The Sentencing Project Joins Allies in Opposing JLWOP Sentences

January 31, 2012 (The Sentencing Project)

The Sentencing Project Joins Allies in Opposing JLWOP Sentences

The Sentencing Project joins other amici in voicing our support for eliminating life without parole sentences for young people. The U.S. stands alone worldwide in the imposition of juvenile life sentences with no option for parole. The United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on March 20, 2012 in Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs.
----------------------------------------------

Children in the US as young as eleven years old have been sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of ever being paroled.


According to Amnesty International, the United States is the only country sentencing minors to mandatory life imprisonment sentences.

Ashley Nellis of the Sentencing Project says young people under 18 are being tried and sentenced as adults in homicide related crimes.

Amnesty International released a new report, "This is Where I'm Going to Be When I Die". The Human Rights organization says there is a legal and moral consensus that life imprisonment without the possibility of release should never be used against minors and is calling upon the US to stop.

More than 25 hundred adults are in US jails for committing crimes as juveniles. According to The Sentencing Project, about 75% are African American or Hispanic.

Nellis says sentences are handed down without considering factors such as history of abuse or mental health and the special potential for rehabilitation and change are ignored.

Last year, the US Supreme Court banned life sentences without parole for minors in non-murder cases. The Court has agreed to consider the issue in homicide cases as well. A decision is expected next year.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/213418.html

Signitures Of Those Who Believe Amber Deserves A New Trial

At Age 16 She Faced Life In Prison

To: the President of the United States, Members of the U.S. Senate and Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, see more...your Governor, Members of your State Senate, Members of your State House, the President of the United States, Members of the U.S. Senate and Members of the U.S. House of Representatives

Started by: Carol Leonard

This petition is to generate support for Amber Rose Riley who is currently incarcerated. At age 16, Amber was arrested for first degree murder, a crime she vehemently denies. She is now 22 and has been convicted without 1 witness against her. Please help us to help her.





Deanna Nickell Lampasas, TX
Sent letter to Mike Conaway , Barack Obama , Kay Hutchison , Troy Fraser , Jimmy Aycock and John Cornyn
May 03-2011

Paige Wood Lampasas, TX
Sent letter to Mike Conaway , Barack Obama , Kay Hutchison , Troy Fraser , Jimmy Aycock and John Cornyn
May 03

cory Bywater Lampasas, TX
Sent letter to Mike Conaway , Barack Obama , Kay Hutchison , Troy Fraser , Jimmy Aycock and John Cornyn
May 03

Carissa Bywater Lampasas, TX
Sent letter to Mike Conaway , Barack Obama , Kay Hutchison , Troy Fraser , Jimmy Aycock and John Cornyn
May 03-2010

Gavin Been Lampasas, TX
Sent letter to Mike Conaway , Barack Obama , Kay Hutchison , Troy Fraser , Jimmy Aycock and John Cornyn
May 03

Nick Been Lampasas, TX
Sent letter to Mike Conaway , Barack Obama , Kay Hutchison , Troy Fraser , Jimmy Aycock and John Cornyn
May 03-2010

Nathan Been Lampasas, TX
Sent letter to Mike Conaway , Barack Obama , Kay Hutchison , Troy Fraser , Jimmy Aycock and John Cornyn
May 03-2010

Steven Been Lampasas, TX
Sent letter to Mike Conaway , Barack Obama , Kay Hutchison , Troy Fraser , Jimmy Aycock and John Cornyn
May 03-2010

Terri Been Lampasas, TX
Sent letter to Mike Conaway , Barack Obama , Kay Hutchison , Troy Fraser , Jimmy Aycock and John Cornyn
May 03-2010

Betty Jo Mings Garden Grove, CA
Sent letter to Ed Royce , Dianne Feinstein , Barbara Boxer , Barack Obama , Arnold Schwarzenegger , Tom Harman and Jim Silva
May 03-2010


Jim & Sherry Tilla Chewelah, WA
Sent letter to Barack Obama , Patty Murray , Maria Cantwell and Christine Gregoire
May 04 2011

Douglas Gibson Jr Fairfax, VA
Sent letter to Ike Skelton , Jim Moran , Barack Obama , Jim Webb , Stephen Shannon , David Bulova , Vivian Watts , James Scott and J. Petersen
May 2010

Chase Key Durant, OK
Sent letter to Barack Obama , John Carey , Jay Gumm , Dan Boren , Paul Roan , James Inhofe and Tom Coburn
May 04-2010

Shannon Wilson Phenix City, AL
Sent letter to Mike Rogers , Richard Shelby , Jeff Sessions , Barack Obama , Bob Riley , Myron Penn , T. Little , George Bandy , Lesley Vance and Kim Benefield

Cassandra Donovan stansbury park, UT
Sent letter to Rob Bishop , Barack Obama , Orrin Hatch , Bob Bennett , Jon Huntsman , Brent Goodfellow , James Gowans , Ronda Menlove and Peter Knudson

Daniel De Carvalho stansbury, UT
Sent letter to Rob Bishop , Barack Obama , Orrin Hatch , Bob Bennett , Jon Huntsman , Brent Goodfellow , James Gowans , Ronda Menlove and Peter Knudson
May 04-2010

Celine Sala San Francisco, CA
Sent letter to Nancy Pelosi , Dianne Feinstein , Barbara Boxer , Barack Obama , Arnold Schwarzenegger , Leland Yee , Fiona Ma and Jackie Speier
May 04-2010

james m nordlund Fargo, ND
Sent letter to Earl Pomeroy , Barack Obama , Kent Conrad , Byron Dorgan , Donald Clark , Vonnie Pietsch , Steven Zaiser , Wesley Belter and Jasper Schneider
May 04-2010

Ali Canada Tulsa, OK
Sent letter to Mike Rogers , Barack Obama , Mary Easley , John Sullivan , Sue Tibbs , Eric Proctor , Jeannie McDaniel , James Inhofe and Tom Coburn
May 03/2010

Joel Wood Devine, TX
Sent letter to Barack Obama , Kay Hutchison and John Cornyn
May 2010

Monica Morton Universal City, TX
Sent letter to Lamar Smith , Henry Cuellar , Barack Obama , Kay Hutchison , Judith Zaffirini , Joe Farias and John Cornyn
May 15/2010

Kalindi McAlpine Anchorage, AK
Sent letter to Don Young , Mike Rogers , Lisa Murkowski , Barack Obama , Bettye Davis , Berta Gardner , Mike Hawker , Harry Crawford , Sharon Cissna and Bob Lynn
May 2010

Doni Crawford Gaylord, MI
Sent letter to Bart Stupak , Barack Obama , Carl Levin , Debbie Stabenow , Jennifer Granholm , Jason Allen and Gary McDowell
May 11/2010

Frank Mitchell, III. Santa Ana, CA
Sent letter to Dana Rohrabacher , Loretta Sanchez , Dianne Feinstein , Barbara Boxer , Barack Obama , Arnold Schwarzenegger , Lou Correa , Tom Harman , Van Tran and Jose Solorio
May 2010

Rose Britt Lafollette, TN
Sent letter to Lincoln Davis , Barack Obama , Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker
May 2010

Greg Thomas Huntley, MT
Sent letter to Denny Rehberg , Barack Obama , Max Baucus , Jon Tester , Brian Schweitzer , William Glaser and Duane Ankney
May 10/2010

Denise DiFalco Fort Gratiot, MI
Sent letter to Candice Miller , Barack Obama , Carl Levin , Debbie Stabenow , Jennifer Granholm , Judson Gilbert and John Espinoza
May 05/2010

Earleen Austin Colton, CA
Sent letter to Dianne Feinstein , Barbara Boxer , Barack Obama and Arnold Schwarzenegger
May 05

Nancy Golubski Delavan, WI
Sent letter to David Price , Paul Ryan , Barack Obama , Russ Feingold , Neal Kedzie , Thomas Lothian , Stephen Nass , Chuck Benedict and Herb Kohl
May 05/2010

Paula Hodge Lancaster, CA
Sent letter to Buck McKeon , Kevin McCarthy , Dianne Feinstein , Barbara Boxer , Barack Obama , Arnold Schwarzenegger and George Runner
May 04/2010

Robert Tracy Lockport, IL
Sent letter to Judy Biggert , Dick Durbin , Barack Obama , Christine Radogno , Jim Durkin and Renee Kosel
May 31/2010

Patti Deever Fontana, CA
Sent letter to Joe Baca , Dianne Feinstein , Barbara Boxer , Barack Obama , Arnold Schwarzenegger , Gloria Negrete McLeod and Wilmer Carter
May 20/2010

Rosa Maddux Billings, MT
Sent letter to Denny Rehberg , Barack Obama , Max Baucus , Jon Tester , William Glaser , Wanda Grinde , Tom McGillvray , Kendall Van Dyk and Robyn Driscoll
May 20/2010

Tiesha Hill Redlands, CA
Sent letter to Jerry Lewis , Dianne Feinstein , Barbara Boxer , Barack Obama , Arnold Schwarzenegger , Bill Emmerson , Anthony Adams and Robert Dutton
May 19/2010

Robert Riley Rialto, CA
Sent letter to Joe Baca , Dianne Feinstein , Barbara Boxer , Barack Obama , Arnold Schwarzenegger , Gloria Negrete McLeod and Wilmer Carter
May 19/2010

cathy hill reno, NV
Sent letter to Dan Burton , Dean Heller , Barack Obama , Harry Reid , Maurice Washington , Ty Cobb , John Ensign , Debbie Smith and David Bobzien
May 2010

Kenneth Logsdon Bastrop, TX
Sent letter to Michael McCaul , Lloyd Doggett , Barack Obama , Kay Hutchison , Glenn Hegar and John Cornyn
May 2010

sherry vanavery greenwood, IN
Sent letter to Steve Buyer , Dan Burton , Barack Obama , Dick Lugar , Evan Bayh , R. Young , Patricia Miller , David Frizzell and Woody Burton
May 16/2010

Jan Logsdon Bastrop, TX
Sent letter to Michael McCaul , Lloyd Doggett , Barack Obama , Kay Hutchison , Glenn Hegar and John Cornyn
May/16/2010

Steve McFarland Las Cruces, NM
Sent letter to Jeff Flake , Barack Obama , Jeff Bingaman , Cynthia Nava , Mary Garcia , Antonio Lujan , Andrew Nunez , Jeff Steinborn and Mary Garcia
May 2010


Pamela Eller Lorane, OR
Sent letter to Peter DeFazio , Barack Obama , Ron Wyden , Paul Holvey , Floyd Prozanski , Jeff Merkley and Ted Kulongoski
Jun 12

sandie hampton dalton, GA
Sent letter to Nathan Deal , Johnny Isakson , Saxby Chambliss , Barack Obama , Sonny Perdue , Don Thomas , Tom Dickson , Roger Williams and Tom Weldon
Jun 11

Amy Austin fort worth, TX
Sent letter to Alcee Hastings , Kay Granger , Mike Burgess , Barack Obama , Kay Hutchison , Marc Veasey , Lon Burnam , John Cornyn and Mark Shelton
Jun 11

chrissey conn Crowley, TX
Sent letter to Vic Snyder , Joe Barton , Chet Edwards , Barack Obama , Kay Hutchison , Rob Orr , John Cornyn , Chris Turner and Mark Shelton
Jun 11

Brittany XOXO Colton, CA
Sent letter to Alcee Hastings , Kay Granger , Mike Burgess , Barack Obama , Kay Hutchison , Marc Veasey , Lon Burnam , John Cornyn and Mark Shelton
Jun 10

amy sexton crowley, TX
Sent letter to Vic Snyder , Joe Barton , Chet Edwards , Barack Obama , Kay Hutchison , Rob Orr , John Cornyn , Chris Turner and Mark Shelton
Jun 09

sherri marsak ignacio, CO
Sent letter to Tony Salazar , Barack Obama , Bill Ritter , Jim Isgar , Ellen Roberts , Mark Udall and Michael Bennet
Jun 09

robert riley crestline, CA

Jun 03

steve kav caldwell, NJ
Sent letter to Rodney Frelinghuysen , Barack Obama , Frank Lautenberg , Bob Menendez , Jon Corzine , Richard Codey , John McKeon and Mila Jasey
Jun 03

Gloria Salazar San Antonio, TX
Sent letter to Charlie Gonzalez , Ciro Rodriguez , Barack Obama , Kay Hutchison , Carlos Uresti , David Leibowitz , Joaquin Castro , Jose Menendez and John Cornyn
Jun 01
Ursula Armijo New Baltimore, MI
Sent letter to Candice Miller , Barack Obama , Carl Levin , Debbie Stabenow , Jennifer Granholm , Alan Sanborn and Jennifer Haase
Jun 14

LINDA KNOX SWEETWATER, TN
Sent letter to Jimmy Duncan , Zach Wamp , Barack Obama , Lamar Alexander , Bob Corker , Randy McNally , Jimmy Matlock , Mike Bell and Dennis Ferguson
Jun 13

Dixianne Hawks Chico, CA
Sent letter to Wally Herger , Dianne Feinstein , Barbara Boxer , Barack Obama , Arnold Schwarzenegger , Sam Aanestad , Hon. Jim Nielsen and Hon. Dan Logue
Jun 13

Denise Marhoefer The Juvenile Defender Muncie, IN
Sent letter to Mike Pence , Barack Obama , Dick Lugar , Evan Bayh , Mitch Daniels , Sue Errington , Dennis Tyler and Jack Lutz
Jun 13

Joyce Kelly Largo, FL
Sent letter to Bill Young , Mel Martinez , Bill Nelson , Barack Obama , Charlie Crist , Dennis Jones , James Frishe and Janet Long
Jun 13

Nicholas Ackley hoboken, NJ
Sent letter to Steve Rothman , Albio Sires , Barack Obama , Frank Lautenberg , Bob Menendez , Vincent Prieto , Joan Quigley , Caridad Rodriguez and Ruben Ramos
Jun 13

BONNIE LONG Long Beach, CA
Sent letter to Dianne Feinstein , Barbara Boxer , Barack Obama , Alan Lowenthal , Tom Harman , Jim Silva , Laura Richardson , Dana Rohrabacher and Hon. Bonnie Lowenthal
Jun 12

Donna ACeves Vacaville, CA
Sent letter to Ellen Tauscher , Dianne Feinstein , Barbara Boxer , Barack Obama , Arnold Schwarzenegger , Patricia Wiggins , George Miller , Hon. Mariko Yamada and Lois Wolk
Jun 12

Patricia Rodriguez Hawthorne, CA
Sent letter to Artur Davis , Maxine Waters , Jane Harman , Dianne Feinstein , Barbara Boxer , Barack Obama , Mike Davis , Curren Price , Ted Lieu and Rod Wright
Jun 12

Angela Caldwell Rochester, NY
Sent letter to Louise Slaughter , Barack Obama , Chuck Schumer , Jack Hill , Joseph Robach , James Alesi , Joseph Morelle , David Gantt and Dan Maffei
Jun 12

ricky howard north pole, AK
Sent letter to Don Young , Jo Bonner , Lisa Murkowski , Barack Obama , Joe Thomas , David Guttenberg , Michael Kelly , John Coghill , John Harris and Mark Begich
Jul 08

Diane Ward Sumter, SC
Sent letter to John Spratt , Jim Clyburn , Barack Obama , Jim DeMint , Lindsey Graham , J. Weeks , Philip Lowe , Grady Brown and Murrell Smith
Jul 02

Patricia Brown Riverside, CA
Sent letter to Ken Calvert , Dianne Feinstein , Barbara Boxer , Barack Obama , Arnold Schwarzenegger , Bill Emmerson , Kevin Jeffries , Robert Dutton and Hon. Brian Nestande
Jun 26

DeMarcus Ali Sears Jackson, GA
Sent letter to Jim Marshall , Lynn Westmoreland , Johnny Isakson , Saxby Chambliss , Barack Obama , David Knight , Steve Davis , Jim Cole and John Lunsford
Jun 23

Chris Jennen grand terrace, CA
Sent letter to Duncan Hunter , Dianne Feinstein , Barbara Boxer , Barack Obama , Arnold Schwarzenegger , Dennis Hollingsworth , Christine Kehoe , Joel Anderson and Hon. Nathan Fletcher
Jun 18

Shalyn Traylor Roseville, CA
Sent letter to Dianne Feinstein , Barbara Boxer , Barack Obama , Arnold Schwarzenegger , Dave Cox , Ted Gaines , Roger Niello and Tom McClintock
Jun 18

Lawrence Phipps Chico, CA
Sent letter to Wally Herger , Dianne Feinstein , Barbara Boxer , Barack Obama , Arnold Schwarzenegger , Sam Aanestad , Hon. Jim Nielsen and Hon. Dan Logue
Jun 18

Brenda Ridge New Rockford, ND
Sent letter to Don Young , Earl Pomeroy , Barack Obama , Kent Conrad , Byron Dorgan , Duane DeKrey , Robin Weisz , Ben Vig and Donald Vigesaa
Jun 18

Glenn Larkin Charlotte, NC
Sent letter to Sue Myrick , Mel Watt , Barack Obama , Richard Burr , James DeLeo , Jeff Barnhart , Linda Johnson , Larry Kissell and Kay Hagan
Jun 18

Selene Lawrence Cincinnati, OH
Sent letter to Vic Snyder , Jean Schmidt , Barack Obama , Sherrod Brown , Tyrone Yates , Dale Mallory , George Voinovich , Steve Driehaus and Connie Pillich
Jun 14


Darlene Grenier Lowell, MA
Sent letter to Mike Simpson , Barack Obama , Ted Kennedy , John Kerry , Colleen Garry , Thomas Golden , David Nangle , Kevin Murphy and Niki Tsongas
Jun 09

Annette Blankenship Colonial Heights, VA
Sent letter to Randy Forbes , Barack Obama , Jim Webb , Tim Kaine , Stephen Martin , Henry Marsh , Rosalyn Dance , M. Cox and Riley Ingram
Jun 03

LOUIS RENDON PASADENA, CA
Sent letter to David Dreier , Adam Schiff , Dianne Feinstein , Barbara Boxer , Barack Obama , Arnold Schwarzenegger , Gilbert Cedillo , Mike Eng and Anthony Portantino
Jun 01

sonny carter Eureka Springs, AR
Sent letter to Blanche Lincoln , Mark Pryor , Barack Obama , Mike Beebe , Randy Laverty , Bryan King and John Boozman
Jun 01

Savina Veselinova Sofia, Bulgaria
Sent letter to Dianne Feinstein , Barbara Boxer , Barack Obama and Arnold Schwarzenegger
Jun 01

Clay Adams Buffalo, NY
Sent letter to Louise Slaughter , Barack Obama , Chuck Schumer , Jack Hill , Joseph Robach , James Alesi , Joseph Morelle , David Gantt and Susan John
Jun 01

Sandra Ferreira Pelotas, RS, Brazil
Sent letter to Barack Obama , Kay Hutchison and John Cornyn
Jun 01

Faride Del Valle Barranquilla, Colombia
Sent letter to Ruben Hinojosa , Henry Cuellar , Barack Obama , Kay Hutchison , Juan Hinojosa , Ismael Flores , Veronica Gonzales and John Cornyn
Jun 01

Julie Greenspan San Diego, CA
Sent letter to Duncan Hunter , Susan Davis , Dianne Feinstein , Barbara Boxer , Barack Obama , Arnold Schwarzenegger , Christine Kehoe and Lori Saldana
Jun 01

Stephanie Casch miamisburg, OH
Sent letter to Michael Turner , Barack Obama , Sherrod Brown , George Voinovich , Ted Strickland , Tom Roberts , Shannon Jones , Clayton Luckie and Robert Schuler
May 28


Sourav Roy Kolkata / Mumbai, India
Sent letter to Richard Shelby , Jeff Sessions , Barack Obama and Bob Riley
May 06

Chris . Bayonne, NJ
Sent letter to Donald Payne , Albio Sires , Barack Obama , Frank Lautenberg , Bob Menendez , Joseph Cryan , Raymond Lesniak , Anthony Chiappone and L. Smith
May 06

jake wolfhart Peace Dude Capitan, NM
Sent letter to Barack Obama , Jeff Bingaman and Rod Adair
May 06

Leandro Coutinho San Francisco, CA
Sent letter to Nancy Pelosi , Dianne Feinstein , Barbara Boxer , Barack Obama and Arnold Schwarzenegger
May 06

Shobha Varma Trichur, KY
Sent letter to Barack Obama , Mitch McConnell , Jim Bunning and Steve Beshear
May 06

BALAKRISHNA VARMA Kensington, PA
Sent letter to Barack Obama , Arlen Specter , Bob Casey and Ed Rendell
May 06

Manuela Rodrigues New Jersey, NJ
Sent letter to Donald Payne , Barack Obama , Frank Lautenberg , Bob Menendez , Jon Corzine , Nicholas Scutari , Linda Stender and Jerry Green
May 05

Elizabeth Burke Edgewater, FL
Sent letter to Mel Martinez , Bill Nelson , Barack Obama , Charlie Crist , Evelyn Lynn and Dorothy Hukill
May 05

Tazzie Colorado Longmont, CO
Sent letter to Barack Obama , Bill Ritter , Brandon Shaffer , John Pommer , Paul Weissmann , Dan Gibbs and Claire Levy
May 04


Ginger Geronimo Birmingham, AL
Sent letter to Spencer Bachus , Artur Davis , Richard Shelby , Jeff Sessions , Barack Obama , Steve French , Linda Coleman , Owen Drake , Arthur Payne and Oliver Robinson
May 04

Lizzie Wylder chippewa falls, WI
Sent letter to Ron Kind , Dave Obey , Barack Obama , Russ Feingold , Pat Kreitlow , Jeffrey Wood and Herb Kohl
May 04

Edwin Bonilla Manassas, VA
Sent letter to Frank Wolf , Barack Obama , Jim Webb , Tim Kaine , Charles Colgan , Robert Marshall and Jackson Miller
May 04

Sharen York Anderson, IN
Sent letter to Mike Pence , Barack Obama , Dick Lugar , Evan Bayh , Mitch Daniels , Timothy Lanane , Terri Austin and Scott Reske
May 04

Franz Kurz Freudental, Germany
Sent letter to Tom Carper and Barack Obama
May 2010

Jennifer Hall Greeneville, TN
Sent letter to Barack Obama , Lamar Alexander , Bob Corker , Steve Southerland , Eddie Yokley , Mike Harrison and David Hawk
May 2010

Ainsley Jo Phillips Anderson, IN
Sent letter to Mike Pence , Barack Obama , Dick Lugar , Evan Bayh , Mitch Daniels , Timothy Lanane and Scott Reske
May 04/2010

karen ericson bothell, WA
Sent letter to Barack Obama , Patty Murray , Maria Cantwell , Christine Gregoire , Hans Dunshee , Mark Ericks and Al O'Brien
May 2010

BiLL Fowlie Harmony, ME
Sent letter to Michael Michaud , Barack Obama , Olympia Snowe , Susan Collins , John Baldacci , Douglas Smith , Douglas Thomas and Wright Pinkham
May 2010

Jaime Tamez Los Ranchos, NM
Sent letter to Jeff Flake , Barack Obama , Jeff Bingaman , Dede Feldman , Jimmie Hall , Rick Miera , Edward Sandoval , John Ryan and Gerald Ortiz y Pino
May 03/10


Julia Tawyea' Lake Ariel, PA
Sent letter to Chris Carney , Barack Obama , Arlen Specter , Bob Casey , Lisa Baker , Michael Peifer , Ken Smith , Edward Staback and Robert Mellow
May 26 2010

Tamra Herman Veblen, SD
Sent letter to Barack Obama , John Thune , Mike Rounds , Gary Hanson , Tim Johnson and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
May 25 2010

Sharon Blasingame Sacramento, CA
Sent letter to Dan Lungren , Doris Matsui , Dianne Feinstein , Barbara Boxer , Barack Obama , Arnold Schwarzenegger , Dave Cox , Darrell Steinberg , Ted Gaines and Roger Niello
May 2010

Manny Cuellar Austin, TX
Sent letter to Michael McCaul , Lloyd Doggett , Barack Obama , Kay Hutchison , Steve Ogden , Mark Strama , Dawnna Dukes , John Cornyn and John Carter
May 2010

Rebecca McFarland Las Cruces, NM
Sent letter to Jeff Flake , Barack Obama , Jeff Bingaman , Cynthia Nava , Mary Garcia , Antonio Lujan , Andrew Nunez , Jeff Steinborn and Mary Garcia
May 16 2010

Joycey Berry Canton, NC
Sent letter to Heath Shuler , Barack Obama , Richard Burr , Joe Queen , Ray Rapp , R. Haire and John Snow
May 2011

Diane Steele Farmington, MN
Sent letter to Barack Obama , Amy Klobuchar , Tim Pawlenty , Mary Holberg , Pat Garofalo and John Kline
May 2010

starvin marvin Hooterville, North Dakota, and Taffee, Minnesota and Big Beavers, OR
Sent letter to David Wu , Barack Obama , Ron Wyden , Ginny Burdick , Larry Galizio , Jeff Barker , Tobias Read and Mark Hass
May 2010

Yoke Jaken Ruston, LA
Sent letter to Rodney Alexander , Barack Obama , David Vitter , Mary Landrieu , Hollis Downs , James Fannin , Richard Gallot , Bobby Jindal and Robert Kostelka
May 2010

Cathy Robinson Mobile, AL
Sent letter to Jo Bonner , Bob Filner , Richard Shelby , Jeff Sessions , Barack Obama , Rusty Glover , Spencer Collier , Jamie Ison , Jim Barton and Victor Gaston

>>NOTE>> This Petition ran From May 2010 -July And received 255 Signtures

Harsh-Conditions-Young-Lifers

Lack of educational opportunities
“LWOPs cannot participate in many rehabilitative, educational, vocational training or other assignments available to other inmates with parole dates…. The supposed rationality is that LWOPs are beyond salvagability and would just be taking a spot away from someone who will actually return to society someday.”
– Darryl T. (pseudonym), youth offender serving life without parole in California

The federal government and the states should abolish the sentence of life without parole for crimes committed by children, Human Rights Watch said. Government officials responsible for youth offenders should reform confinement conditions to accommodate their particular vulnerabilities, needs, and capacities to mature, reflect upon the harm they have caused, and change.

“Because children are different, shutting the door to growth, development, and rehabilitation turns a sentence of life without parole into a punishment of excessive cruelty,” said Parker. “Youth offenders should be given a path to rehabilitation while in prison – not forced to forfeit their future.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Youth offenders commonly reported having thoughts of suicide, feelings of intense loneliness, or depression. Isolation was frequently compounded by solitary confinement. In the past five years, at least three youth offenders serving life without parole sentences in the United States have committed suicide.

The 47-page report, “Against All Odds: Prison Conditions for Youth Offenders Serving Life without Parole Sentences in the United States,” draws on six years of research, and interviews and correspondence with correctional officials and hundreds of youth offenders serving life without parole. Human Rights Watch found that nearly every youth offender serving life without parole reported physical violence or sexual abuse by other inmates or corrections officers.

Sexual and physical violence
“When I was young, it was disorienting and scary, like a fish thrown in water not knowing how to swim. Everyone seemed big and dangerous and threatening, I was challenged and intimidated a lot. Canines [sexual predators] stalked me, and at all times I expected to be attacked.”
– Tyler Y. (pseudonym), serving life without parole in Colorado
http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/01/02/us-harsh-conditions-young-lifers

The Age Of The Child* Interrogating Juveniles After Roper v. Simmons

WASH. & LEE L. REV. 385 (2008)

The Age Of The Child* Interrogating Juveniles
After Roper v. Simmons
Tamar R. Birckhead∗


The differences in the psychological and brain development of adolescents
versus adults go a long way to explaining how, in the context of police
interrogation, these common characteristics of adolescence can translate into
attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs that compromise a juvenile’s ability to resist
suggestive questioning techniques.119 For instance, because children and
adolescents have a different sense of time than adults—they live in the present
without much consideration for the long-term consequences of their actions—
studies have shown that it is not uncommon for juvenile suspects to waive their
detailed the 1998 murder of twelve-year-old Stephanie Crowe in her bedroom in Escondido,
California. Her fourteen-year-old brother, Michael, was interrogated by police after he told
them that he had walked by Stephanie’s room that morning but did not see her body. Mark
Sauer & John Wilkins, Haunting Questions: The Stephanie Crowe Murder Case,
SIGNONSANDIEGO.COM, May 1999, at pt. 1 http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/reports/
crowe/crowe1.html (last visited Jan. 12, 2008) (on file with the Washington and Lee Law
Review). Although Michael initially denied any involvement in the crime, after many hours of
interrogation in which the police falsely claimed there was incriminating evidence against him
and promised that Michael would receive "help" instead of jail, he falsely confessed. Id. at pt. 2.
Two of Michael’s teenage friends were also interrogated and falsely confessed to participating
in the crime. Id. at pt. 4. During pretrial motion hearings, Michael’s confession was suppressed
after the judge found that the interrogation techniques had been coercive. Id. at pt. 6. Months
later, Stephanie’s blood was found on the sweatshirt of Richard Tuite, a mentally ill, homeless
man who had been seen in the area on the day of the crime. Id. These developments led to the
eventual dismissal of murder charges against Michael and his friends. Id.
118. See, e.g., Bill Moushey, False Confessions: Coercion Often Leads to False
Confessions, PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, Aug. 31, 2006, http://www.post-gazette.
com/pg/06243/717790-84.stm (last visited Mar. 3, 2008) (citing that 42% of wrongful
convictions of juveniles involved false confessions and that police interrogation techniques can
be coercive but not explaining how or why) (on file with the Washington and Lee Law Review);
Henry Weinstein, Panel Seeks to Curb False Confessions, L.A. TIMES, July 26, 2006, at 3
(characterizing juveniles as being among those most vulnerable to making false confessions but
not discussing why); John Wilkens, Untrue Confessions, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIB., Apr. 15,
2004, at E1 (stating only in passing that police use coercive tactics during interrogations and
that juveniles are particularly vulnerable to them).
119. It is important, however, to acknowledge that there is a distinction between the role
that brain development plays when determining an adolescent’s culpability and the weight to be
given to the suggestibility or impulsivity of that adolescent during interrogation. There is not, at
this time, scientific evidence to support the claim that the ways in which adolescent brain
development make the death penalty inappropriate also produce systemic unreliability in terms
of adolescents’ responses to interrogation. In other words, evidence that an adolescent’s brain
may be less culpable than an adult’s is not necessarily evidence that an adolescent brain is more
suggestible than an adult’s. It is hoped that such inquiries will be pursued in the near future by
those in the fields of neuroscience and developmental psychology.


THE AGE OF THE CHILD 417
right to an attorney and to falsely confess in order to be released from custody
and allowed to go home.120 Similarly, because juveniles are particularly
susceptible to pressure from authority figures, research has found that they are
more compliant and open to suggestion, repetition, and other social influence
tactics than adults, meaning that a teenage suspect is more likely than an adult
to agree to a false or inaccurate version of an event when interrogated by a
police officer.121
A related problem with the traditional investigative techniques used during
police questioning is that juveniles, as a result of their youth and because of
their very nature, often exhibit behaviors that investigators are trained to
associate with deception.122 For instance, studies have found that although
adolescents have difficulty understanding legal terminology, they rarely ask
questions or request clarification and instead pause, hesitate, or equivocate
before answering.123 It has also been shown that teenagers, as a result of lack of
confidence and general anxiety during questioning, avoid making eye contact,
qualify their statements, respond in monosyllables, and provide nonlinear
narratives that are difficult to follow.124 As discussed previously, all such
characteristics should be considered as indicators of deception according to the
Reid Technique, which offers very little in the way of precautions or guidelines
for investigators who must evaluate the behaviors of adolescents.125 Therefore,
120. See Marty Beyer, Immaturity, Culpability & Competency in Juveniles: A Study of 17
Cases, 15 CRIM. JUST. 26, 28–29 (2000) (discussing a thirteen-year-old who falsely confessed
because he was "desperate to go home" and "believed he could take back his false confession
later"); Kassin & Gudjonsson, supra note 26, at 52 (describing a 1981 study which found that
over 90% of juveniles who are questioned waive their Miranda rights, motivated primarily by
the potential for release from detention).
121. Id. (citing studies from 1995, 1999, and 2003 that found that juveniles are particularly
susceptible when interrogated by police and others in positions of authority).
122. Related to this phenomenon is the law’s expectation that children and adolescents
who have committed serious crimes will demonstrate appropriate levels of remorse. See Martha
Grace Duncan, "So Young and So Untender": Remorseless Children and the Expectations of
the Law, 102 COLUM. L. REV. 1469, 1473 (2002) (drawing on psychology, sociology, and
literature to challenge the law’s view of remorse as an emotional state that "decent" people—
regardless of age—demonstrate after committing a heinous offense, and explaining that for
developmental reasons, adolescents "may show less grief than the system demands").
123. See, e.g., Marty Beyer, What’s Behind Behavior Matters: The Effects of Disabilities,
Trauma and Immaturity on Juvenile Intent and Ability to Assist Counsel, 58 GUILD PRAC. 112,
112 (2001) (discussing that 17%–53% of juveniles charged with criminal offenses have learning
disabilities and that this often results in difficulties processing information).
124. Id.
125. See supra note 95 and accompanying text (listing behaviors that are considered signs
and signals of deception according to proponents of Reid). The 2004 edition of the text on the
Reid Technique has a short chapter that lists factors that may lead to the misinterpretation of
behaviors during the pre-interrogation interview, including two paragraphs that mention that
418 65 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 385 (2008)
it stands to reason that because police officers do not consciously recognize,
and do not control for, the fact that adolescents—by simple virtue of their
adolescence—often talk and behave in ways that are otherwise consistent with
deception, juveniles are more likely to be deceptive in the pre-interrogation
interview than adults.126
There are several procedural aspects of traditional police interrogation that
also contribute to the particular vulnerability of juveniles. Much has been
written by both legal scholars and social scientists regarding the difficulties that
young people have understanding the language and meaning of Miranda rights,
rendering the warnings almost completely ineffectual in serving their stated
purpose—at least for juveniles.127 In addition, empirical studies have shown
caution must be used when evaluating behaviors of children less than nine-years-old. INBAU,
REID, BUCKLEY & JAYNE, supra note 93, at 155–71. The only mention within the chapter of
juvenile subjects older than nine is a single paragraph that includes the pejorative statement:
"Ordinarily it seems to matter rather little to these subjects whether what they say is truthful or
untruthful; they tend to envision themselves as socially unaccountable for their conduct. As a
consequence, their behavior symptoms tend to be unreliable." Id. at 168.
126. Owen-Kostelnik, Repucci & Meyer, supra note 27, at 293. In recent years there have
been a number of well-publicized cases in which police investigators have wrongly found
juveniles to be deceptive during the initial stages of an investigation, leading to coercive and/or
suggestive interrogations that result in false confessions. See, e.g., Steven A. Drizin & Beth A.
Colgan, Tales from the Juvenile Confession Front: A Guide to How Standard Police
Interrogation Tactics Can Produce Coerced and False Confessions from Juvenile Suspects, in
INTERROGATIONS, CONFESSIONS, AND ENTRAPMENT, supra note 114, at 127, 130–51 (discussing
several recent cases in which the police, driven by interviewer bias, conducted investigations
that led them wrongly to suspect that the children they interrogated were involved in the
crimes); see also supra note 117 (discussing the specifics of several recent cases in which
children wrongly confessed as a result of coercive interrogation techniques).
127. A 1981 study of juveniles’ comprehension of Miranda rights concluded that juvenile
detainees aged fourteen and younger were significantly less likely to comprehend their
interrogation rights than older teens and adults. These results were complemented by a study
that found that intelligence strongly correlates with the understanding of one’s legal rights, a
significant finding given that many juvenile offenders have been found to be of low intellect.
See, e.g., THOMAS GRISSO, JUVENILES’ WAIVER OF RIGHTS: LEGAL & PSYCHOLOGICAL
COMPETENCE 39–93, 109–60 (1981) (describing previous research assessing juveniles’ ability to
understand and waive Miranda rights and reporting the results of his own study on this subject);
Thomas Grisso et al., Juveniles’ Competence to Stand Trial: A Comparison of Adolescents’ and
Adults’ Capacities as Trial Defendants, 27 LAW & HUM. BEHAV. 333, 333–63 (2003) (finding
that adolescents performed more poorly than adults on a test used to measure competence to
stand trial); Thomas Grisso, Juveniles’ Capacities to Waive Miranda Rights: An Empirical
Analysis, 68 CAL. L. REV. 1134, 1134–66 (1980) (describing the methodology and results of
empirical studies conducted to assess the capacity of juveniles and adults to knowingly waive
their Miranda rights); see also Barry C. Feld, Police Interrogation of Juveniles: An Empirical
Study of Policy and Practice, 97 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 219, 233 (2006) (finding that
juveniles aged fifteen and younger showed the "clearest and greatest disability" in exercising
their Miranda rights and their adjudicative competence and that while juveniles aged sixteen
and older appeared to function comparably with adults, "many still exhibited significant deficits
THE AGE OF THE CHILD 419
that adolescents are particularly vulnerable to the classic interrogative
techniques of confronting the suspect with false evidence and utilizing other
forms of "trickery."128 There has also been recent research demonstrating that
the presence of an "interested adult"—such as a parent, guardian, or friend—
which is required by some states to protect juveniles during interrogation, has
no impact on the rate at which juveniles waive their rights, as many parents
assume a passive role during questioning or, instead, strongly urge their
children to "do the right thing" and cooperate.129
The majority holding in Roper v. Simmons, therefore, is instructive in
delineating the central reasons why juveniles are particularly vulnerable to
standard police interrogative techniques. Because adolescents are impulsive,
highly suggestible, and susceptible to the influences of authority figures, the
effects of interviewer bias, guilt-presumption, and the Reid Technique can be
especially pernicious. Further compounding the inherently problematic nature
of interrogation, police often mistake the traits and behaviors naturally
which could increase their vulnerability during interrogation"); King, supra note 108, at 458–62
(discussing the difficulties that adolescents have understanding their Miranda rights and their
resultant inability to make a knowing and intelligent decision to waive them); Redlich et al.,
supra note 114, at 112–14 (discussing contemporary empirical studies, including those
conducted by Grisso, that have investigated juveniles’ comprehension of Miranda rights); infra
notes 172–76 and accompanying text (discussing the distinctions drawn between the
comprehension of "younger" versus "older" adolescents and the significance of such for the
arguments advanced in this Article).
128. See Patrick M. McMullen, Comment, Questioning the Questions: The
Impermissibility of Police Deception in Interrogations of Juveniles, 99 NW. U. L. REV. 971, 992
(proposing a per se bar on all police deception in interrogations of juveniles). But see Feld,
supra note 127, at 312–13 (stating that while deceit, trickery, and false evidence play a
"significant role" in eliciting some false confessions and that Miranda does not "significantly
restrain" the interrogation practices police use following waivers, more empirical research is
needed in this area).
129. See Kassin & Gudjonsson, supra note 26, at 52 (citing a 2001 study finding that the
presence of an "interested adult" does not lower the waiver rate for juvenile suspects); see also
Barry C. Feld, Juveniles’ Waiver of Legal Rights: Confessions, Miranda, and the Right to
Counsel, in YOUTH ON TRIAL, supra note 1, at 105, 116–18 [hereinafter Feld, Juveniles’ Waiver]
(discussing that the presence of a parent during interrogation may increase, rather than decrease,
the coercive pressure on a juvenile); Barry C. Feld, Juveniles’ Competence to Exercise Miranda
Rights: An Empirical Study of Policy and Practice, 91 MINN. L. REV. 26, 36 (2006) [hereinafter
Feld, Juveniles’ Competence] (stating that approximately twelve states have a per se rule
requiring a parent, guardian, or other interested adult at interrogation and before rights are
waived and citing examples of such). As of the end of the 2002 legislative session, eleven states
had adopted an "interested adult test," requiring that juveniles have an opportunity to consult
with a parent or other interested adult before or during an interrogation. National Center for
Juvenile Justice (NCJJ), Frequently Asked Questions, http://ncjj.servehttp.com/NCJJWebsite/
faq/legislation5.htm (last visited Jan. 12, 2008) (on file with the Washington and Lee Law
Review).
420 65 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 385 (2008)
exhibited by adolescents for conscious signs of deception, heightening the
potential for interviewer bias and for false statements by juveniles.
The next subpart addresses the disparity that exists between the number
and quality of procedural protections offered to child witnesses and victims
during questioning and the lack of similar safeguards for juvenile suspects.
C. Young Victims and Suspects: Same Posture, Different Treatment
1. Safeguards for Some but Not Others
Extrapolating the holding and bases of Roper v. Simmons to the area of
juvenile interrogation crystallizes the ways in which juvenile suspects are
particularly vulnerable to the implicit biases and standard questioning
techniques of police investigators. The conundrum is that while the criminal
justice system has not, as of yet, acknowledged or directed its attention to what
is known about the suggestibility of juvenile suspects during questioning,
extensive reforms and procedural safeguards have been developed to reduce the
likelihood that unreliable or inaccurate information will be elicited from young
victims and witnesses of crimes.130 Clinicians, for instance, are trained not to
use leading questions, to video or audiotape the interview, and to avoid
intimidating the child by exerting "undue influence."131 Law enforcement
officers often receive specialized training in child development, child
psychology, and the sociology of the family in preparation for interviewing
child victims and witnesses, and they are taught to avoid suggestive or leading
questioning and to limit the total number of interviews conducted with any one
child.132 Judges have also been educated regarding the special issues that may
arise with child witnesses, including the use of alternative procedures designed
130. See Redlich et al., supra note 114, at 122–23 (arguing that while numerous reforms
and accommodations exist for the questioning of child victim/witnesses, there has been very
little done regarding the interrogation of youthful suspects); see also Feld, Juveniles’ Waiver,
supra note 129, at 106 (discussing the "procedural disparity" that occurs given "the two
competing and conflicting images of young people" contained within American law and culture,
which presents them alternately as "innocent, vulnerable, fragile, and dependent children" and
as "vigorous, autonomous, responsible, almost adult-like people from whose criminal behavior
the public needs protection").
131. NANCY W. PERRY & LAWRENCE S. WRIGHTSMAN, THE CHILD WITNESS: LEGAL ISSUES
AND DILEMMAS 236–46 (1991).
132. Id. at 248–50; see also At This Prosecutor’s Office, A Furry Soft Spot for Kids,
A.B.A. J., July 2007, at 18 (describing a prosecutor’s office in Seattle that utilizes service dogs
to assist child victims and witnesses during the legal process—training the dogs to stand by the
children during the initial forensic interview, sit with them during trial, and even accompany
them to the witness box when they testify).
THE AGE OF THE CHILD 421
to reduce trauma to the child, the appointment of experts to inform the court as
to how children process memories and understand language, and the
importance of instructing the jury about children’s abilities and shortcomings as
witnesses.133
In addition, in each of the fifty states, judges have written opinions and
legislators have drafted statutes delineating the basic requirements for the
competency of child witnesses.134 Some states hold that children below a
specified age—usually ten, twelve, or fourteen—are presumptively incompetent
to testify, unless a trial judge finds otherwise.135 Other states require the child
to indicate that she understands the difference between the truth and a lie and to
agree to tell the truth while testifying.136 In recent years, an increasing number
133. PERRY & WRIGHTSMAN, supra note 131, at 250–52.
134. Owen-Kostelnik, Repucci & Meyer, supra note 27, at 288; see PERRY &
WRIGHTSMAN, supra note 131, at 41; see also, e.g., In re J.M., 2006 OH Ct. App. 1203, ¶ 26
(reversing a sixteen-year-old juvenile’s delinquency adjudication for rape and remanding to the
trial court to conduct a more complete competency hearing to determine whether the twelveyear-
old complaining witness was competent to testify).
135. PERRY & WRIGHTSMAN, supra note 131, at 41; see, e.g., COLO. REV. STAT. § 13-90-
106 (2002) (providing a rebuttable presumption that children under the age of ten may not
testify, except in cases involving abuse); IDAHO CODE ANN. § 9-202 (2004) (creating a similar
presumption of incompetence for children under ten years of age and providing that the trial
judge may assess the competency of a child under the age of ten individually); LA. REV. STAT.
ANN. § 15:469 (repealed 1988) (providing that children under the age of twelve must be
evaluated by the court); MO. REV. STAT. § 491.060 (West 1996 & Supp. 2007) (same, also
providing an exception for victims under the age of ten); N.Y. CRIM. PROC. LAW § 60.20
(McKinney 2003 & Supp. 2008) (creating the same rebuttable presumption of incompetence for
people under the age of nine).
136. See PERRY & WRIGHTSMAN, supra note 131, at 43–45 (explaining that this
requirement is also characterized as appreciating "the duty to tell the truth" which is a corollary
of the traditional testimonial oath requirement); see also, e.g., Suggs v. State, 879 S.W.2d 428,
431–32 (Ark. 1994) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding child
witnesses competent where two boys, ages five and seven, showed the ability to distinguish
between the truth and a lie and additionally promised to tell the truth); Z.P. v. State, 651 So. 2d
213, 213–14 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995) (reversing and remanding the trial court’s decision in a
case where the trial court failed to inquire into whether a child witness knew the difference
between a truth and a lie "in addition to whether the child ha[d] a moral sense of the duty to tell
the truth"); State v. Ransom, 864 P.2d 149, 156–57 (Idaho 1993) (holding that the trial court did
not abuse its discretion in allowing the testimony of a child victim where she testified that she
could distinguish between the truth and a lie and additionally promised to tell the truth);
Commonwealth v. Monzon, 744 N.E.2d 1131, 1135 (Mass. App. Ct. 2001) (discussing whether
a child witness has the "understanding sufficient to comprehend the difference between truth
and falsehood, the wickedness of the latter and the obligation and duty to tell the truth, and, in a
general way, belief that failure to perform the obligation will result in punishment" (citations
omitted)); People v. Shavers, 613 N.Y.S.2d 393, 393–94 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994) (holding that a
child’s testimony at trial was properly admitted where the child "knew the difference between
the truth and a lie and that the word ‘swear’ means that ‘you will always tell the truth’").
422 65 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 385 (2008)
of states have adopted some form of the Federal Rules of Evidence, under
which the judge determines the witness’s competency, while the jury
determines the credibility and weight of that testimony.137 Similarly, we have
seen the development and increasing availability of "taint hearings," in which
defense attorneys can request that an evidentiary hearing be held to determine if
the child’s testimony has been improperly "tainted" by suggestive interviewing
techniques or practices.138 Crawford v. Washington139 provided further
137. See PERRY & WRIGHTSMAN, supra note 131, at 45–47 (discussing Rules 601 and 603
of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the difficulties that states have had in meaningfully
interpreting these rules); see, e.g., ALA. CODE § 12-21-165 (LexisNexis 2005) (providing that
the trial judge determines the competency of potentially incompetent witnesses, including
children); MICH. R. EVID. 601 (stating that everyone is competent to testify as a witness, unless
the trial judge determines otherwise); N.C. GEN. STAT. § 8C-1, Rule 601 (2007) (same); TENN.
R. EVID. 601 (same); TEX. R. EVID. 601 (same). In states where trial judges have such broad
discretion, a finding of competency can only be overruled on appeal if it can be determined that
it was unreasonable for the trial judge to find that a witness was competent. See State v. Hicks,
352 S.E.2d 424, 426 (N.C. 1989) (stating that "[a]bsent a showing that the ruling as to
competency could not have been the result of a reasoned decision, the ruling must stand on
appeal"). Additionally, "[t]he test of competency is the capacity of the proposed witness to
understand and to relate under the obligation of an oath facts" that will enable the jury to decide
a case. State v. Turner, 150 S.E.2d 406, 410 (N.C. 1966). The Turner court, in interpreting the
North Carolina Rules of Evidence, further observed that "[t]here is no age below which one is
incompetent, as a matter of law, to testify." Id.
138. Owen-Kostelnik, Repucci & Meyer, supra note 27, at 288. Taint hearings in child
sexual abuse cases were first adopted in New Jersey, following the highly publicized New Jersey
case of State v. Michaels. See Julie A. Jablonski, Where Has Michaels Taken Us?: Assessing
the Future of Taint Hearings, 3 SUFFOLK J. TRIAL & APP. ADVOC. 49, 50–57 (1998) (describing
the procedure for pretrial taint hearings in New Jersey following Michaels); see also Clayton
Gillette, Comment, Appointing Special Masters to Evaluate the Suggestiveness of a Child-
Witness Interview: A Simple Solution to a Complex Problem, 49 ST. LOUIS U. L.J. 499, 520–37
(2005) (describing the Michaels solution for suggestive interviewing techniques and expanding
on it). But see John E.B. Myers, Taint Hearings for Child Witnesses? A Step in the Wrong
Direction, 46 BAYLOR L. REV. 873, 899 (1994) (describing the procedure adopted by the
Michaels court but asserting that pretrial taint hearings compromise the prosecution of
legitimate sexual abuse cases). Although only a couple of states expressly allow for pretrial
taint hearings, several others address the issue of taint in separate pretrial hearings; these states
include New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming. See State v. Michaels, 642 A.2d
1372, 1382 (N.J. 1994) (holding that where a defendant can show that there is sufficient
evidence of unreliability of a child witness’s statements, the state must conduct a pretrial taint
hearing); People v. Michael M., 618 N.Y.S.2d 171, 180 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1994) (holding that in
some cases it is appropriate for the court to order a hearing to assess whether trial testimony has
been tainted); Commonwealth v. Delbridge, 855 A.2d 27, 39–40 (Pa. 2003) (holding that "taint
is a legitimate question for examination in cases involving complaints of sexual abuse made by
young children" and that the proper way to explore potential taint is in a pretrial competency
hearing); English v. State, 982 P.2d 139, 146–47 (Wyo. 1999) (holding that taint should be
addressed in a pretrial competency hearing).
139. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68–69 (2004) (finding a Sixth Amendment
violation and holding inadmissible an out-of-court, adverse statement made by petitioner’s wife
THE AGE OF THE CHILD 423
guarantees for the reliability of children’s testimony, holding that out-of-court
statements of witnesses can be admitted only if the speaker is unavailable and
the accused had a prior opportunity for cross examination.140
In comparison, few, if any, protections have been developed to ensure that
the information elicited from juvenile suspects is reliable; in fact, prior to Roper
v. Simmons, the last major decision that protected the rights of juvenile suspects
was In re Gault, decided over forty years ago.141 Gault was preceded by Haley
v. Ohio142 and Gallegos v. Colorado,143 opinions which recognized that young
people, based on their age and relative immaturity, needed explicit protections
under the law, particularly in the context of criminal interrogation.144 Four
where the petitioner had no opportunity to confront the evidence).
140. Id. See generally Robert P. Mosteller, Crawford v. Washington: Encouraging and
Ensuring the Confrontation of Witnesses, 39 U. RICH. L. REV. 511 (2005) (discussing how
Crawford v. Washington radically changed Confrontation Clause doctrine and proposing how
the doctrine should develop in response). Crawford and its progeny have rejected any policybased-
child-hearsay exceptions to this firm rule of exclusion, with one state supreme court
recently noting that "[e]ven though there are sound public policy reasons for limiting a child
victim’s exposure to a potentially traumatizing courtroom experience, we nonetheless must be
faithful to the Constitution’s deep concern for the fundamental rights of the accused." Snowden
v. State, 867 A.2d 314, 329 (Md. 2005). See also Daniel E. Monnat & Paige A. Nichols, The
Kid Gloves Are Off: Child Hearsay After Crawford v. Washington, CHAMPION, Jan.–Feb. 2006,
at 18, 18 (discussing Crawford v. Washington from the perspective of the criminal defense
attorney and offering arguments for keeping accusatory child hearsay out of court).
141. See supra note 8 and accompanying text (discussing the holding and significance of In
re Gault for the development of the rights of juvenile suspects). Gault emphasized that "the
greatest care must be taken to assure that [a minor’s] admission was voluntary." In re Gault,
387 U.S. 1, 55 (1967).
142. See Haley v. Ohio, 332 U.S. 596, 598–99 (1948) (plurality opinion) (holding that a
confession obtained from a fifteen-year-old boy without the benefit of counsel and through the
utilization of coercive techniques failed to comport with due process).
143. See Gallegos v. Colorado, 370 U.S. 49, 55 (1962) (plurality opinion) (concluding that
the totality of circumstances surrounding the confession of a fourteen-year-old, including his
age, his prolonged detention, and the failure to provide him with counsel or a friendly adult,
violated his due process rights).
144. Gallegos, 370 U.S. at 51–55; Haley, 332 U.S. at 599–601. The paternalistic language
used to describe the vulnerabilities of youth in these two cases is striking. In Haley, in which
the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a murder conviction based on the coerced confession of a
fifteen-year-old African-American boy, Justice Douglas wrote for the plurality:
What transpired would make us pause for careful inquiry if a mature man were
involved. And when, as here, a mere child—an easy victim of the law—is before
us, special care in scrutinizing the record must be used. Age 15 is a tender and
difficult age for a boy of any race. He cannot be judged by the more exacting
standards of maturity. That which would leave a man cold and unimpressed can
overawe and overwhelm a lad in his early teens. This is the period of great
instability which the crisis of adolescence produces . . . . He needs counsel and
support if he is not to become the victim first of fear, then of panic.
Id. at 733 (Powell, J., dissenting).
153. Id. at 724–25. Research has shown that juveniles are "more prone than adults" to
confuse their right to an attorney with a right—which they do not have—to a social worker or
other service provider. Redlich et al., supra note 114, at 112.
154. Michael C., 441 U.S. at 730 (Marshall, J., dissenting). Justice Marshall observed that:
A juvenile in these circumstances will likely turn to his parents, or another adult
responsible for his welfare, as the only means for securing legal counsel.
Moreover, a request for such adult assistance is surely inconsistent with a present
desire to speak freely. Requiring a strict verbal formula to invoke the protections of
Miranda would "protect the knowledgeable accused from stationhouse coercion
while abandoning the young person who knows no more than to ask for the . . .
person he trusts."
Id. (Marshall, J., dissenting) (quoting Chaney v. Wainwright, 561 F.2d 1129, 1134 (5th Cir.
1977) (Goldberg, J., dissenting)); see also Ellen Marrus, Can I Talk Now?: Why Miranda Does
Not Offer Adolescents Adequate Protections, 79 TEMP. L. REV. 515, 518–22 (2006) (discussing
major cases that have impacted the law of juvenile interrogations, including In re Gault,
Gallegos v. Colorado, Haley v. Ohio, and Fare v. Michael C.).
See Brief for Juvenile Law Center, et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondent at
25–26, Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652 (2004) (No. 02-1684), 2003 WL 23055034
(describing statutes that require the presence of an interested adult during interrogations of
minors). In states employing the "interested adult" test, most consider either a parent/guardian
or an attorney to be a satisfactory "interested adult," and very few specifically require an
attorney. Id. In Illinois, minors under a certain age must be represented by counsel during the
entirety of a police interrogation; in Texas, written waiver of one’s Miranda rights is required
from both the child and her attorney. Id. at n.15. In most other states with "interested adult"
requirements, representation by counsel can be waived by a parent or guardian, the juvenile may
waive it herself as long as a parent or guardian is present, or the presence of a parent or guardian
may simply replace the "required" presence of counsel. Id.
158. See Feld, supra note 127, at 226 (finding that approximately one dozen states require
the presence of either a parent or guardian or another "interested adult" presence during police
interrogations, in order to ensure a valid waiver of Miranda rights); see also supra note 129 and
accompanying text (noting that a parent’s presence during interrogation of his/her child may, in
fact, increase the pressure on the juvenile to confess).

13 Year Old Boy's Mom Asks That He Not Be Shackled At Trial

Our goal is to reach 100 signatures and we need more support. You can read more and sign the petition here:

http://www.change.org/petitions/remove-shackles-from-cristian-fernandez

Thanks!
Melissa

Amber's New Petition 1/12/2012

Please if you are a follower can you read & sign her new petition, and send to others who will sign. Thank you.

http://www.change.org/petitions/teenager-deserves-new-trial

Imagine being a teenager waking up in a prison for the rest of your life.

INDIANA COUNTY, Pa. -- Imagine being a teenager and knowing you'd be waking up in a prison for the rest of your life.

That's reality for two young convicted murderers from Lancaster County.

Alec Kreider and David Ludwig are serving life sentences.

They will likely spend a good portion of their time at the Pine Grove State Prison -- a facility designed specifically for young adult offenders.

Rigid Structure Means Early Days

At Pine Grove State Prison in Indiana County, the day begins early. The inmates get up at 6 a.m., and are served breakfast by 6:30 a.m.

Each day is virtually identical for the 300 young adult offenders who live in the prison.

David Ludwig, who was convicted of murdering his girlfriend's parents in Lancaster County, is one of them.



The young men follow a strict, military-like regiment.

According to prison officials, many of them have never had structure in their lives. So, when they first arrive at the prison they are put through a leadership development program, similar to a boot camp initiative.

The young men live in tiny cells. There's nothing on the walls and their personal belongings have to fit in a locker.

They are not allowed to have much.

The men are expected to earn their privileges, just like any other teenager.

Education Important In Pine Grove Prison

They will spend most of the morning doing school work. Eventually, they'll finish high school and can take some community college courses.

Most do job training.

The young men can be taught a wide range of skills -- from how to clean floors to working with heating and air conditioning equipment.

All around the prison, there are constant reminders that these are criminals.

In the classrooms, every tool needs to be in place and every person needs to be accounted for.

"We are first, and above all, a prison, which means we count them constantly to make sure everyone stays where they are. That we know where everyone is and that they are acting in a way we would expect a prisoner to act," said superintendent Joseph Mazurkiewicz.

Free time comes in the afternoon.

There are opportunities to exercise outside, play basketball in the gym or play games.

Some inmates choose to stay in their cell and watch the limited cable television that's offered.

The day ends by 9 p.m.

Rehabilitation Is The Ultimate Mission

It's the same every day, for every inmate. Whether they are at Pine Grove for a few years or for their entire lives.

David Ludwig is facing a life sentence.

"It's almost strange, but when they first get here and they have a life sentence, it's almost like it doesn't sink in to them yet. They haven't come to the realization that they very possibly will never leave an institution," said Don Bachota, the prison's program manager.

It usually hits them within the first few weeks.

"All of a sudden the light bulb goes off and they realize it. It's very hard and we have psychologists, psychiatrists and everybody constantly working with them," said Bachota.

Some continue to struggle at the thought of spending a lifetime in prison. Others try to help their other inmates.



That is the mission of the Pine Grove Prison and those who run it.

"If you can help one person, if there's one young adult offender that you can get to see the light, then that's one less person that can make a victim of someone out in the world," said Bachota. "And you never know if that one person you're protecting could be your own family or friend."



Read more: http://www.wgal.com/news/17032997/detail.html#ixzz1iPMM7OEK