WIsconsin Upholds Life Without Parole for 14 Year Old

WI Upholds Life Without Parole for 14 Year Old By Jeralyn, Section Juvenile Offenders Omer Ninham was 14 when he was part of a group of kids that killed a 13 year old by throwing him off the top of a parking garage. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The Wisconsin Supreme Court today upheld the sentence. The opinion is here. The defense argued: Ninham mounts a categorical constitutional challenge, arguing that sentencing a 14-year-old to life imprisonment without parole is cruel and unusual in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 6 of the Wisconsin Constitution. In the alternative, Ninham seeks sentence modification on the grounds that (1) his sentence is unduly harsh and excessive; (2) new scientific research regarding adolescent brain development constitutes a new factor that frustrates the purpose of the sentence; and (3) the circuit court relied on an improper factor when imposing the sentence. --------------------------- Michigan Judge Sentences 15 Year Old to Life Without Parole By Jeralyn, Section Juvenile Offenders Posted on Tue Oct 26, 2010 14 year old Dakota Eliason shot and killed his grandfather. He said he went back and forth for hours debating whether to kill him or commit suicide, and decided to on the former. The DA charged him in adult court. Monday, a Michigan judge imposed a sentence of life without parole, finding it violated neither the Constitution nor international treaties. He rejected a sentence of life with parole saying the law didn't authorize it. His opinion is here. His lawyer disagrees: “Anyone that's spent any time around that kid will tell you he's a loving kid, certainly at his point, people that don't know him are defining him by the one terrible thing he did but he does have remorse he does wish he could take it back,” said defense attorney Lanny Fisher.

Judge Me If You Must

If You must Judge Me... Judge me not for mistakes of my youth.. And choices made of immaturity. If Judge Me You must.. Judge me not for the life I led before I had a chance to grow, in years, mind and spirit.. If Judge Me You must.. Judge me from this day forward, and the person I have grown into and chose to be.. If Judge Me You Must.. Judge me for the heart, spirit, and soul. Allow yourself to look within to the person I am now.. If Judge Me You must.. . Judge me not for my past and things beyound my control... Judge me for me ,not the things I didn't know how to change.. If Judge Me You Must... Judge me for the person I am, and the person I shall be. Judge me for the inside of me... Give me a second chance to live and love.. If Judge Me You Must.... Author Unknown~

Drugging Young Kids

These Are The Drugs Given After Intering Juvenile Hall Seroquel >(It Replaced Trazodone) Trazodone >.(I was told She needed help for sleeping, (After researching & talking with a counselor I found out it was presribed for PSD) " I talked to her about my concerns, ( I had read these could be dangerous, & Not for kids under 18) Leslie did say she was concerned also, & would talk to someone about the amount that were being taken each day" 1. Wellbutrin 2. Zoloft 3. Celexa 4. Klonopin Oral 5. (Depakote), 6. Risperdal), 7. risperidone 8. Remeron . (It Is Presribed for Depression, & Bi-Polar) 9. Destrel 10. Tegretol --------------- I do not know at what times she was taking all these, But I do know that in June 2003 Amber told me she was taking 15 pills a day and these were the ones she told me at the time they were giving heer. Zyprexa was perscribed also atabout the same time for depression. They also were giving her Lamital In June. By Aug. woo4 the dosage was at the highest level. -------------------------------------- I know of 3 Doctors She saw and that gave her these. These are Antipsycotic Medications. In Oct. The 29th. The Doctor :Telephoned me to ask if he could contine giving these* He called & wants my peremission to give these. ( She had already been taking these, Was allowed to sign her own forms. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ to sign for these meds. though they are not for children. ) When I told him I felt these were dangerous drugs " He told me she was suffering ( Separtion & Anxiety Dissorder and Post Tramantic Stress. ---------------------------------- Trazadone was Added In 2003 Also: Reason For Giving: High Anxiety,sleelessness, Mood Instabilty: ++++++++++++++++++ Side Effects Of This Drug Are>> Siezers,Headaches,Memory Loss,Nervousness,Anxiety,Sleeplessness, Tremors,Slurred speech,Weakness, Numbness In Arms,Legs And Feet. permenant Shaking Of Hands,Legs,Arms,Eyes And Lips. Heartattack,Weight Gain,Periods Stopping,Chest Pain,Red Itchy Eyes, Dihrrea,Rash,Jundice,Pain In The Joints. ------------------------------------------------ 9/16/2003 Depakote Was Perscribed For Mood Didorder This Drug Carries A Warning: Not To Be Given To Children Undr 18 Side Effects Of This Drug Are> Sedation,Nausea,Uncoordination,Rash,Changes In White Blood Count, -------------------------------------------------------------------- Side Effects Of Seroquel Are >> dryness Of Mouth And Eyes,Blood Pressure Changes,Restlessness,Stiffness, Tremors,Increased Risk Of Siezures,Weight Gain,The Persistent Movement Of Eyes,lips,Hands And Feet. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Side Effects Of Clozapine Are: Severe agranulocytosis (White Blood CEll Drop) fever,Low Blood Pressure,pulse,Constipation and Excessive Drooling. (Weekly laboratory tests are needed in the first six months of treatment and every 2 weeks thereafter) ---------------------------------------------------------------- These Were All Perscribed By Her doctor Juvenile Hall Shortly After She was Admitted There. (Drugs Before Entering Juvenile Hall Prozac 10 MG.2x Daily For Depression, Trazadone 1x Daily 25 MG For Mood swings) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Side Effects Of Resperdal Are Uncontrollable movements of the Mouth,Tongue,Cheeks,Arms,hands, Legs,feet,Jaw & eyes.Dizziness Upon Standing.take Caution Not To Become Over Heated; (NOTE: I Called Because i Was Concerned About Her Running Laps In Summer Heat Every Day) Staff was unaware Of This.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Combining The Two Drugs Together; Depakote And Seriquel Will Make You Sick: They were: At Juvenile Hall each ward Is In A Seperate Room, And Amber Said That She Would put Her White Slip In The Door (Meaning She Needed Attention) And It Would Be ignored all Day By Staff) Giving Her More Anxiety also Putting Her danger Considering The Different Drugs She was On With Little Suppervision) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Note: I was seeing A Psyciatrist for Anxiety And Depression After Amber Was Locked Up. I asked Him About These Drugs She Was Taking & He Told Me Unless a person Is Psychotic They Should Never Take psychotic Drugs: I Asked Permission To Have My Own Doctor Come In And Talk With Her: They Refused;

11/19/2007 Amber writes a letter to the persiding Judge: To The Honorable Judge Bylesh I am writting to you because I am a defendant in your court room and I am having some trouble obtaining copies of my reports. When I was arrested and booked into juvenile hall I filed a rape report against my co-defendant. Jason Harris and photographs were taken of my badly bruised thighs and burns & bruises and cig burns were on my arms, where he burnt me.i know my investagator got copies of these, I am fighting a very serious case and I am about to go to trial. My Co-defedant has copies of these as he is pro per. These reports are very important to my case, and I feel this is an injustice to me to be kept from my own evidence while the person who did this to me is allowed to have and carry my evidence with him.It is against my personal rights . I will be back in your court room Dec.21st 2007 & Truely hope you will have these here for me. ( For My Case) I was given my police reports but not my medical. I have been requesting these reports & pictures for a very long time, please this is just one thing semmly very unfair to me & my trial. Thank you for your time with respect, sincerly Amber Riley Please if you get time can you check (Holman V. Superior Court (1981)29 Cal. App. 3d 1302,1310 (246 cal.Rptr. 775) Thank you very much.

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

Teen Dies in Solitary in Georgia Jail After Alleged Medical Neglect

Teen Dies in Solitary in Georgia Jail After Alleged Medical Neglect

In a particularly horrendous story out of Georgia, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports today on the death of a 17-year-old in solitary confinement in a small-town jail last year. The teen's mother is has now named the town, it's police department, the jail's nurse and doctor, and four correctional officers in a federal lawsuit claiming wrongful death and civil right violation's, based on allegations that her son's serious medical condition was ignored.

Fabian Avery III weighed 153 pounds when he was transferred from the Fulton County jail in late February 2011 to alleviate overcrowding. The 17-year-old was found dead nearly a month later in an isolation cell at the Mize Street Municipal jail in the south Georgia town of Pelham, his 6-foot-1-inch frame shriveled to 108 pounds, according to reports...

Avery died of appendicitis and complications from a bowel obstruction, according to investigative documents compiled by the GBI [Georgia Bureau of Investigation].

He had been arrested in December 2010 on armed robbery charges and was transferred to Pelham on Feb. 15, 2011.

The complaint claims that Avery first reported being ill on Feb. 24, 2011 and was given minimal attention. While he complained of nausea, stomach pains, vomiting and lower back pains, as well as frequently vomiting and defecating on himself, the lawsuit claims jail staff did little to help get Avery the necessary care...

Avery was found dead on the morning of March 18, on a mattress on the floor of his 6-by-10-foot isolation cell.

According to the AJC, the GBI's invesigation found that the teenager had been placed in "the hole" after he first reported being sick, "because he began frequently soiling himself and not cleaning up or showering." The jail's nurse reportedly "suggested that Avery might have been faking some of his symptoms," despite his apparent extreme weight loss.

The defendents' attorney told the AJC: "This is an unfortunate case...If [the jail staff] had any indication that he needed any more medication, it would have been provided."


http://solitarywatch.com/2012/08/17/teen-dies-in-solitary-in-georgia-jail-after-alleged-medical-neglect/

The Push to Keep Teen Felons Locked Up for Life

The Push to Keep Teen Felons Locked Up for Life
Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad and others aim to sidestep a Supreme Court ruling that gives juvenile lifers another chance.
By Suevon Lee, ProPublica| Mon Aug. 6, 2012 11:45 AM PDT

When Dennis Epps learned in June that the Supreme Court had struck down mandatory life without parole sentences for kids convicted of murder, he was hopeful. His brother, David, was given such a sentence for home burglary-murder committed at 16 and has spent most of his 48 years behind bars.

"I was thinking he was going to get some kind of release, because he served 32 years on a life sentence," Epps told ProPublica.

But Epps's brother is unlikely going anywhere soon. A few weeks after the ruling, Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad announced he would commute the life without parole sentences of 38 juvenile offenders, and make them eligible for parole after 60 years. David Epps would be in his mid-70s when he could first be released.

Under the Supreme Court's ruling, minors can still get life without parole sentences—just not automatically after a conviction; instead a judge will need to decide, taking into account the minor's youth.

For the roughly 2,500 juvenile offendersalready sentenced to life in prison without parole, the upshot of the ruling—Miller v. Alabama—seemed clear: "They will all get another bite at the sentencing apple," Dan Filler, a professor at Drexel University's Earle Mack School of Law, wrote shortly after the ruling.

That may not happen if Iowa's governor or many other states get their way.

"Justice is a balance and these commutations ensure that justice is balanced with punishment for those vicious crimes and taking into account public safety," Branstad said in announcinghis order.

The governor's action, which sidesteps any potential resentencing hearings, has sparked criticism and legal challenges.

Stephen Bright, director of the Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta who teaches at Yale Law School, called the governor's order "questionable legally and bad public policy."

"The main point of the Miller decision—and the main concern of any sentencing—should be individualized sentencing based on factors about each human being," he said. "Obviously, nothing about any of the 38 individuals was taken into account, just as it was not when they were sentenced to life imprisonment without parole."

Yet Filler, the Drexel law professor who wrote about the ruling, said it actually leaves the details to states to iron out. "When you look at the decision closely, it implicitly leaves room for exactly what the governor of Iowa did," he told ProPublica. "It doesn't give us any guidance. You have to see this decision as entirely cloudy. Different states are going to try different things."

Indeed, some states have suggested they don't plan on rolling back minors' life without parole sentences, pointing out the Supreme Court left unclear whether its ruling should be applied retroactively to minors already sentenced. (Twenty-six states currently have mandatory life without parole statutes for juveniles. Here's a list and a map showing where.)

"It is the (Alabama) attorney general's position that this rule does not apply retroactively," Alabama Solicitor General John C. Neiman Jr. told us. "Ultimately whether it will apply retroactively is going to be a question that will be litigated in, and decided by, the courts."

The ruling

In its June 25 decision, a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court ordered an individualized approach to sentencing for juveniles convicted of murder to consider proportionality of punishment to the nature of the crime and offender's history.

Sentencers are now required to "follow a certain process—considering an offender's youth and attendant circumstances—before imposing a particular penalty," wrote Justice Elena Kagan for the majority. Among the unique characteristics of youth cited were "immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences."

While the opinion didn't impose a categorical ban on life without parole sentences for juveniles, it requires that authorities "take into account how children are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison."

The decision follows in the steps of a recent line of Supreme Court cases stating that kids, by virtue of their youth and lack of fully matured brains, are different from adults and have greater capacity for rehabilitation. In 2005, the Court struck down the death penalty for those under 18. In 2010, it forbade life without parole for juveniles convicted of crimes that aren't murder.

The patchy aftermath of the 2010 decision illustrates the challenges states have faced in implementing changes to their laws. Florida—which dispensed the lion's share of life without parole sentences to minors for nonhomicides—is still grappling with how to address the ruling. Greater discretion in judges' hands has also led, in some cases, to 70- to 90-year sentences for minors—while not technically life, a comparable term of years.

What's next?

In the wake of Miller, some states around the country have already taken legislative action. North Carolina recently passed an amendment granting juvenile lifers parole review after 25 years. It also requires judges to consider such factors as age, immaturity, intellectual capacity, mental health history, and the influence of familial or peer pressure when imposing punishment.

In Michigan, which boasts the second-highest number of juvenile lifers, criminal defense attorneys have begun mobilizing legal assistance for current inmates despite disagreement as to whether or not the court's decision is retroactive.

In Pennsylvania, the state with the most number of juvenile offenders serving life without parole (444), the state Senate Judiciary Committee recently solicited testimony from various stakeholders to decide how to proceed. The issue of retroactivity there, too, remainsuncertain.

Iowa's recent executive order is not the first time a governor preemptively took action following a Supreme Court ruling: In 2005, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas commuted the death sentences of 28 juvenile offenders, changing them to life sentences with the possibility of parole after 40 years. Around the same time, he had also signed a mandatory life without parole statute for juveniles; Texas abolished the statute in 2009.

If the Iowa governor's order stands, 38 juvenile offenders—including David Epps—will not be eligible for parole until they reach their mid-70s, about the normal life expectancy of Americans. But of course prison can prematurely age people. The National Institute of Corrections designates an elderly or aging prisoner as age 50 and older.

Recidivism rates also decline the older a prisoner gets: In Iowa, statistics show these ratesdrop markedly once an inmate reaches age 45 and even more dramatically by the time he's 55.

In light of the governor's action in Iowa, any hope Dennis Epps had of ever seeing his brother get out of prison was short-lived. The governor "might as well have left them serving a life sentence, because that's pretty much what that is," he said.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/08/supreme-court-miller-alabama-minors-life-without-parole?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+motherjones%2Fmain+%28MotherJones.com+Main+Article+Feed%29