to work,ducats, and other activities in which she is involved,punctually and enthusiastically.
Signed: J.Pimentel Correctional Lieutenant
May 9/2016:
---------------------
7/7/2017
Correctional Officer M. Shabbar
This CDC 128-B is being Submitted on Behalf of Inmate Riley #WA3123.
I have been able to supervise Inmate Riley since 2017, in the building as one one of her job supervisors (Building 703/"A" Yard Program Office where Inmate Riley is assigned Facility "A" Lieutenants Clerk. Inmate Riley maintains a positive and respectful attitude staff & peers. Riley abides bt the rules and regulations. I have never seen Inmate Riley behave in a negative or disruptive manner, and therefore should be commended for the character she consistently presents to the prison community.
Signed: Facility "A: Third Watch
M. Shabbar, Correctional Officer.
7/7/2017
--------------------------
128-B Chrono /8/18/2017
E-File/ Laudatory/Informational Chrono
Signed: Relief Officer
C.Celestin, Correctional Officer
The purpose of this 128-B Chrono is to commend Inmate Riley #WA3123.
I have observed Inmate Riley's good report with the staff and her peers, despite all the different attitudes within the institutional environment.
Inmate Riley is always consistent with her attitude & behavior.he also practices integrity. She stays focused and committed to being herself. Inmate Riley has participated in some of our self help groups,she is learning skills to take with her when released.
Inmate Riley should be commended for having a good outlook on life and for her behavior and the progress she has attained regarding her personal growth.
-----------------Please Sign Amber's New Petition For A Sentence Reduction
PLEASE Help Amber To Come Home
https://www.change.org/p/governor-edmund-brown-please-help-amber-riley-come-home?j=229259&sfmc_sub=50997977&l=32_HTML&u=41927255&mid=7233052&jb=846
http://rileyj240.blogspot.com/2012/01/age-of-child-interrogating-juveniles.html
>
Jan. 19th 2018>>
My name is Amber R Riley and I was arrested for murder at the age of 16.
It has been 15 years ago that I was charged as an adult & sentenced to 26 To
Life.I had not been in trouble before this nor have I sence.I have a good reort with staff & my peers. I have spent the last 16 years aay from my family, my mom & dad whom I love very much & need to be with as they are elderly now & not in the best of health.
I have worked on my education all these years obtaing my GED & I have almost completed my AA degree in Social and Behavioral studies as well as a Certificate
in Business. I have worked to better myself through peer groups for myself & others by mentoring the younger inmates charged as adults. I am currently training rescue dogs for mentally & physically disabled through a program called Little Angels Service Dogs & this coming week will mentor to my first Juvenile from the New Youth Diverson Program where I hope to make a difference in Teenagers decisions they make & hopefully help them from making bad choices that could lead them to prision.
>
4 Laudatory Chronos signed by my the correctional Lieutenants to commend me for a positive attitude towards both staff & my peers.
The Chrono Reads>
This CDC 12&B is being submitted in order to commend Inmate Amber Riley #WA3123
for her positive programming efforts. I have known inmate Riley for 4 years since she transferred from VSPW. She continuously displays a confident and positive attitude.Inmate Riley is always respectful towards staff and has not received any RVR'S while being housed at Central California Women's Facility .I have also observed that she is liked & respected by her peers. She contributes to the facilities programming atmosphere and is constantly seeking to better herself in order to prepare her transition into the community. I think Inmate Riley should be commended for her hard work and personal achievements. It should be noted that Inmate Riley reports to work,ducats, and other activities in which she is involved,punctually and enthusiastically.
Signed: J.Pimentel Correctional Lieutenant
May 9/2016:
---------------------
7/7/2017
Correctional Officer M. Shabbar
This CDC 128-B is being Submitted on Behalf of Inmate Riley #WA3123.
I have been able to supervise Inmate Riley since 2017, in the building as one one of her job supervisors (Building 703/"A" Yard Program Office where Inmate Riley is assigned Facility "A" Lieutenants Clerk. Inmate Riley maintains a positive and respectful attitude staff & peers. Riley abides bt the rules and regulations. I have never seen Inmate Riley behave in a negative or disruptive manner, and therefore should be commended for the character she consistently presents to the prison community.
Signed: Facility "A: Third Watch
M. Shabbar, Correctional Officer.
7/7/2017
--------------------------
128-B Chrono /8/18/2017
E-File/ Laudatory/Informational Chrono
Signed: Relief Officer
C.Celestin, Correctional Officer
The purpose of this 128-B Chrono is to commend Inmate Riley #WA3123.
I have observed Inmate Riley's good report with the staff and her peers, despite all the different attitudes within the institutional environment.
Inmate Riley is always consistent with her attitude & behavior.he also practices integrity. She stays focused and committed to being herself. Inmate Riley has participated in some of our self help groups,she is learning skills to take with her when released.
Inmate Riley should be commended for having a good outlook on life and for her behavior and the progress she has attained regarding her personal growth.
-----------------Please Sign Amber's New Petition For A Sentence Reduction
PLEASE Help Amber To Come Home
https://www.change.org/p/governor-edmund-brown-please-help-amber-riley-come-home?j=229259&sfmc_sub=50997977&l=32_HTML&u=41927255&mid=7233052&jb=846
http://rileyj240.blogspot.com/2012/01/age-of-child-interrogating-juveniles.html
Friday, December 8, 2017
Juvenile Cases
Case Name: People v. Vela , District: 4 DCA , Division: 3 , Case #: G052282
Opinion Date: 4/24/2017 , DAR #: 3958
Case Holding:
Juvenile offender who was charged by direct filing and tried as an adult is retroactively entitled to a transfer hearing under Proposition 57 because his case was pending on direct appeal, and not final, when Proposition 57 was enacted. Vela was sentenced to 72 years to life for murder and related gang charges for an offense committed when he was 16 years old. He was charged by direct filing and tried in adult court. While his appeal was pending, voters passed Proposition 57, which eliminated prosecutors' ability to directly file charges against juveniles in adult court. Instead, a juvenile's case may be transferred to adult court only after a transfer (fitness) hearing before a juvenile court judge. In a petition for rehearing in the Court of Appeal, Vela argued he was entitled to Proposition 57 relief under In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740. Held: Conditionally reversed. While laws generally operate prospectively only, Estrada provides that a law passed that lessens punishment should apply to cases pending on appeal, as the amendment represents an express determination that the former penalty was too severe. When a change in the law allows a court to exercise its sentencing discretion more favorably for a particular defendant, the reasoning of Estrada applies. Here, for a minor accused of a crime, it is a potential "ameliorating benefit" to have a neutral judge, rather than a prosecutor, determine that he or she is unfit for rehabilitation within the juvenile justice system. It is also a benefit for a minor to remain in the juvenile court, where the primary emphasis is on rehabilitation. In approving Proposition 57, which was intended to broaden the number of minors who could potentially stay within the juvenile justice system, the electorate determined that the former system of direct filing was too severe. Thus, it is an inevitable inference that the electorate intended the potential ameliorating benefits of Proposition 57 to apply to every case in which it constitutionally could apply. The court disagreed with People v. Cervantes (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 569.
The appropriate remedy is conditional reversal dependent on the outcome of a juvenile transfer hearing. While Vela argued his convictions should be reversed, the Attorney General argued that the failure to provide Vela with a transfer hearing was harmless error. The court disagreed with both parties, concluding that the appropriate remedy is conditional reversal dependent on the outcome of a juvenile transfer hearing. The court directed the juvenile court to conduct a transfer hearing and, to the extent possible, treat the matter as though the prosecutor had originally filed a juvenile petition in juvenile court and had then moved to transfer the case to adult criminal court. If, after the hearing, the juvenile court determines that it would not have transferred the case, the juvenile court is to treat Vela's convictions as juvenile adjudications and impose an appropriate "disposition" within its discretion. Alternatively, if the juvenile court determines that it would have transferred the case to adult criminal court, the judgment will be reinstated, and the criminal court shall conduct a Franklin hearing. (See People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 [directing trial court to determine whether defendant had an opportunity to make a complete record of information that would be relevant at a youth offender parole hearing and, if not, permitting the parties to put relevant evidence on the record].)
The full opinion is available on the court's website here: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/G052282.PDF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case Name: In re B.M. , District: 2 DCA , Division: 6 , Case #: B277076
Opinion Date: 4/20/2017 , DAR #: 3827
Case Holding:
Juvenile court's factual finding that a common butter knife was a deadly weapon was not wholly irreconcilable with the evidence. Appellant, a minor, attacked her sister with a metal butter knife while her sister was lying on her back in bed. The sister covered herself with a blanket for protection. Although she felt pressure from the knife through the blanket, she was not injured. The juvenile court sustained a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging appellant committed felony assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)). On appeal, appellant argued there was insufficient evidence that the knife she used was a deadly weapon. Held: Affirmed. "As used in section 245, subdivision (a)(1), a deadly weapon is any object, instrument, or weapon which is used in such a manner as to be capable of producing and likely to produce, death or great bodily injury." (People v. Aguilar (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1023, 1028-1029 [internal quotations omitted].) Here, the juvenile court, sitting as the trier of fact, made a factual finding "that the six-inch metal butter knife could be used to slice or stab, even though it was not designed for such." Based on the facts of the case, the juvenile court's finding was not wholly irreconcilable with the evidence. When an object "is capable of being used in a 'dangerous or deadly' manner, and it may be fairly inferred from the evidence that its possessor intended on a particular occasion to use it as a weapon should the circumstances require, . . . its character as a 'dangerous or deadly weapon' may be thus established, at least for the purposes of that occasion." (People v. McCoy (1944) 25 Cal.2d 177, 189.) It does not matter that the victim was able to fend off great bodily injury with her blanket or that appellant was not skilled at using the knife. The court disagreed with In re Brandon T. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1491.
The trial court properly denied appellant's motion to exclude her statements to a police officer after the attack, because appellant was not in custody during the interview. Appellant's sister called 911 after the attack and an officer drove to her residence. The officer saw appellant outside and asked her if her name was B.M., and appellant said yes. The officer asked appellant to walk towards him and sit against the bumper of his marked patrol vehicle so he could talk to her about what happened, and they talked about the altercation. On appeal, appellant argued her constitutional rights were violated because the officer did not inform her of her Miranda rights before detaining and questioning her. The Court of Appeal disagreed. Miranda advisements are required only when a person is subjected to custodial interrogation. The test for Miranda custody is, would a reasonable person have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave. Based on the totality of the circumstances, appellant was not subjected to custodial interrogation. She was not placed under arrest or in handcuffs, and there was only one officer present. The detention was not prolonged and occurred in a noncoercive atmosphere. The officer was not confrontational and did not use interrogation techniques to pressure appellant. Under these circumstances, a reasonable person in appellant's situation would have believed she was free to leave at any time and terminate the interview.
The full opinion is available on the court's website here: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B277076.PDF
Opinion Date: 4/24/2017 , DAR #: 3958
Case Holding:
Juvenile offender who was charged by direct filing and tried as an adult is retroactively entitled to a transfer hearing under Proposition 57 because his case was pending on direct appeal, and not final, when Proposition 57 was enacted. Vela was sentenced to 72 years to life for murder and related gang charges for an offense committed when he was 16 years old. He was charged by direct filing and tried in adult court. While his appeal was pending, voters passed Proposition 57, which eliminated prosecutors' ability to directly file charges against juveniles in adult court. Instead, a juvenile's case may be transferred to adult court only after a transfer (fitness) hearing before a juvenile court judge. In a petition for rehearing in the Court of Appeal, Vela argued he was entitled to Proposition 57 relief under In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740. Held: Conditionally reversed. While laws generally operate prospectively only, Estrada provides that a law passed that lessens punishment should apply to cases pending on appeal, as the amendment represents an express determination that the former penalty was too severe. When a change in the law allows a court to exercise its sentencing discretion more favorably for a particular defendant, the reasoning of Estrada applies. Here, for a minor accused of a crime, it is a potential "ameliorating benefit" to have a neutral judge, rather than a prosecutor, determine that he or she is unfit for rehabilitation within the juvenile justice system. It is also a benefit for a minor to remain in the juvenile court, where the primary emphasis is on rehabilitation. In approving Proposition 57, which was intended to broaden the number of minors who could potentially stay within the juvenile justice system, the electorate determined that the former system of direct filing was too severe. Thus, it is an inevitable inference that the electorate intended the potential ameliorating benefits of Proposition 57 to apply to every case in which it constitutionally could apply. The court disagreed with People v. Cervantes (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 569.
The appropriate remedy is conditional reversal dependent on the outcome of a juvenile transfer hearing. While Vela argued his convictions should be reversed, the Attorney General argued that the failure to provide Vela with a transfer hearing was harmless error. The court disagreed with both parties, concluding that the appropriate remedy is conditional reversal dependent on the outcome of a juvenile transfer hearing. The court directed the juvenile court to conduct a transfer hearing and, to the extent possible, treat the matter as though the prosecutor had originally filed a juvenile petition in juvenile court and had then moved to transfer the case to adult criminal court. If, after the hearing, the juvenile court determines that it would not have transferred the case, the juvenile court is to treat Vela's convictions as juvenile adjudications and impose an appropriate "disposition" within its discretion. Alternatively, if the juvenile court determines that it would have transferred the case to adult criminal court, the judgment will be reinstated, and the criminal court shall conduct a Franklin hearing. (See People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 [directing trial court to determine whether defendant had an opportunity to make a complete record of information that would be relevant at a youth offender parole hearing and, if not, permitting the parties to put relevant evidence on the record].)
The full opinion is available on the court's website here: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/G052282.PDF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case Name: In re B.M. , District: 2 DCA , Division: 6 , Case #: B277076
Opinion Date: 4/20/2017 , DAR #: 3827
Case Holding:
Juvenile court's factual finding that a common butter knife was a deadly weapon was not wholly irreconcilable with the evidence. Appellant, a minor, attacked her sister with a metal butter knife while her sister was lying on her back in bed. The sister covered herself with a blanket for protection. Although she felt pressure from the knife through the blanket, she was not injured. The juvenile court sustained a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging appellant committed felony assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)). On appeal, appellant argued there was insufficient evidence that the knife she used was a deadly weapon. Held: Affirmed. "As used in section 245, subdivision (a)(1), a deadly weapon is any object, instrument, or weapon which is used in such a manner as to be capable of producing and likely to produce, death or great bodily injury." (People v. Aguilar (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1023, 1028-1029 [internal quotations omitted].) Here, the juvenile court, sitting as the trier of fact, made a factual finding "that the six-inch metal butter knife could be used to slice or stab, even though it was not designed for such." Based on the facts of the case, the juvenile court's finding was not wholly irreconcilable with the evidence. When an object "is capable of being used in a 'dangerous or deadly' manner, and it may be fairly inferred from the evidence that its possessor intended on a particular occasion to use it as a weapon should the circumstances require, . . . its character as a 'dangerous or deadly weapon' may be thus established, at least for the purposes of that occasion." (People v. McCoy (1944) 25 Cal.2d 177, 189.) It does not matter that the victim was able to fend off great bodily injury with her blanket or that appellant was not skilled at using the knife. The court disagreed with In re Brandon T. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1491.
The trial court properly denied appellant's motion to exclude her statements to a police officer after the attack, because appellant was not in custody during the interview. Appellant's sister called 911 after the attack and an officer drove to her residence. The officer saw appellant outside and asked her if her name was B.M., and appellant said yes. The officer asked appellant to walk towards him and sit against the bumper of his marked patrol vehicle so he could talk to her about what happened, and they talked about the altercation. On appeal, appellant argued her constitutional rights were violated because the officer did not inform her of her Miranda rights before detaining and questioning her. The Court of Appeal disagreed. Miranda advisements are required only when a person is subjected to custodial interrogation. The test for Miranda custody is, would a reasonable person have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave. Based on the totality of the circumstances, appellant was not subjected to custodial interrogation. She was not placed under arrest or in handcuffs, and there was only one officer present. The detention was not prolonged and occurred in a noncoercive atmosphere. The officer was not confrontational and did not use interrogation techniques to pressure appellant. Under these circumstances, a reasonable person in appellant's situation would have believed she was free to leave at any time and terminate the interview.
The full opinion is available on the court's website here: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B277076.PDF
Friday, December 1, 2017
Rikers Juvenile Beaten
New York: Correction Captain Charged With Beating Teenage Rikers Inmate
A New York City Correction Department captain was arrested on Thursday and charged with beating an inmate at Rikers Island so badly that several of the prisoner's teeth were broken, and prosecutors say four other guards helped cover up the attack.
The captain, Sandy Arkhurst, 42, pleaded not guilty before Justice Robert Neary in State Supreme Court in the Bronx and was later released on $10,000 bail. The four other officers charged - John Penafiel, 29; Christopher Squillaro, 31; Orlando Rivera, 58; and Michael Nicholson, 42 - were also released on $5,000 bail after denying the charges.
A federal monitor overseeing reforms at Rikers Island found in a report this spring that guards continued to use brutal force against inmates at an alarming rate and often lied to cover up those incidents. Those findings came despite efforts to clean up the troubled jail complex after the city reached a sweeping settlement agreement in 2015 in response to a lawsuit. Mayor Bill de Blasio has backed a plan to replace the sprawling complex with smaller jails.
All five guards were members of a special unit that was called to the Eric M. Taylor Center, one of the island's jails, on June 3, 2016, to deal with an 18-year-old inmate, Rodolfo Rodriguez, who was refusing to go into his cell, prosecutors said.
Read More
A New York City Correction Department captain was arrested on Thursday and charged with beating an inmate at Rikers Island so badly that several of the prisoner's teeth were broken, and prosecutors say four other guards helped cover up the attack.
The captain, Sandy Arkhurst, 42, pleaded not guilty before Justice Robert Neary in State Supreme Court in the Bronx and was later released on $10,000 bail. The four other officers charged - John Penafiel, 29; Christopher Squillaro, 31; Orlando Rivera, 58; and Michael Nicholson, 42 - were also released on $5,000 bail after denying the charges.
A federal monitor overseeing reforms at Rikers Island found in a report this spring that guards continued to use brutal force against inmates at an alarming rate and often lied to cover up those incidents. Those findings came despite efforts to clean up the troubled jail complex after the city reached a sweeping settlement agreement in 2015 in response to a lawsuit. Mayor Bill de Blasio has backed a plan to replace the sprawling complex with smaller jails.
All five guards were members of a special unit that was called to the Eric M. Taylor Center, one of the island's jails, on June 3, 2016, to deal with an 18-year-old inmate, Rodolfo Rodriguez, who was refusing to go into his cell, prosecutors said.
Read More
Friday, November 10, 2017
: 13-year-old raped by inmate at Angola Rodeo
Louisiana: 13-year-old raped by inmate at Angola Rodeo
The Louisiana State Penitentiary says it is investigating an "incident" after a report citing anonymous sources claimed a teen was raped at the Angola Rodeo.
WBRZ-TV in Baton Rouge reports that multiple sources agreed to discuss the "situation" after agreeing to not be identified. The station says numerous attempts to get information from officials were stymied until the report aired 6 p.m. Tuesday.
The report says a spokesperson for the state prison released a brief statement late Tuesday.
"There is an ongoing investigation into the alleged incident which may have occurred during the last weekend of the October 2017 rodeo," state prison spokesperson Ken Pastorick told WBRZ. "The details about the alleged incident will not be released or discussed until the appropriate time."
Read More
The Louisiana State Penitentiary says it is investigating an "incident" after a report citing anonymous sources claimed a teen was raped at the Angola Rodeo.
WBRZ-TV in Baton Rouge reports that multiple sources agreed to discuss the "situation" after agreeing to not be identified. The station says numerous attempts to get information from officials were stymied until the report aired 6 p.m. Tuesday.
The report says a spokesperson for the state prison released a brief statement late Tuesday.
"There is an ongoing investigation into the alleged incident which may have occurred during the last weekend of the October 2017 rodeo," state prison spokesperson Ken Pastorick told WBRZ. "The details about the alleged incident will not be released or discussed until the appropriate time."
Read More
Tuesday, October 31, 2017
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA)
NJJN
Today at 8:55 AM
Message body
For more than four decades the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) has had a profound impact on how our youth justice systems operate. In fact, it has so deeply changed how states organize their justice systems that many reformers, unfortunately, take it for granted.
Without the JJDPA, reformers would lack consistent data, a go-to federal agency, funds for community-based options and system changes, and state-level oversight bodies to monitor basic care for youth in the system.
This snapshot highlights the basics of what this law does and why it continues to be a critically important tool for helping young people and communities.
At the time that the JJDPA was enacted, egregious practices were commonplace in many states, such as regularly placing children in the juvenile justice system into adult jails. Thus, the JJDPA was enacted to provide federal guidance and standards to ensure a minimum level of safety and equitable treatment for youth in every state, U.S. territory, the District of Columbia, and tribes. Here are some of the key ways that the JJDPA does this:
Protects Youth
The JJDPA established four core protections for youth:
• The deinstitutionalization of youth with status offenses (DSO) core protection provides that youth charged with offenses such as truancy and running away should not be confined in juvenile facilities or adult jails;
Establishes State Oversight
Title II State Formula Grants5
Title V Local Delinquency Prevention Program
The JJDPA was last reauthorized by Congress in 2002. That means it does not reflect many of the important new developments in the field, including new adolescent brain science research; the cost-effectiveness and improved outcomes from trauma-informed, community-based approaches; and what we know works to address the needs of youth of color and girls. Efforts are underway to update and reauthorize the JJDPA to reflect these new developments and incentivize states to enact bold, evidence-based reform efforts that have proven to be more effective.
National Juvenile Justice Network | 2
1424 K St. NW, Suite 403 Washington, DC 20005 • info@njjn.org • www.njjn.org
>
WHAT JJDPA DOES:
>
• The jail removal core protection provides that youth should not be placed in adult jails and lock-ups except under very limited circumstances;
• The “sight and sound” separation core protection provides that youth in adult jails or lock-ups must be sight and sound separated from adult inmates; and
• The disproportionate minority contact core protection mandates that states take measures to reduce racial and ethnic disparities at key contact points in the juvenile justice system.
Created a Federal Agency
The JJDPA established the office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) – an agency that provides national leadership, coordination, and resources to states to help them comply with the core protections and other requirements of the JJDPA, as well as to develop effective youth justice programs to support youth and build healthy, safe communities. These resources include:
• provision of funding to the states through formula and discretionary grants;
• technical assistance and training to states;
• research, reports and trainings on youth justice issues and reforms; and
• the collection and analysis of statistics on youth involved with youth justice systems throughout the country.
Collects Detailed Data
OJJDP collects, and makes public, data on youth in every stage of the youth justice system throughout the country. OJJDP provides statistical analyses of this data as well as a Statistical Briefing Book, which allows all users to sort the data by a variety of categories on the national and state level.
Establishes State Oversight
The JJDPA requires that governors create a State Advisory Group to provide advice on youth justice policy, monitor and support the state’s progress in addressing the JJDPA core requirements, provide input into the distribution of the state’s JJDPA funding, and develop a three-year, youth justice plan for the state.
Funds Programs
The JJDPA emphasizes that states provide funding for community-based alternatives.1 JJDPA funds have been used by states to fund a variety of community-based programs, such as afterschool and summer delinquency prevention programs
Created a Federal Agency
The JJDPA established the office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) – an agency that provides national leadership, coordination, and resources to states to help them comply with the core protections and other requirements of the JJDPA, as well as to develop effective youth justice programs to support youth and build healthy, safe communities. These resources include:
• provision of funding to the states through formula and discretionary grants;
• technical assistance and training to states;
• research, reports and trainings on youth justice issues and reforms; and
• the collection and analysis of statistics on youth involved with youth justice systems throughout the country.
Read More:
http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/JJDPA%20Snapshot%20October%202017.pdf
Saturday, April 1, 2017
California's Youth Needs You
Prop 57 EmergencyRegulationsare here.
This week CDCR released proposed regulations for Proposition 57. Learn about them and voice your opinion about what is good and what should be changed! We have until Monday, April 3rd to submit a letter in this first round of public comments.These are "emergency regulations,"
which means they will go into effect quickly and will be in use while the permanent regulations go through the formal vetting process. We get the first chance to voice our opinions on these regulations right now, with a deadline of Monday, April 3rd. Later, when the permanent
regulations are being considered, we'll get another chance to send in letters and go to public hearings. Watch this short slideshow on what the regulations are and how you can be involved!
Learn about what is in the emergency regulations and how you can participate in the public comment period. Read about the process here and read the actual Prop 57 Regs here. Finally, you can use this Prop 57 Regulations Sample Letter with Instructions 3-24-17 to weigh in!The
emergency regulations can stay in effect for 180 days. We can expect that prior to the end of that period the permanent regulation rule-making process will occur, and during that time there will be a minimum 45-day period for written public comments. There will also be public hearings. As
people who care about this issue, we should weigh in at every chance. Stay tuned to learn about other deadlines, public hearings, and more.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ACTION!! Letter-writing workshop at USC School of Law last week. Taught by law students and formerly incrcerated people, we split up into small groups and drafted letters on the Prop 57 regulations together.
GET THE GUIDE.Youth OffenderParole Guideon SB 260 and SB 261 For families and people on the inside. Click here to get yours.
http://fairsentencingforyouth.org/regulations go through the formal vetting process, including More »
TAKE ACTION NOW: Speak Up on Prop 57 Regs! And, Support Two Bills on the Rights of
Children and Youth!
There are three important ways to take action right now: 1. Support SB 394, ending life without parole for youth under age 18; 2. Support SB 395, protecting Miranda rights for youth; and 3.
Give your opinion on Prop More »
http://fairsentencingforyouth.org/2017/03/take-action-now-speak-up-on-prop-57-regs-and-support-two-bills-on-the-rights-of-children-and-youth/
Go Here To View Sample Letter>
http://fairsentencingforyouth.org/2017/03/take-action-now-speak-up-on-prop-57-regs-and-support-two-bills-on-the-rights-of-children-and-youth/
Read this one-page descriptoin SB 395 here! SB 395- Miranda Factsheet. Read the bill text here.
Then, take action!! Send a letter! Here are to easy-to-use options:
Sample letter with instructions OR
Several short letters– pick one to just print, sign, and send!
Under current law, police are allowed to:
•Remove a child from school without a parent’s permission
•Interrogate a child for hours without a parent’s knowledge
•Lie to the child about what evidence exists against him or her
•Threaten long prison sentences
•Not contact a parent during interrogation, even when a child is asking to speak with their mother or father.
The end result is that children and youth are alone in a very high-pressure situation, and are often frightened.
SB 395 is a bill that if passed would have made sure a person under the age of 18 gets to talk to an attorney before giving up his or her constitutional rights.
Want to know more?
•More facts
•Why American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychologists believes attorneys should be present with children who are with police
•How the rate of false confessions is high for youth
•How much false confessions cost California
Fact Sheet >http://fairsentencingforyouth.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/SB-395-Miranda-
Factsheet-11.30.pdf
Miranda Rights for Youth
Senate Bill 395
Summary:
SB 395 will require youth under the age of 18 to
consult with legal counsel before they waive their
constitutional rights.
Background:
Currently in California, children—no matter howyoung— can waive their Miranda rights. When
lawenforcement conducts a custodial interrogation, they are required to recite basic constitutional rights to theindividual, known as Miranda rights, and secure awaiver of those rights before
proceeding. The waivermust be voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made.
Miranda waivers by juveniles present distinct issues.
Recent advances in cognitive science research haveshown that the capacity of youth to grasp legal rights is less than that of an adult. This is especially true for very young, developmentally disabled, or cognitivelydelayed children, and for those with mental health
problems.
Although existing law assures counsel for youth accused of crimes, the law does not require law enforcement to recognize that youth are different from adults. It is critical to ensure a youth understands their rights before waiving them.
Recently an appellate court held that a 10-year-old boy made a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights. When the police asked if he understood the right to remain silent, he replied, “Yes, that means that I have the right to stay calm.” The California Supreme Court declined to review the lower court’s decision. Several justices disagreed, and in his dissenting statement Justice Liu noted that many states have taken legislative action on this issue and
suggests that California should as well, stating that state law on juvenile waivers is a half-century old and,“predates by several decades the growing body ofscientific research that the [U.S. Supreme Court] has repeatedly found relevant in assessing differences in mental capabilities between children and adults.”
Studies have demonstrated youth often do not fully comprehend the consequences of waiving their rights.
They are also much more likely than adults to waive their rights and to confess to crimes they did not commit. A recent study of exonerations found that 13 percent of adults had falsely confessed, compared to 42 percent of juveniles. The ramifications for both the
individual and society of false confessions are farreaching.
Problem:
Our society recognizes that children are especially vulnerable in legal situations, which is why youth cannot buy alcohol and cigarettes or enter into legal contracts, yet our state’s laws do not recognize their diminished capacity to understand their Miranda rights. Other states have acknowledged the difference between youth and adults and passed laws providing safeguards for youth. Unfortunately, for juveniles in California, our justice system
only provides Miranda rights in theory. In practice the system is flawed and can and does result in serious disproportionate negative consequences for youth who have the same rights as adults, but do not have the same capacity to understand their rights or the consequences of waiving them.
Solution:
SB 395 will require youth under 18 to consult with counsel prior to waving their rights. This will preserv youth’s constitutional rights and protect the integrity of our criminal justice system. This bill will bring California’s law in line with modern science. By
ensuring youth understand their rights, we ensure the outcome of interrogations are just and
lawful, and create greater trust, accountability, and due process for all.
Contact:
Megan Baier 916-651-4033
This week CDCR released proposed regulations for Proposition 57. Learn about them and voice your opinion about what is good and what should be changed! We have until Monday, April 3rd to submit a letter in this first round of public comments.These are "emergency regulations,"
which means they will go into effect quickly and will be in use while the permanent regulations go through the formal vetting process. We get the first chance to voice our opinions on these regulations right now, with a deadline of Monday, April 3rd. Later, when the permanent
regulations are being considered, we'll get another chance to send in letters and go to public hearings. Watch this short slideshow on what the regulations are and how you can be involved!
Learn about what is in the emergency regulations and how you can participate in the public comment period. Read about the process here and read the actual Prop 57 Regs here. Finally, you can use this Prop 57 Regulations Sample Letter with Instructions 3-24-17 to weigh in!The
emergency regulations can stay in effect for 180 days. We can expect that prior to the end of that period the permanent regulation rule-making process will occur, and during that time there will be a minimum 45-day period for written public comments. There will also be public hearings. As
people who care about this issue, we should weigh in at every chance. Stay tuned to learn about other deadlines, public hearings, and more.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ACTION!! Letter-writing workshop at USC School of Law last week. Taught by law students and formerly incrcerated people, we split up into small groups and drafted letters on the Prop 57 regulations together.
GET THE GUIDE.Youth OffenderParole Guideon SB 260 and SB 261 For families and people on the inside. Click here to get yours.
http://fairsentencingforyouth.org/regulations go through the formal vetting process, including More »
TAKE ACTION NOW: Speak Up on Prop 57 Regs! And, Support Two Bills on the Rights of
Children and Youth!
There are three important ways to take action right now: 1. Support SB 394, ending life without parole for youth under age 18; 2. Support SB 395, protecting Miranda rights for youth; and 3.
Give your opinion on Prop More »
http://fairsentencingforyouth.org/2017/03/take-action-now-speak-up-on-prop-57-regs-and-support-two-bills-on-the-rights-of-children-and-youth/
Go Here To View Sample Letter>
http://fairsentencingforyouth.org/2017/03/take-action-now-speak-up-on-prop-57-regs-and-support-two-bills-on-the-rights-of-children-and-youth/
Read this one-page descriptoin SB 395 here! SB 395- Miranda Factsheet. Read the bill text here.
Then, take action!! Send a letter! Here are to easy-to-use options:
Sample letter with instructions OR
Several short letters– pick one to just print, sign, and send!
Under current law, police are allowed to:
•Remove a child from school without a parent’s permission
•Interrogate a child for hours without a parent’s knowledge
•Lie to the child about what evidence exists against him or her
•Threaten long prison sentences
•Not contact a parent during interrogation, even when a child is asking to speak with their mother or father.
The end result is that children and youth are alone in a very high-pressure situation, and are often frightened.
SB 395 is a bill that if passed would have made sure a person under the age of 18 gets to talk to an attorney before giving up his or her constitutional rights.
Want to know more?
•More facts
•Why American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychologists believes attorneys should be present with children who are with police
•How the rate of false confessions is high for youth
•How much false confessions cost California
Fact Sheet >http://fairsentencingforyouth.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/SB-395-Miranda-
Factsheet-11.30.pdf
Miranda Rights for Youth
Senate Bill 395
Summary:
SB 395 will require youth under the age of 18 to
consult with legal counsel before they waive their
constitutional rights.
Background:
Currently in California, children—no matter howyoung— can waive their Miranda rights. When
lawenforcement conducts a custodial interrogation, they are required to recite basic constitutional rights to theindividual, known as Miranda rights, and secure awaiver of those rights before
proceeding. The waivermust be voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made.
Miranda waivers by juveniles present distinct issues.
Recent advances in cognitive science research haveshown that the capacity of youth to grasp legal rights is less than that of an adult. This is especially true for very young, developmentally disabled, or cognitivelydelayed children, and for those with mental health
problems.
Although existing law assures counsel for youth accused of crimes, the law does not require law enforcement to recognize that youth are different from adults. It is critical to ensure a youth understands their rights before waiving them.
Recently an appellate court held that a 10-year-old boy made a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights. When the police asked if he understood the right to remain silent, he replied, “Yes, that means that I have the right to stay calm.” The California Supreme Court declined to review the lower court’s decision. Several justices disagreed, and in his dissenting statement Justice Liu noted that many states have taken legislative action on this issue and
suggests that California should as well, stating that state law on juvenile waivers is a half-century old and,“predates by several decades the growing body ofscientific research that the [U.S. Supreme Court] has repeatedly found relevant in assessing differences in mental capabilities between children and adults.”
Studies have demonstrated youth often do not fully comprehend the consequences of waiving their rights.
They are also much more likely than adults to waive their rights and to confess to crimes they did not commit. A recent study of exonerations found that 13 percent of adults had falsely confessed, compared to 42 percent of juveniles. The ramifications for both the
individual and society of false confessions are farreaching.
Problem:
Our society recognizes that children are especially vulnerable in legal situations, which is why youth cannot buy alcohol and cigarettes or enter into legal contracts, yet our state’s laws do not recognize their diminished capacity to understand their Miranda rights. Other states have acknowledged the difference between youth and adults and passed laws providing safeguards for youth. Unfortunately, for juveniles in California, our justice system
only provides Miranda rights in theory. In practice the system is flawed and can and does result in serious disproportionate negative consequences for youth who have the same rights as adults, but do not have the same capacity to understand their rights or the consequences of waiving them.
Solution:
SB 395 will require youth under 18 to consult with counsel prior to waving their rights. This will preserv youth’s constitutional rights and protect the integrity of our criminal justice system. This bill will bring California’s law in line with modern science. By
ensuring youth understand their rights, we ensure the outcome of interrogations are just and
lawful, and create greater trust, accountability, and due process for all.
Contact:
Megan Baier 916-651-4033
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
11 Years Old & Sentenced To 25
Lacresha Murray – Another Child Locked Away
Posted on January 6, 2004 by CCWP
by Diana Block
Lacresha Murray is a Black thirteen-year-old child who was convicted of negligent homicide and injury to a child. She was eleven years old when she was sentenced to 25 years! There was no physical evidence, no reasonable explanation of opportunity or motive, no witnesses and no history of violence, yet this young girl is now spending her days in a juvenile prison in Giddings, Texas.
The case is based on a so-called confession from Lacresha, which was obtained by Austin, Texas, police during a lengthy, illicit interrogation. Months before her
trial, against juvenile law and State Bar rules, Austin D.A. Ronnie Earle announced Lacresha’s identity and pronounced her guilty in a televised news conference. The media, without any investigation, headlined her as guilty as charged for two solid months, eliminating any possibility of a fair trial. By framing and imprisoning Lacresha, Earle got national attention and right-before-election proof that he was tough on crime.
Lacresha’s case highlights the growing trend of the criminal injustice system to lock children up at ever younger ages for increasing amounts of time. This trend impacts most heavily on communities of color, which are being ripped apart by this devastating combination of police, court and prison attacks. For more information about Lacresha’s case, contact People of the Heart, P.O. Box 2585, Cedar Park, TX 78630-2585, 512-707-3743, www.peopleoftheheart.org. Send donations to People of the Heart, Acct. 1888322466, Bank One Texas, Bank by Mail, Station H, 1901 Parkwood, Bedford, TX 76021.
This entry was posted in Issue 09 - September 1998 by CCWP. Bookmark the permalink.
http://womenprisoners.org/?p=365
Sunday, February 26, 2017
Aanother Child Dies
Washington: Teen’s Death in Tribal Jail Sparks Lawsuit, Contract Scrutiny
Loaded on Feb. 8, 2017 published in Prison Legal News February, 2017, page 39 Filed under: Guard Misconduct, Jail Misconduct, Cardiovascular,
Failure to Treat, Jail Specific, Medical Neglect/Malpractice, Juveniles, Failure to Protect (Juveniles), Guards/Staff. Location:
Washington.
On January 9, 2017, Seattle attorneys Edwin Budge and Erik
Heipt said they plan to file a federal lawsuit on behalf of the family of a teenager who died after warning jailers he had a heart condition and had previously required resuscitation. Although 19 year-old Andrew Westling wasn’t a tribal member, when he was
arrested on April 10, 2016, police in the city of Yelm took him to the Nisqually Corrections Center – a tribal jail in nearby
Thurston County. There, after telling a guard he felt like his heart was “thumping out of his skin,” he was found dead roughly 24 hours after being booked into the facility.
A Thurston County coroner listed the cause of Westling’s death as
cardiac dysrhythmia due to congenital coronary artery heart
anomalies,” and described the manner of death as natural.
However, according to a medical specialist retained by attorneys
representing Westling’s family, his heart condition was “familiar,
readily recognized, and easily treatable.” University of
Washington medical professor Richard Cummins added, “If it
were not for the unreasonable neglect of the staff of the Nisqually
Corrections Center, Andrew Westling would be alive today and
would very likely enjoy a normal life span.”
The ...
Read more...https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2017/feb/8/washington-teens-death-tribal-jail-sparks-lawsuit-contract-scrutiny/
Loaded on Feb. 8, 2017 published in Prison Legal News February, 2017, page 39 Filed under: Guard Misconduct, Jail Misconduct, Cardiovascular,
Failure to Treat, Jail Specific, Medical Neglect/Malpractice, Juveniles, Failure to Protect (Juveniles), Guards/Staff. Location:
Washington.
On January 9, 2017, Seattle attorneys Edwin Budge and Erik
Heipt said they plan to file a federal lawsuit on behalf of the family of a teenager who died after warning jailers he had a heart condition and had previously required resuscitation. Although 19 year-old Andrew Westling wasn’t a tribal member, when he was
arrested on April 10, 2016, police in the city of Yelm took him to the Nisqually Corrections Center – a tribal jail in nearby
Thurston County. There, after telling a guard he felt like his heart was “thumping out of his skin,” he was found dead roughly 24 hours after being booked into the facility.
A Thurston County coroner listed the cause of Westling’s death as
cardiac dysrhythmia due to congenital coronary artery heart
anomalies,” and described the manner of death as natural.
However, according to a medical specialist retained by attorneys
representing Westling’s family, his heart condition was “familiar,
readily recognized, and easily treatable.” University of
Washington medical professor Richard Cummins added, “If it
were not for the unreasonable neglect of the staff of the Nisqually
Corrections Center, Andrew Westling would be alive today and
would very likely enjoy a normal life span.”
The ...
Read more...https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2017/feb/8/washington-teens-death-tribal-jail-sparks-lawsuit-contract-scrutiny/
Wednesday, January 18, 2017
Debtors’ Prison For Kids
http://www.citizensforcriminaljustice.net/debtors-prison-kids-poor-children-incarcerated-families-cant-pay-juvenile-court-fees/
Debtors’ Prison For Kids: Poor Children Incarcerated When Families Can’t Pay Juvenile Court Fees
First-of-its-kind report finds children are being imprisoned nationwide when families can’t pay fines levied by juvenile justice system.
“The debt in effect creates a rift between parents and their children,” one survey respondent said, and went on to describe a grandmother who was told to consider giving up custody of her grandson in order to avoid paying his juvenile court fees. Many states are incarcerating poor children whose families can’t afford to pay juvenile court fees and fines, a report published Wednesday finds, which amounts to punishing children for their families’ poverty—and that may be unconstitutional.
Although the growing practice of incarcerating adults who are unable to pay municipal and court fees and fines has been documented for several years, as Common Dreams has noted, the latest report from the Juvenile Law Center is the first in-depth examination of the practice within the juvenile justice system.
The report, “Debtor’s Prison for Kids? The High Cost of Fines and Fees in the Juvenile Justice System” (pdf), documents the results of a survey of 183 people involved in the juvenile justice system—including lawyers, family members, and adults who had been incarcerated as children in the juvenile justice system—in 41 states.
The report authors discovered that in most states there is a pile-up of fees and fines imposed on children and their families once a child enters the juvenile justice system, and that “many statutes establish that youth can be incarcerated or otherwise face a loss of liberty when they fail to pay.”
A grandmother had taken custody of her grandson but when facing these insurmountable fees, she was told (by a county employee) that the only way she could avoid paying was to hand over custody [to the state].”—Juvenile Law Center survey respondent
There are myriad ways in which juvenile court systems levy fines on children’s families, the report authors found, and then imprison those children when their families are too poor to pay the mounting costs:
Many states impose a monthly fee on families whose children are sentenced to probation. When a family can’t pay the monthly fee, that counts as a probation violation, and the child is in most cases incarcerated in a juvenile detention facility.
If children are sentenced to a “diversion program,” or a community-based program meant to keep them out of detention and help them reintegrate into their communities, the families must pay the costs of such a program. When poor children are unable to pay, they are simply incarcerated instead.
Families in most states must pay for their children’s court-ordered evaluations and tests (such as mental health evaluations, STD tests, and drug and alcohol assessments). Failure to obtain certain evaluations may result in a failure to be granted bond by the court, which means the child would remain in juvenile detention. Or if the tests are performed and the family subsequently can’t pay for them, that counts as a probation violation and the child is re-sentenced, which can mean being incarcerated.
Some sentences involve a simple fine, such as truancy, and failure to pay results in the child’s imprisonment. “Even when fines are not mandated by statute, they may be treated as mandatory in practice,” the report authors note, describing one impoverished child’s experience with a $500 truancy fine in Arkansas: One individual who had been in the juvenile justice system there reported that he spent three months in a locked facility at age 13 because he couldn’t afford the truancy fine. He appeared in court without a lawyer or a parent and was never asked about his capacity to pay or given the option of paying a reduced amount. He assumed he had to either pay the full fine or spend time in jail. He explained, “my mind was set to where I was just like forget it, I might as well just go ahead and do the time because I ain’t got no money and I know the [financial] situation my mom is in. I ain’t got no money so I might as well just go and sit it out.”
“Almost all states charge parents for the care and support of youth involved with the juvenile justice system,” the report adds. Those include fees for room and board, clothing, and mental and physical healthcare, among many other charges, and “[i]nability to pay […] can result in youth being deprived of treatment, held in violation of probation, or even facing extended periods of incarceration.” (Juvenile prisons also charge their own, often higher, prices for children’s prescription medications, the report says, which frequently results in high charges that poor families cannot afford to pay and interrupts necessary healthcare for their children.)
In all 50 states, a statute exists which deems that if a child and their family can’t afford restitution charges—that is, payment to the victim(s) of the child’s crime, which is a popular sentence in juvenile court—the child is incarcerated.
Juvenile detention facilities are often unsafe and inhumane, as Common Dreams has reported.
And the fines imposed by juvenile court are “highly burdensome,” according to the report.
The average cost of juvenile system involvement is $2,000 per case in Alameda County, California,
for example, and “for young people incarcerated for extended periods of time, the costs can be
significantly higher.”
“When parents face incarceration or mounting debt for failure to pay, they have even fewer resources to devote to educating, helping, and supporting their children.”
—Juvenile Law Center
The report authors also observe that incarcerating children for their families’ inability to pay fees may be unconstitutional:
IT IS WORTH NOTING THAT THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAS MADE
CLEAR THAT AN INDIVIDUAL MAY NOT BE INCARCERATED FOR NONPAYMENT
IF THE COURT DOES NOT FIRST CONDUCT AN INDIGENCE DETERMINATION
AND ESTABLISH THAT THE FAILURE TO PAY WAS WILLFUL. THE SUPREME COURT
HAS ALSO HELD THAT COURTS MUST CONSIDER “ALTERNATIVE MEASURES OF
PUNISHMENT OTHER THAN IMPRISONMENT” FOR INDIGENT DEFENDANTS.
NONETHELESS, SOME STATES REQUIRE NEITHER WILLFULNESS NOR CAPACITY
TO PAY IN STATUTE, AND ONLY A FEW EXPLICITLY LIMIT OR PROHIBIT INCARCERATION
FOR FAILURE TO PAY.
ADDITIONALLY, THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT “COURTS MUST PROVIDE MEANINGFUL NOTICE AND, IN APPROPRIATE CASES, COUNSEL, WHEN ENFORCING FINES AND FEES.” THIS RIGHT IS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT FOR CHILDREN, WHO LACK BOTH THE DEVELOPMENTAL CAPACITY AND THE LEGAL KNOWLEDGE TO REPRESENT THEMSELVES.
“Moreover,” the report continues, “while further research is needed, existing studies suggest that court costs, fees, and fines have limited, if any, fiscal benefit to states and counties, given the difficulty in collecting from families in poverty and the high administrative costs in trying to do so.”
The Juvenile Law Center details the varying policies on juvenile court system fees state-by-state on a new website, and also highlights the few counties and states who are attempting to rectify the problem.
“Ultimately, state and local policymakers should establish more sustainable and effective models for funding court systems rather than imposing costs on youth and families who simply can’t afford to pay,” the Juvenile Law Center says.
Debtors’ Prison For Kids: Poor Children Incarcerated When Families Can’t Pay Juvenile Court Fees
First-of-its-kind report finds children are being imprisoned nationwide when families can’t pay fines levied by juvenile justice system.
“The debt in effect creates a rift between parents and their children,” one survey respondent said, and went on to describe a grandmother who was told to consider giving up custody of her grandson in order to avoid paying his juvenile court fees. Many states are incarcerating poor children whose families can’t afford to pay juvenile court fees and fines, a report published Wednesday finds, which amounts to punishing children for their families’ poverty—and that may be unconstitutional.
Although the growing practice of incarcerating adults who are unable to pay municipal and court fees and fines has been documented for several years, as Common Dreams has noted, the latest report from the Juvenile Law Center is the first in-depth examination of the practice within the juvenile justice system.
The report, “Debtor’s Prison for Kids? The High Cost of Fines and Fees in the Juvenile Justice System” (pdf), documents the results of a survey of 183 people involved in the juvenile justice system—including lawyers, family members, and adults who had been incarcerated as children in the juvenile justice system—in 41 states.
The report authors discovered that in most states there is a pile-up of fees and fines imposed on children and their families once a child enters the juvenile justice system, and that “many statutes establish that youth can be incarcerated or otherwise face a loss of liberty when they fail to pay.”
A grandmother had taken custody of her grandson but when facing these insurmountable fees, she was told (by a county employee) that the only way she could avoid paying was to hand over custody [to the state].”—Juvenile Law Center survey respondent
There are myriad ways in which juvenile court systems levy fines on children’s families, the report authors found, and then imprison those children when their families are too poor to pay the mounting costs:
Many states impose a monthly fee on families whose children are sentenced to probation. When a family can’t pay the monthly fee, that counts as a probation violation, and the child is in most cases incarcerated in a juvenile detention facility.
If children are sentenced to a “diversion program,” or a community-based program meant to keep them out of detention and help them reintegrate into their communities, the families must pay the costs of such a program. When poor children are unable to pay, they are simply incarcerated instead.
Families in most states must pay for their children’s court-ordered evaluations and tests (such as mental health evaluations, STD tests, and drug and alcohol assessments). Failure to obtain certain evaluations may result in a failure to be granted bond by the court, which means the child would remain in juvenile detention. Or if the tests are performed and the family subsequently can’t pay for them, that counts as a probation violation and the child is re-sentenced, which can mean being incarcerated.
Some sentences involve a simple fine, such as truancy, and failure to pay results in the child’s imprisonment. “Even when fines are not mandated by statute, they may be treated as mandatory in practice,” the report authors note, describing one impoverished child’s experience with a $500 truancy fine in Arkansas: One individual who had been in the juvenile justice system there reported that he spent three months in a locked facility at age 13 because he couldn’t afford the truancy fine. He appeared in court without a lawyer or a parent and was never asked about his capacity to pay or given the option of paying a reduced amount. He assumed he had to either pay the full fine or spend time in jail. He explained, “my mind was set to where I was just like forget it, I might as well just go ahead and do the time because I ain’t got no money and I know the [financial] situation my mom is in. I ain’t got no money so I might as well just go and sit it out.”
“Almost all states charge parents for the care and support of youth involved with the juvenile justice system,” the report adds. Those include fees for room and board, clothing, and mental and physical healthcare, among many other charges, and “[i]nability to pay […] can result in youth being deprived of treatment, held in violation of probation, or even facing extended periods of incarceration.” (Juvenile prisons also charge their own, often higher, prices for children’s prescription medications, the report says, which frequently results in high charges that poor families cannot afford to pay and interrupts necessary healthcare for their children.)
In all 50 states, a statute exists which deems that if a child and their family can’t afford restitution charges—that is, payment to the victim(s) of the child’s crime, which is a popular sentence in juvenile court—the child is incarcerated.
Juvenile detention facilities are often unsafe and inhumane, as Common Dreams has reported.
And the fines imposed by juvenile court are “highly burdensome,” according to the report.
The average cost of juvenile system involvement is $2,000 per case in Alameda County, California,
for example, and “for young people incarcerated for extended periods of time, the costs can be
significantly higher.”
“When parents face incarceration or mounting debt for failure to pay, they have even fewer resources to devote to educating, helping, and supporting their children.”
—Juvenile Law Center
The report authors also observe that incarcerating children for their families’ inability to pay fees may be unconstitutional:
IT IS WORTH NOTING THAT THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAS MADE
CLEAR THAT AN INDIVIDUAL MAY NOT BE INCARCERATED FOR NONPAYMENT
IF THE COURT DOES NOT FIRST CONDUCT AN INDIGENCE DETERMINATION
AND ESTABLISH THAT THE FAILURE TO PAY WAS WILLFUL. THE SUPREME COURT
HAS ALSO HELD THAT COURTS MUST CONSIDER “ALTERNATIVE MEASURES OF
PUNISHMENT OTHER THAN IMPRISONMENT” FOR INDIGENT DEFENDANTS.
NONETHELESS, SOME STATES REQUIRE NEITHER WILLFULNESS NOR CAPACITY
TO PAY IN STATUTE, AND ONLY A FEW EXPLICITLY LIMIT OR PROHIBIT INCARCERATION
FOR FAILURE TO PAY.
ADDITIONALLY, THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT “COURTS MUST PROVIDE MEANINGFUL NOTICE AND, IN APPROPRIATE CASES, COUNSEL, WHEN ENFORCING FINES AND FEES.” THIS RIGHT IS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT FOR CHILDREN, WHO LACK BOTH THE DEVELOPMENTAL CAPACITY AND THE LEGAL KNOWLEDGE TO REPRESENT THEMSELVES.
“Moreover,” the report continues, “while further research is needed, existing studies suggest that court costs, fees, and fines have limited, if any, fiscal benefit to states and counties, given the difficulty in collecting from families in poverty and the high administrative costs in trying to do so.”
The Juvenile Law Center details the varying policies on juvenile court system fees state-by-state on a new website, and also highlights the few counties and states who are attempting to rectify the problem.
“Ultimately, state and local policymakers should establish more sustainable and effective models for funding court systems rather than imposing costs on youth and families who simply can’t afford to pay,” the Juvenile Law Center says.
180 Days For Stolen Cellphone
Abuse, Civil Rights, Criminal Justice System, Human Rights, Justice, Juveniles, law, Life In America, Mass Incarceration
A stolen cellphone, then an odyssey through Maryland’s juvenile justice system
Continue reading A stolen cellphone, then an odyssey through Maryland’s juvenile justice system
13 year old’s 1st offense was stealing a cellphone. Did he have to spend 891 days in juvenile system?
By Erica L. Green
Before Michael ever saw the inside of juvenile lockup, caseworkers recommended he be sent home.
The 13-year-old came from a stable, two-parent home in Columbia. He watched over his three younger siblings, did chores around the house, and enjoyed playing in his youth football league.
Then, he says, he fell in with the wrong group of kids. He was with one of the boys, he says, when they stole another teen’s cellphone.
It was Michael’s first offense. Juvenile caseworkers thought a letter of apology and counseling made the most sense. His attorney argued that a return home would be the best outcome for everyone.
https://prisonreformmovement.wordpress.com/2017/01/03/a-stolen-cellphone-then-an-odyssey-through-marylands-juvenile-justice-system/
A stolen cellphone, then an odyssey through Maryland’s juvenile justice system
Continue reading A stolen cellphone, then an odyssey through Maryland’s juvenile justice system
13 year old’s 1st offense was stealing a cellphone. Did he have to spend 891 days in juvenile system?
By Erica L. Green
Before Michael ever saw the inside of juvenile lockup, caseworkers recommended he be sent home.
The 13-year-old came from a stable, two-parent home in Columbia. He watched over his three younger siblings, did chores around the house, and enjoyed playing in his youth football league.
Then, he says, he fell in with the wrong group of kids. He was with one of the boys, he says, when they stole another teen’s cellphone.
It was Michael’s first offense. Juvenile caseworkers thought a letter of apology and counseling made the most sense. His attorney argued that a return home would be the best outcome for everyone.
https://prisonreformmovement.wordpress.com/2017/01/03/a-stolen-cellphone-then-an-odyssey-through-marylands-juvenile-justice-system/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)