10 Innocent Kids Sentenced To Life In Prison

10 Innocent Kids Sentenced To Life In Prison >

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RirOyRSCe0k

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/

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

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

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

12 years old Sentenced As An Adult

WARSAW, Ind. (WXIN) — A northern Indiana teenager who was 12 years old when he helped kill his friend's stepfather has a shot at freedom.
Paul Henry Gingerich turned 18 in February, and under a state law that bears his name, a judge can now consider three alternative sentencing options, including Gingerich's release. The judge could also transfer him to adult prison to serve the remainder of his 25-year sentence or place him on probation, home detention or work release.
Gingerich was believed to be the youngest person in Indiana to be sentenced as an adult. His case sparked an outcry that led to legislation known as "Paul's Law," which allows alternative sentences for juveniles who commit serious crimes.
Gingerich appeared Friday in a Kosciusko County courtroom for a hearing on those options, the Indianapolis Star reported. Gingerich's attorney, Monica Foster, is asking for probation or home detention. A decision is likely by summer.
Pendleton Juvenile Correctional Facility Superintendent Alison Yancey also testified, speaking about Gingerich's progress while in custody, including his becoming an honor student and his participation in community services.
The Indiana Department of Correction has determined that Gingerich has a low risk of re-offending.

Judge James Heuer called his progress "impressive" but also said he has to consider the victim's family, some of whom attended Friday's hearing.
http://www.aol.com/article/2016/04/25/indiana-teen-who-killed-man-at-age-12-gets-shot-at-freedom/

Suicide In CIW Women's Prison

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/35834-erika-rocha-s-suicide-underscores-the-damage-that-prison-is-wreaking-on-youth

Erika Rocha's Suicide Underscores the Damage That Prison Is Wreaking on Youth
Thursday, 28 April 2016 00:00 By Colby Lenz, Truthout | Op-Ed


Erika Rocha was a 35-year-old Latina woman incarcerated at the California Institution for Women in Corona. She was found hanging in her cell on April 14, 2016, after 21 years of incarceration. Erika was only 14 years old when she was charged and convicted as an adult in Los Angeles County.
I visited Erika in prison as a volunteer legal advocate with the California Coalition for Women Prisoners. She told me about the abuses she suffered at the hands of the State of California since she was 14. With no family by her side, Erika was intimidated by police and threatened by prosecutors with a double life sentence for attempted murder. This threatened sentence was far beyond the charge, but Erika was scared and confused. Police had interrogated her with no guardian present. She waived her Miranda rights, without understanding what that meant. The district attorney aggressively prosecuted Erika, who had grossly inadequate legal representation. Under pressure, she took the blame for the older kids involved and pled to a 19-to-life sentence. When it came time for her sentencing proceedings, Erika sat in court alone. The criminal legal system is intimidating for a well-resourced adult. Imagine what it was like for Erika.

Erika's story highlights how the criminal legal system intimidates, coerces and traps people, especially low-income youth of color. As a Latina youth, it was 43 percent more likely that Erika would be prosecuted as an adult and 40 percent more likely that she would be admitted to an adult prison compared to a white youth. As a poor youth in a foster care group home, Erika faced a much higher chance of incarceration. Erika's mom died when she was young, and she had recently learned that her dad was not dead but incarcerated.

Erika was sent to a women's prison in Chowchilla at 16 years old. Prison staff placed her in solitary confinement to "protect her" until she was 17. At our first visit, she told me that guards said they put her in solitary to protect the prison because she was too young to be there. They put a neon sign on her cage door that read "Do Not Approach - Minor." This would be just one of Erika's four indefinite solitary terms.

Erika was in a mental health unit when I met her. She spoke openly about attempting suicide and about her extended time in this unit and on-and-off suicide watch. Erika suffered from dehumanizing treatment for mental health issues attributable to her incarceration as a youth. Her trauma was worsened by the isolation of incarceration, added to by further isolation in solitary (including suicide watch). Formerly incarcerated leaders of the California Coalition for Women Prisoners who supported Erika as a teenager in prison have said she sought support for her trauma since the beginning of her incarceration. Since the moment I met Erika, I worried about her ability to stay alive, because of her notable and stated vulnerability and because of the prison system's proven ability to make her life impossible.

Erika was traumatized, but she also had a fighting spirit and a sweetness and a youthfulness that I will always remember. We made plans to fight for her release. She talked about wanting to tell the world what she survived. She wanted to fight for youth justice, and when she trusted me enough to start telling her story, she wouldn't stop talking.

This past weekend, Erika's sisters and stepmother (whom she met shortly before she was arrested) shared some of her writing with me from October 1996. Erika was 15 and locked up in juvie when she wrote, "When I was very young people always left me. I felt that they didn't even love me ... I care a lot about people but they don't care about me and it hurts me. I don't know, I'm just a confused kid just like everyone says."

Erika was more than confused -- she was neglected and abused. The child welfare system, the District Attorney's Office and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation are all responsible for Erika's death. She took actions to end her life, but the criminal punishment system killed her. These institutions robbed her of any sense of her own future, even a day away from her youth parole hearing.

In the weeks leading up to her death, Erika was transferred to suicide watch at least three times. The day before her death, she was released from suicide watch and returned to a mental health unit. The California Institution for Women failed to save Erika's life the very next day.

Several of Erika's closest people are now on suicide watch. The suicide watch unit at the California Institution for Women is overcrowded and the prison has mental health crisis beds on "overflow" in the SHU ("security housing unit"), further endangering people's lives. In 2015, the suicide rate at the California Institution for Women was more than eight times the national rate for people in women's prisons and more than five times the rate for people in California prisons. In January 2016, a court-ordered suicide prevention audit by suicide expert Lindsay Hayes concluded that the prison continues to be "a problematic institution" with "poor practices" that fail to prevent suicides.

This week the California Coalition for Women Prisoners launched a petition demanding an end to the epidemic of deaths and attempted suicides at the California Institution for Women. Impacted by the trauma of incarceration, people are speaking out and demanding an end to incarceration as a cause of death. In honor of Erika, the California Coalition for Women Prisoners also seeks support for the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act to eliminate the power of prosecutors to directly file youth under the age of 18 into adult court. We also support legislation to limit solitary confinement for youth and to ensure that youth cannot waive their Miranda rights. Since we helped start it, California should end the war on youth, with its race-, class- and gender-targeted mass incarceration.

Erika's death was preventable. She should have been loved, not caged.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.

What Really Happens When Cops Question Kids?

http://ias.umn.edu/2012/12/06/feld-barry/

What Really Happens When Cops Question Kids?

Presentation by Barry Feld

December 6, 2012, 1:30-3:30 p.m.
125 Nolte Center for Continuing Education

This study analyzes quantitative and qualitative data of interrogations of 307 sixteen- and seventeen-year-old youths charged with felony offenses. The findings bear on three policy issues: procedural safeguards for youths, time limits for interrogations, and mandatory recording of interrogations.

Barry Feld is a Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota

Organized by the 2012-2013 IAS collaborative Child and Youth Studies Across the Curriculum.

No Child Under 18 Should Be Tried As An Adult

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/12/14/what-age-should-young-criminals-be-tried-as-adults/no-one-younger-than-18-should-be-tried-as-an-adult.
The Opinion Pages
No One Younger Than 18 Should Be Tried as an Adult
Carmen Daugherty is the policy director for the Campaign for Youth Justice, which is dedicated to ending the practice of trying, sentencing and incarcerating youth under 18 in the adult criminal justice system.
Updated December 14, 2015, 10:40 AM

Laws that permit youth under the age of 18 to enter the adult criminal justice system represent a departure from the traditional understanding of juvenile justice — to serve the best interests of the child.
An overwhelming amount of research shows that the adult criminal justice system is ill equipped to meet the needs of youth offenders, from trial to incarceration and re-entry. Beyond what brain science reveals about adolescent development, experts contend that the adult criminal justice system does not deter repeat offenses by juveniles under 18.
Youth placed in the adult system had 34 percent more re-arrests, and often, at faster rates and more dangerous levels. Mental health needs go unmet in adult settings across the country and little training is offered to facility staff on working with the youngest offenders. Meanwhile, the juvenile justice system, more broadly, puts an emphasis on the rehabilitation, treatment, education and public safety of youth in its care. It is rare that you will find that kind of express mission — let alone a program focused on treatment and education — in state departments of corrections.
Young offenders are more likely to succeed on a personal level if they receive comprehensive services that support positive youth development. But in a broader sense, comprehensive juvenile justice is safer for society as a whole. Ninety-five percent of youth charged as adults return home by their 25th birthday: Don’t we want them better off than when they entered the system?
Yet nine states still place 17-year-olds in the adult system for any offense — including simple misdemeanors or traffic related offenses — building permanent adult records for juveniles before they are even out of high school. For North Carolina and New York, the age one goes into the adult system is 16.
Nearly every state uses a variety of legal processes to transfer youth to the adult system sometimes, either through judicial or prosecutorial discretion or through laws that prevent certain alleged offenses from being heard in juvenile or family courts.
But the federal government has released recommendations on best practices and approaches to reducing children's exposure to violence — including a recommendation to avoid prosecuting youth in adult courts that "ignore and diminish their capacity to grow."


Join Opinion on Facebook and follow updates on twitter.com/roomfordebate.

Teen Kills Himself After Lock Up In Solitary

Teen kills himself after lock up in solitary confinement on Rikers.

Kalif Brower Killed himself last week after spending 3 years in solitary. being in Solitary in Rikers prison in New York.
He was 16 years old waiting to go to trial.
Commentators have dubbed last week's suicide of Kalief Browder – who, at sixteen, was arrested and incarcerated on Rikers Island for three years while awaiting trial – a "tragedy." "Tragedy" suggests an unavoidable calamity. Kalief's heartbreaking death was the direct result of irrational criminal and juvenile justice policies compounded by deliberate acts of cruelty and indifference by those charged with ensuring his safety during his 1,000 days in jail. That the loss of this young man, so full of promise, was utterly preventable makes it all the more horrifying.
According to the New Yorker, Browder was charged with robbery of a backpack in 2010. From the start, many questions arose regarding his involvement in the crime; the complaining witness, for example, provided conflicting details about the incident, including the date on which it occurred. At the time, Browder was a high school sophomore who teachers described as "smart" and "fun." The court set bail at $3,000, which his mother could not afford to post. So, he sat in jail.
Over the next three years, Browder was brutalized numerous times by correctional officers and other inmates. He was held in solitary confinement and deprived of any meaningful human interaction for a total of almost two years. His physical and mental health deteriorated; for the first time, he began to contemplate suicide and attempted at least once to hang himself. Despite this trauma, he rejected numerous, increasingly lenient plea offers, insisting on his innocence and his right to a trial. Ultimately, the case against him was dismissed and he was released in May 2013. After returning home, he continued to suffer the psychological aftershocks of his ordeal. His life, as he saw it, had been derailed. He was only 22 when he took his own life.
First, although he was just 16 at the time of his arrest, he was charged as an adult and held in an adult jail. Every state, including New Jersey, has mechanisms for prosecuting children in the adult system, under the guise of public safety. Yet study after study has established that young people prosecuted as adults reoffend more frequently and more seriously than those who remain in the juvenile justice system. Like Browder, they are more likely to be physically and sexually assaulted while in custody, more likely to attempt or commit suicide and less likely to receive essential educational services and mental health treatment.

Second, though Browder was never convicted of the robbery, he sat in jail for three years. He wasn't detained because he was dangerous or likely to skip town: he was jailed because he didn't have $3,000. Throughout the country, including in New Jersey, jails are filled with people who are in jail simply because they are poor. And Browder, like so many people in our state, didn't wait weeks or months for his day in court, he waited years. Courts in New Jersey have failed to enforce the right to a speedy trial even in cases where it took more than four years to bring a defendant to trial.
Finally, Browder, like so many incarcerated people, suffered long periods of solitary confinement, and he attributed his ongoing depression and anxiety to the trauma of that isolation. This is consistent with a substantial body of research establishing that even a short stint in solitary can lead to profound psychological distress, including chronic and overwhelming depression, paranoia, hallucinations and feelings of rage and violence. Solitary is even more dangerous for children, whose brains are still developing and are more acutely affected by the denial of human contact.

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/06/nj_should_learn_from_kalief_browders_death_how_to.html

16-year-old Utah boy was sentenced earlier this month to up to 15 years

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/26/16-year-old-sent-to-utah-prison-for-15-years-after-judge-changes-terms-of-plea-deal/
A 16-year-old Utah boy was sentenced earlier this month to up to 15 years in a maximum security prison after a judge changed the terms of a plea agreement.
Cooper Van Huizen pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree felony robbery for his role in a home invasion late last year.
The teen, who had no prior criminal history, and his parents believed the plea deal would result in 180 days in jail.
But District Judge Ernie Jones told Van Huizen at the May 7 sentencing hearing he believed the terms recommended by prosecutors and the probation board were “too soft” and instead sent the boy to Utah State Prison for one to 15 years.
Van Huizen cried and begged for mercy as he was led from the courtroom handcuffed in front of sobbing family members.
“He’s 16 years old,” said his father, Marc Van Huizen. “Some 16-years-olds are more mature than others, but Cooper is really soft and tender emotionally. He’s just a nice, sweet young boy, always has been. He’s not this rough-and-tough, wannabe street-wise little kid.”
The teen is being held in a cell alone to protect him from other prisoners at “Uintah 1,” which houses death-row inmates and gang members.
Van Huizen was the youngest member in a group of teens who went to home Nov. 19 and held up two people at gunpoint, seeking money, cell phones, and marijuana.
One of the victims told police he believed the assailants would shoot him after ordering him to lie down on his stomach.
The teens left with $10, a wallet, a cellphone and a bag of marijuana, police said.Van Huizen admits he brought two of his father’s unloaded guns to the robbery, but his attorney said other teens pointed the guns at the victims.
The judge noted during Van Huizen’s sentencing that prosecutors uncovered evidence that the teens planned six similar robberies, but the teen’s attorney said no evidence linked him to the plot.
Van Huizen and his parents are fighting the sentence, saying their defense attorney failed to provide sound legal advice, and their new attorney has asked the judge to reconsider his sentence and allow the teen to withdraw his guilty pleas.
“As I look back on what I did, I recognize that I was reckless in trying to fit in with and please new people I did not really know,” Van Huizen wrote in a court document filed Tuesday. “My judgment was impaired by my use of marijuana.”
Van Huizen’s case was bound over in December to adult court, where he was charged with two counts of aggravated robbery and one count of aggravated burglary – which carried a possible life sentence.
His mother told the court that Van Huizen’s previous defense attorney said the teen would be eligible for a 402 reduction, which would reduce the felonies to misdemeanors once he completed probation, if he accepted the plea deal.
Attorney Roy Cole said he believed there would be no prison term, and he had asked the court to allow Van Huizen to serve his jail term over the summer so he could complete the school year.
But instead, the judge imposed the maximum prison term for the charges, although the teen’s co-defendant – 17-year-old Joshua Dutson – was sentenced by the same judge to 210 days on the same plea agreement Van Huizen accepted.
Another teen involved in the case, 19-year-old Tomek Perkins, pleaded guilty to second-degree felony counts of attempted robbery and burglary and was sentenced in April to 180 days in jail.
“We were completely shocked,” Marc Van Huizen said. “We were amazed, (and) had I known what I know now, I would not have allowed my son to accept that plea deal. I’m the one who told him to do it. [I thought] we had the ability to put this all behind him.”
Two other teens’ cases remain pending, and no hearing date has been set for Cooper Van Huizen’s motions.
Marc Van Huizen said he believes it would have been fair to keep his son’s case in juvenile court and sentence him to a year in a juvenile detention facility.
“He himself now has complete remorse and regret, forever being a part of that situation and he wishes he could take that day back,” the teen’s father said.
Mark Van Huizen said he has not seen his son since his sentencing due to prison orientation rules, but fears his son will be raped or otherwise harmed at the maximum security prison.
A prison spokeswoman said the teen, who is being held alone for 23 hours a day, would likely be moved eventually to a county jail or another suitable facility.
“The mistake that he made — the first ever he’s made in his life — was a big one,” Marc Van Huizen said.
By Travis Gettys
Monday, May 26, 2014

16 Year Old Jailed At Rikers For 3 Years Without A Trial

Browder was a 16-year-old sophomore in high school walking home from a party in the Bronx when he was arrested on a tip that he robbed someone three weeks earlier. He was hauled off to Rikers Island, a prison known for punishing conditions and overuse of force, and was held because he couldn’t pay the $10,000 bail. Browder went to court on several occasions, but he was never scheduled for trial. After 33 months in jail, Browder said a judge offered freedom in exchange for a guilty plea, threatening that he could face 15 years in jail if convicted. He refused. Then one day, he was released with no explanation. “They just dismissed the case and they think it’s all right. No apology, no nothing,” he told WABC-TV. Now at age 20 with his teen years behind him, Browder is first faced with finishing his GED and trying to make up for three years of his teen years lost. Browder says he spent more than 400 days in solitary confinement, was deprived of meals, and was assaulted and beaten both by officers and fellow inmates. Browder attempted suicide at least six times. Last month he filed a lawsuit last month against the city and several agencies. The Bronx District Attorney’s office has declined to comment. Browder’s story lays out a laundry list of some of the most prevalent problems with the criminal justice system. Browder was stopped in the Bronx, where the New York Police Department came under particular fire for its over-aggressive use of stops and unsubstantiated charges of “trespassing.” He was purportedly jailed based solely on one report to police, reinforcing race disparities in the criminal justice system. He was held in jail pursuant to bail policies that routinely punish the impoverished. And he was held in solitary confinement as a juvenile, even though the draconian punishment has particularly detrimental long-term effects on youths. An internal review recently obtained by the Associated Press finds a spike in use of both solitary confinement and force by staff at Rikers Island. http://www.alternet.org/16-year-old-jailed-rikers-3-years-without-trial

Fighting For My Freedom Christy Phillips} In Prison Since She Was 15

http://christyphillips308.wordpress.com/2013/04/19/my-name-is-christy-clinton-phillips/ Fighting For My Freedom Christy Phillips About Christy My name is Christy Clinton Phillips. I am being held in prison under violations of my civil and political rights I need help in fighting for the protection of these rights. The issue of my case in short form, is as follows: I was 15 yrs. old when my crime occurred and was sentenced to life in prison. According to the UN INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS(to which the United States is a party to) AND CRC(Convention/Committee on the rights of the child). a life sentence for a child is explicitly prohibited under article 37(a) of CRC and(article 6 the right to life, survival and development) paragraph 11 and paragraph 77. Under article 14(g)4 the court procedure must be such as will take account of a juvenile persons age and the desire ability of promoting their rehabilitation. In my case, the court did not take my age into consideration nor did they promote rehabilitation by sentencing me to LIFE in prison. “LIFERS” in prison are mostly denied access to rehabilitative services because of the lengthy sentence. Article 14(g) also prohibits law enforcement to cause a child to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt. In my case, I reported a homicide, I was held in the lounge area of the Rialto Police Station over night and interrogated the next day. I requested to the interrogating officers three times if I could be taken to a telephone to contact my mother I was told that I could not contact anyone outside the police station until after I was interrogated. After being held away from home and in a police station over night, I was intimidated confused and tired so under duress I cooperated with them I was under the impression that I would not be allowed to go home until after I cooperated with them. During my interrogation the detectives made it clear that they wanted me to admit guilt and would not end the interrogation until after I had done so, I did and was convicted and sentenced to life in prison based on that coerced confession. Letter of support:Christy Phillips W-94100 C.C.W.F. P.O.BOX 1508 512-15-2up Chowchilla, Ca. 93610 www.gofundme.com/20h29c www.change.org/petitions/justice-for-christy-clinton-phillips-cdc-w-94100. http://tobtr.com/3046483 http://christyphillips308.wordpress.com http://pinterest.com/irishgreeneyes2/christy-phillips/ https://twitter.com/ChristyPhillip1 https://www.facebook.com/christy.phillips.129 https://www.facebook.com/groups/190341227781152/ Share this:

Free Christy Phillips and Reform JLWOP

Free Christy Phillips and Reform JLWOP This group is dedicated to Freeing Christy Phillips' and abolishing JLWOP. For more info visit: http://www.christyclintonphillips.blogspot.com/

Sentenced at age 16 she has spent 1/2 her life in prison

https://www.change.org/petitions/governor-terry-branstad-and-the-iowa-board-of-parole-make-christine-lockheart-immediately-eligible-for-parole Sentenced at age 16 she has spent 1/2 her life in prison. 27 Years. She deserves a second chance* Please sign Her Petition Christine Lockheart has been incarcerated since she was 17, she has now been in prison well over half of her life (the past 27 years). Christine has a life without parole sentence for a murder that took place when she was 17, but Christine was not the killer. Christine's boyfriend at the time, Rick Nebinger who was 24 when the crime took place brutally murdered Floyd Brown while Christine unknowingly waited in the car. Rick was an adult with a long history of convictions and pending charges. Christine was given the same sentence as the assailant because she was considered an aider and abettor and did not turn her boyfriend in. Christine has served more time in prison for this crime than the man who committed the murder, who passed away in prison. When the Supreme Court ruled against mandatory life without parole for juveniles they did so because scientific neurological research has proven that the brains of children are not as fully developed as the brains of adults and therefore children are less culpable than adults. In the past 27 years that Christine has been incarcerated she has developed into an amazing woman. She has served as a mentor to other inmates who have come and gone, she has become the editor of the newsletter for the Iowa Coalition to Oppose Life Without the Possibility of Parole for Children, and she is working on earning a college degree. Christine has already spent 27 years of her life paying for her knowledge of this crime. No other country in the world sentences juveniles to life without parole. Christine should not spend any more of her life behind bars for her role in this crime. Please sign this petition and help Christine get a second chance. To: Governor Terry Branstad and the Iowa Board of Parole Make Christine Lockheart immediately eligible for parole! Sincerely, [Your name]

‘I was 16 when I was tortured, framed up, jailed for 28 years’

The Militant - December 31, 2012 -- ‘I was 16 when I was tortured, framed up, jailed for 28 years’ www.themilitant.com I was 16 years old when I became one of their victims and consequently spent 28 years of my life behind bars for a crime I did not commit.

A Child Offender’s Encounter with Blind Justice

Crushed Against the Law: A Child Offender’s Encounter with Blind Justice by Robert Saleem Holbrook “Trust me,” said my attorney confidently, “you’re young with no juvenile detention record, the judge and district attorney will take that into consideration. The death penalty or life without parole is not an option for a juvenile ‘lookout’ to a homicide. You’ll be all right.” Those were my attorney’s words a couple hours before I was sentenced to life without parole for being a ‘lookout’ to a drug-related homicide. I stood there and listened as the judge dispassionately stated that he was not bound by law to take into consideration my age and immaturity in determining the sentence imposed upon me. I honestly believe I would have encountered more sympathy from a hungry pack of tigers than from the judge that sentenced me to LWOP for a crime I participated in, unknowingly at that, at the age of 16. To be straight, I’ve encountered more sympathy from mass murders, rapists and vicious psychopaths in the 18 years I’ve been imprisoned than a child offender will encounter in a Pennsylvania courtroom when charged as an “adult” for committing or participating in a homicide. He or she could not encounter a more ruthless predator than the prosecutor and judge who will stand there and argue with a straight face that the child standing in front of them is not a child but rather an “adult offender” trapped in a child’s body. Before they will even come to develop their sense of humanity and individuality a child offender will stand there and listen, vainly attempting to comprehend, as their humanity and identity as an adolescent is stripped away in a courtroom dedicated to upholding the law and preserving the rights of all people. Children are the most vulnerable segment of any population because their lives and rights are entrusted to the society they belong to. They have no voice for themselves; therefore the law – at least in theory – entrusts their well being to society. However, as it stands now, an abandoned animal garners more sympathy than a child offender charged and sentenced as an adult for participating in or committing a homicide. Does that statement sound extreme? Consider this: in the United States, there are over 2,300 prisoners serving LWOP for participating in or committing a homicide as child offenders. In the rest of the world, there are a total of ZERO. Consider the absurdity of that. A child offender who makes a terrible decision as a youth in the United States would receive a more balanced sense of justice and leniency in countries such as China, Libya, Cuba, and Mexico that they would at home. Countries that habitually violate and disregard human rights extend more protection to their child offenders than the United States which proclaims itself a defender of human rights. Sentencing a child offender to LWOP is a violation of a child’s human rights. No matter what legal language the state employs under the guise of protecting society, a child does not cease being a child despite a terrible decision he/she makes that runs afoul of the law. And what type of society needs protection from its own children? A human right is defined as a basic fundamental right that is inherent. It is not bestowed by the state, it is a universal right that is to be protected by the state and, in extension, by the international community of nations. The United Nation’s Conventional on the Rights of the Child (CRC) Treaty has been signed and ratified by every nation in the world with the exception of the United States and Somalia.# The CRC establishes fundamental rights of children that cannot be infringed upon by the states. The CRC acknowledges the special right of children that reflect their unique vulnerabilities, needs and the affirmative responsibility of governments to protect them. Recognizing a need to address children that run afoul of the law and the need to protect child offenders from draconian or grossly disproportionate sentences, the CRC prohibits sentences that eliminate the ability of child offenders to evolve into better adults and one day re-enter society. Article 37(a) states: Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offenses committed by person under eighteen years of age. Since the United States has not ratified this treaty this prohibition lands on deaf ears in courtrooms around the United States. Child offenders and their parents still want to believe in vain that the state will develop a conscience and recognize and take into consideration the age and immaturity of their children in the court of law. That ain’t going to happen. Like a lamb before the slaughter they will stand in front of a judge’s bench and have not only their human rights stripped but also their freedom and ability to one day develop into a reformed adult capable of entering society. Just attempt to imagine what it feels like to be a 34 year old man condemned to die in prison for a terrible decision, made under duress, when you were a child? Then being denied the ability to ever demonstrate that the person you are at 34 is not the child you were at 16. A life under a cloud of utter hopelessness perpetually drifts over the head of a prisoner serving LWOP for a crime he committed or participated in as a child offender. He is forever condemned to his past despite the accomplishments and maturity he has developed as an adult. It is no wonder then that the U.N.’s Committee on Torture stated in 2005 that LWOP for child offenders could constitute a violation of the international prohibition against cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment. Picture the absurdity and mental anguish of a child offender sentenced to LWOP and denied the opportunity of parole release for being a “lookout” to a homicide in Pennsylvania watching Charles Manson, a psychopathic mass murderer in California, being granted the ability to appear in front of a parole board every four years to plead his case for release. Consider the absurdity of Dennis Radar, the Kansas BTK serial killer, serving multiple life sentences, being eligible for a parole hearing in forty years or 63-year old Mr. Hilton, who murdered and beheaded a female hiker in Georgia, sentenced to life in prison and who will be eligible for parole in thirty years. How about Darrel Mack who sliced his wife’s throat – thereby killing her – to avoid a divorce settlement and then shot the judge that handled the divorce? He will be eligible for parole in 36 years. And let’s not forget Pennsylvania’s own Theodore Solano, a convicted pedophile, who in 1993 kidnapped and murdered 18 year old Olga Shugar. Solano pled guilty to a deal offered by the state prosecutor’s office that sentenced him to 17-40 years in prison. This is the same state prosecutor’s office that insisted on pursuing the death sentence of LWOP in my situation for being a 16 year old “lookout.” In addition to all of these men being mass murderers, the other thing they have in common is that all of them will have the opportunity to appear before a parole board and plead their rehabilitation while I will never have that opportunity despite having murdered no one. Does it sound wrong that men who murdered should have the opportunity for parole while child offenders who did not murder should be denied the opportunity for parole. Defenders of LWOP would argue that the above examples are the exception not the norm; however, according to U.S. Department of Justice statistics, they are wrong. Human Rights Watch has documented that in eleven out of the seventeen years between 1985 and 2001, child offenders convicted of murder were more likely to enter prison with LWOP than adult murder offenders. How could the state deal more harshly with child offenders, who as children are not even entrusted with the responsibilities and privileges granted adults, than adult offenders? In what other arena are children held to a more stringent standard of responsibility than adults? A child offender charged as an adult has the absurd burden of proving he or she should be held to the accountability of a minor instead of an adult. Let’s delve deeper into that and further consider its absurdity. Let’s reverse the situation. Suppose an adult throws a tantrum because he or she doesn’t get their way and runs amok destroying property and striking individuals in their presence, an act which results in their arrest for vandalizing and destroying property, disturbing the peace and aggravated assault. Because the adult “acted like a child” and should have “known better,” should he or she be charged as a “child offender” and be subjected to the juvenile justice system for throwing a tantrum? Should he or she be referred to as a delinquent instead of a criminal? If an adult offender attempted to use this reasoning to excuse their behavior they would be laughed out of the courtroom. Yet the same absurd scenario plays itself out in reverse in countless courtrooms across the United States for child offenders charged and sentenced as adults who are held to the responsibility and maturity level of adults because of poor decisions they made as children. Yet, in their case, the consequences are real and no one is laughing. Justice is about punishment, but proportional punishment and not a vengeance-driven sense of justice that is blind to a child offender. Just as it is absurd to hold a child offender to the same level of responsibility and decision-making as adults, it would also be absurd to advocate that child offenders that commit homicide or participate in a homicide be given a slap on the wrist and be sent home. They should be punished in a manner that addresses the seriousness of their offense while recognizing they are children and their lives should not be extinguished and sacrificed at the altar of vengeance. When the law preys on its child offenders – on children it is obligated to protect – it is no better than the criminal predators that prey on children in society, children they are obliged morally to protect. The state’s blind justice when it comes to sentencing child offenders to LWOP, which deliberately ignores their age and immaturity, not only reveals a travesty of justice in the nation’s treatment of its child offenders but also exposes the absurdity of vengeance-driven justice at the expense of the human rights of children crushed against the law in our nation’s courtrooms. God save the children, for surely the law won’t. Robert L. Holbrook #BL-5140 SCI Greene 175 Progress Drive Waynesburg, PA 15370 August 4, 2008 http://freesalim.net/crushed_against_the_law

12-Year-Old To Prison For 25 Years In Indiana

Indiana appeals court raises questions in case that sent 12-year-old to prison for 25 years Paul Henry Gingerich was 12-years-old when he arrived at the Pendleton Juvenile Correctional Facility in 2011 The future of a boy believed to be the youngest Hoosier ever sentenced to prison as an adult rests now in the hands of three judges who today raised pointed questions about whether his case was handled properly. The Indiana Court of Appeals panel heard 40 minutes of arguments in the case of Paul Henry Gingerich, a 14-year-old who’s been imprisoned the last 2 1/2 years after he pleaded guilty, at age 12, to conspiracy commit murder in the 2010 killing of his friend’s stepfather in Kosciusko County. A decision could take several weeks. The judges’ questions seemed to focus in on whether it was proper that Gingerich’s case was moved out of juvenile court, whether his attorneys had enough time to argue that it should stay and, given all that, his eventual guilty plea wasn’t valid. Gingerich, who is serving time at the Pendleton Juvenile Correctional Facility that could keep him in jail until age 24, was not present for the hearing. But his parents, two sisters, grandfather and a host of cousins helped fill the Supreme Court room where the appeals panel heard the arguments. His attorney, Monica Foster, argued that Gingerich -- an 80-pound sixth grader at the time of the crime -- didn’t understand the proceedings well enough for the case to be moved to adult court. She also said the four days his attorneys had to prepare for the waiver-to-adult-court hearing was inadequate -- that defense attorneys in Marion County, by contrast, typically get three months. She said a psychologist who examined the boy was concerned about his competence to stand trial in adult court and that brain research on the development of youth would have aided his case. The three appellate judges -- James S. Kirsch, John G. Baker and Elaine B. Brown -- quizzed Foster on some matters of law, but their most poignant question was about the risks Gingerich faces if they rule in his favor and give him a legal do-over. In other words, if the process is repeated and he’s again moved to adult court -- at age 15 by the time a new case would be heard -- who’s to say he might not get a stiffer punishment?

Think of the children

Think of the children
--------------
Posted: 12 Sep 2012 06:07 PM PDT
The classic strawman, the underlying justification for any legislation appearing to be tough on crime, the go-to argument for riling up mobs in your favor is to implore people to, please, think of the children.
The “children” at issue are not just any children: they’re your children and mine, those sweet innocent babes who just want to eat ice cream and roll in the mud and take cute pictures with the family dog. Those naive children whom we must protect at all costs from the dangerous monsters that lurk around the corner and wait in shadows. Unless, of course, these children commit crimes themselves, in which case we do think of them: we think of them as juveniles. One day, they’re the future of the nation, the next they’re shackled in the back of a prison van, drenched in their newly acquired status as irredeemable delinquents, the scourge of society.
Juveniles have long been the forgotten sector of the criminal justice system. Practicing in juvenile court is barely a step above practicing in family court. Representing them is akin to being a social worker and no self-respecting defense lawyer voluntarily wants to go into juvenile court and looks down on those who do. Until now. After the Supreme Court’s decisions in Graham v. Florida and Miller v. Alabama, the plight of juvenile defendants is finally seeing the light of day and taking center stage in a long-overdue discussion about just what, exactly, we are doing to our children. These two cases are notable not only for their respective holdings, but also for mainstreaming the scientific consensus on the development of the adolescent brain.
They’ve caused us to re-examine our treatment of these damaged, troubled 14, 15, 16 and 17 year olds and have shone a spotlight on the ugly legislation we have in our states that mistreats these children.
There are two notable developments today in juvenile law, which are worth mentioning briefly: first, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued this major opinion [PDF], holding that a prosecutor’s decision to seek transfer of a juvenile to adult court is subject to an “abuse of discretion” standard, not a more stringent “gross and patent abuse of discretion” standard1. Second, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court today heard oral argument in a case about the retroactive application of Miller and just what is to be done about juveniles sentenced to mandatory life without parole. It’s a difficult question, to be sure.
But what’s notable about these cases – and specifically the NJ case – is how we are treating our children. The NJ statute calls for a prosecutor to seek transfer to adult court when certain criteria are met: namely that the juvenile is 16 or above and charged with specific crimes. In 2000, the NJ legislature did away with a provision in that statute that used to permit the juvenile to present evidence and mitigating information countering the request to transfer. Now, the 16 year old has no voice in this proceeding. In NJ, at least, a judge has the authority to deny the transfer, but only under very specific circumstances.
Connecticut is worse: Any juvenile 14 (!!!) and above who is charged with a felony that exposes him to a maximum of 20 or 25 years in jail (Class B and A felonies) must be automatically transferred to adult court. Not a single person in the juvenile court system has the authority to prevent that transfer. Upon transfer, the prosecutor in adult court has 10 days to decide whether to send the case back to juvenile court. Not a judge, and certainly not a defense attorney.
The net effect of this is that the juvenile who was exposed to a maximum punishment of 10 years (in NJ) or 4 years (in CT), is now exposed to adult sentences with adult consequences, often to include mandatory-minimums that can constitute a period greater than 70% of the juvenile’s life up to that point. I use these two states as examples, but I’m pretty certain that most, if not all, states have similar provisions.
The children, their rehabilitation and their individual circumstances have all been cut out of the process in the name of lip service to some badly flawed public policy. These children grow up in the adult criminal justice system, where any pretense of rehabilitation has long since been abandoned and are crippled in their lives for a foolish, tragic act at a very young age. They don’t come out reformed; the juvenile system just becomes a breeding ground and the starting point for a pipeline to the adult system.
And yet the science points in exactly the opposite direction. Adolescent brains are developing all the way until 25. Rationality is not a hallmark of the teenager, nor is clear-headed decision making or a full understanding of the consequences of one’s actions. And yet we punish them as if we expect them to be adults and act like adults at 14. Of course consequences must exist for actions that hurt others: isn’t involvement in the criminal justice system, incarceration in a juvenile facility with peers and mandatory supervision enough? Must we make these children carry the burdens of their youthful mistakes well into adulthood, nay, forever?
A rational argument can be made that in some circumstances, the harm or injury caused by the juvenile is so great that the protection and forgiveness of the juvenile system is undeserved. I accept that. But that argument doesn’t support the broad brush applied in states; in fact, it supports the exact opposite. Transfer to adult court must be rare and reserved for those that truly deserve it. It must not be a box that is checked in each and every case regardless of the individual circumstances. Automatic, mandatory transfers serve to undo everything that we teach our children: that we are all individuals, different from each other in unique way and that we should seek out and respect the individuality in others. Treating juveniles as adults should be an option, but an option that should be exercised by a judge after a careful consideration of all the factors: the circumstances of the crime, the record of the defendant, his age, his special circumstances. It should be a measured, informed, intelligent decision made on a case-by-case basis, not a blind one-size-fits-all paean to populist bloodlust and fear.
It’s difficult enough for adults to deal with the devastating consequences of having a felony conviction in modern America. Think of the children.


apublicdefender.com

Teens 170 Years For Crimes That Did not Include Murder

*Sent Away* http://ht.ly/bywzn

Nathan Jordan, (bottom right as a child) who is serving a 170-year sentence
for crimes committed as a juvenile, his sister Allysa Jordan and their
mother. This is the last family picture available as his belongings were
lost after his mother's death .
Photo courtesy of Allysa Jordan

Nathan Jordan is serving a 170-year sentence at Sterling Correction
Facility in Colorado for aggravated robbery, motor vehicle theft and
possession of a weapon.

But most of his crimes, which did not result in anyone’s death or injury,
took place in in the late 1990s, before he was 18 . According to Colorado
law, he was a juvenile offender.

So how did Jordan end up with the kind of sentence that might be meted out
to serial killers or career criminals?

. . . . .


More on Colorado find in
*A photo essay from Time Magazine.*.... *Fremont County, Colorado, has made
incarceration a local specialty industry.* Read more:
http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,2009197,00.html#ixzz0wyOMv3Gm