Posts
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
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
California has long led the world in juvenile injustice
California Rightly Revisits Its Tough-on-Youth-Crime Stance''
California has long led the world in juvenile injustice. Just five years ago, when there were only seven people outside the U.S. serving life prison terms with no possibility of parole for crimes they had committed before they became adults, California had more than 200.
They were locked up with no hope for eventual release largely because of cruel and costly laws adopted in a frenzy of anti-crime sentiment in the 1980s and 1990s. Rising gang crime fueled fears that juveniles had somehow become inhuman and deranged a belief likely bolstered by the fact that California voters were disproportionately older and white, while the youths being charged with violent crimes were disproportionately Latino and African American. The cultural gap may have made it easier for voters to see juvenile offenders and their families as alien to society rather than an integral part of it.
A 1990 anti-crime ballot measure made life-without-parole sentences the norm for killers, and many other offenders, under 18. Teenagers who committed crimes could be written off and imprisoned as forever beyond redemption.
The tough-on-youth-crime stance ignored a growing body of scientific research demonstrating that teenagers simply don’t have brains that are sufficiently developed to provide the kinds of judgment and impulse controls expected of adults.
Gradually, leaders and lawmakers here came to realize that it was unjust to lock up people for crimes committed in their youth without leaving even the slightest chance for parole, regardless of their underdeveloped mental and emotional state at the time of the crime, regardless of any reckoning or responsibility gained over the course of their imprisonment.
Finally, in 2012, the law changed. The prison doors were not thrown open; on the contrary, the new law merely allowed such inmates who had already served at least 15 years to ask judges to change their sentences to allow parole hearings. If the judge agrees, parole can still be denied, and even if it is granted the governor can overturn the decision. But youthful offenders, aging in prison, gained at least a chance at freedom.
On Wednesday, Edel Gonzalez, now in his 30s, became the first person released from a California prison under the new law. An Orange County judge, the parole board and the governor were convinced that the person who committed a senseless killing at 16 had grown to understand the immorality of his act, had been punished, had been rehabilitated and was no danger to society.
It would be all the more cruel and unusual to deny a parole hearing to people merely because their horrendous juvenile mistakes were committed in the distant past.
The successful process shows that California, too, has grown beyond senselessness in its sentencing laws although it was not ahead of the national curve. Over the last decade, the U.S. Supreme Court has demonstrated an evolving understanding of the essential differences between adolescents and adults.
In 2005, the justices ruled that it was unconstitutional for a state to put a person to death for a murder committed as a minor. Just as juveniles cannot be entrusted with the rights and responsibilities of adults, given that they lack an adult’s judgment and maturity, they cannot be held to answer for their crimes to the same degree that an adult can, the court reasoned. They could be imprisoned, but not executed.
The same reasoning applied in 2010, when the court struck down sentences of life without even the possibility of parole for crimes — other than murder — that perpetrators committed while still juveniles. The justices ruled that such offenders should be able to at least have a chance to request parole, sometime in their adult years, after demonstrating remorse and working to make amends.
In 2012, the court ruled again, this time applying their previous reasoning to most murder convictions. If the basis for the earlier rulings was that juveniles lack an adult’s capacity to reason and to act responsibly, the fact that the crime was especially egregious doesn’t change that. Not every life without parole sentence for a killing committed in the perpetrator’s youth is now necessarily deemed cruel and unusual, but courts must consider the mitigating circumstances, including age.
And how about juveniles sentenced before the 2012 ruling? In December, the court agreed to consider whether its ruling should apply to states retroactively. But the case became moot in January, when the inmate in the case the justices were considering was released from a Louisiana prison. On Monday, though, they took another case that calls on them to answer the same question.
On the merits, the answer should be easy: If a life-without-parole sentence for a crime committed while the perpetrator was a juvenile is cruel and unusual punishment for anyone sentenced after the 2012 decision, it’s just as much a constitutional violation for anyone who has been serving such a sentence for years or even decades.
The court’s decision hinges in part on procedural rules defining when states can make such decisions for themselves. As the justices work through those rules, though, they should keep the substance of the constitutional question foremost in their minds. It would be all the more cruel and unusual to deny a parole hearing to people merely because their horrendous juvenile mistakes were committed in the distant past instead of recently.
California, meanwhile, is still no leader in more enlightened approaches to the sentencing of juvenile offenders. Despite the state law allowing them to seek resentencing, the state now has more than 300 inmates serving life without parole for offenses they committed before adulthood. California courts and lawmakers are waiting for the high court to decide whether a practice deemed cruel and unusual nevertheless remains permissible when applied to people locked up before 2012
California has long led the world in juvenile injustice. Just five years ago, when there were only seven people outside the U.S. serving life prison terms with no possibility of parole for crimes they had committed before they became adults, California had more than 200.
They were locked up with no hope for eventual release largely because of cruel and costly laws adopted in a frenzy of anti-crime sentiment in the 1980s and 1990s. Rising gang crime fueled fears that juveniles had somehow become inhuman and deranged a belief likely bolstered by the fact that California voters were disproportionately older and white, while the youths being charged with violent crimes were disproportionately Latino and African American. The cultural gap may have made it easier for voters to see juvenile offenders and their families as alien to society rather than an integral part of it.
A 1990 anti-crime ballot measure made life-without-parole sentences the norm for killers, and many other offenders, under 18. Teenagers who committed crimes could be written off and imprisoned as forever beyond redemption.
The tough-on-youth-crime stance ignored a growing body of scientific research demonstrating that teenagers simply don’t have brains that are sufficiently developed to provide the kinds of judgment and impulse controls expected of adults.
Gradually, leaders and lawmakers here came to realize that it was unjust to lock up people for crimes committed in their youth without leaving even the slightest chance for parole, regardless of their underdeveloped mental and emotional state at the time of the crime, regardless of any reckoning or responsibility gained over the course of their imprisonment.
Finally, in 2012, the law changed. The prison doors were not thrown open; on the contrary, the new law merely allowed such inmates who had already served at least 15 years to ask judges to change their sentences to allow parole hearings. If the judge agrees, parole can still be denied, and even if it is granted the governor can overturn the decision. But youthful offenders, aging in prison, gained at least a chance at freedom.
On Wednesday, Edel Gonzalez, now in his 30s, became the first person released from a California prison under the new law. An Orange County judge, the parole board and the governor were convinced that the person who committed a senseless killing at 16 had grown to understand the immorality of his act, had been punished, had been rehabilitated and was no danger to society.
It would be all the more cruel and unusual to deny a parole hearing to people merely because their horrendous juvenile mistakes were committed in the distant past.
The successful process shows that California, too, has grown beyond senselessness in its sentencing laws although it was not ahead of the national curve. Over the last decade, the U.S. Supreme Court has demonstrated an evolving understanding of the essential differences between adolescents and adults.
In 2005, the justices ruled that it was unconstitutional for a state to put a person to death for a murder committed as a minor. Just as juveniles cannot be entrusted with the rights and responsibilities of adults, given that they lack an adult’s judgment and maturity, they cannot be held to answer for their crimes to the same degree that an adult can, the court reasoned. They could be imprisoned, but not executed.
The same reasoning applied in 2010, when the court struck down sentences of life without even the possibility of parole for crimes — other than murder — that perpetrators committed while still juveniles. The justices ruled that such offenders should be able to at least have a chance to request parole, sometime in their adult years, after demonstrating remorse and working to make amends.
In 2012, the court ruled again, this time applying their previous reasoning to most murder convictions. If the basis for the earlier rulings was that juveniles lack an adult’s capacity to reason and to act responsibly, the fact that the crime was especially egregious doesn’t change that. Not every life without parole sentence for a killing committed in the perpetrator’s youth is now necessarily deemed cruel and unusual, but courts must consider the mitigating circumstances, including age.
And how about juveniles sentenced before the 2012 ruling? In December, the court agreed to consider whether its ruling should apply to states retroactively. But the case became moot in January, when the inmate in the case the justices were considering was released from a Louisiana prison. On Monday, though, they took another case that calls on them to answer the same question.
On the merits, the answer should be easy: If a life-without-parole sentence for a crime committed while the perpetrator was a juvenile is cruel and unusual punishment for anyone sentenced after the 2012 decision, it’s just as much a constitutional violation for anyone who has been serving such a sentence for years or even decades.
The court’s decision hinges in part on procedural rules defining when states can make such decisions for themselves. As the justices work through those rules, though, they should keep the substance of the constitutional question foremost in their minds. It would be all the more cruel and unusual to deny a parole hearing to people merely because their horrendous juvenile mistakes were committed in the distant past instead of recently.
California, meanwhile, is still no leader in more enlightened approaches to the sentencing of juvenile offenders. Despite the state law allowing them to seek resentencing, the state now has more than 300 inmates serving life without parole for offenses they committed before adulthood. California courts and lawmakers are waiting for the high court to decide whether a practice deemed cruel and unusual nevertheless remains permissible when applied to people locked up before 2012
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
Dear Fair Sentencing for Youth Supporters
Dear Fair Sentencing for Youth Supporters:
I'm writing to ask for your help in urging Governor Brown to sign AB 1276. Please take a few minutes to write, call, or email the Governor.
Young adults are especially vulnerable in prison to rape, assault, and the persuasions of prison gangs. Under current law, young people entering prison are usually housed on the most dangerous units, with the fewest programs and education. AB 1276 would change this.
This legislation recognizes both the vulnerability and potential of young adults entering prison. If passed into law AB 1276 would require prisons to more carefully consider where people under the age of 22 should be housed, and make it possible for young adults to be placed on units that are safer and provide more access to programming.
Your help is needed. The California legislature just passed AB 1276 and it now sits on the Governor's desk, awaiting his signature to become law. We cannot take the governor's support for granted. He needs to know that Californians believe this is important.
If he does sign it, young people entering prison will be treated differently. Do you have 10 minutes to help? Please urge Governor Brown to sign this bill into law. Here are easy-to-use sample letters, or you can email or call. Learn more about the bill here: AB 1276. Read Human Rights Watch's letter of support here.
Thank you, Elizabeth
Senior Advocate, Children's Rights Division
Human Rights Watch
11500 W. Olympic Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90064
O: 310.477.5540
ANNOUNCEMENTSHouse meetings?!
Tell us what you think in THE SURVE .We're thinking about holding some CARES family and friends house meetings, getting together to share, learn, & act. Should we have one in your area? Tell us what you think in this short survey.
Youth Offender / SB 260 Parole Guide
For families and people on the inside. Click here to get yours. The compete guide in Spanish is now available!
SB 260 Guía de información para los internos, sus familia, y amigos
Audiencia de libertad condicional para juveniles. Aqui en español
Next CARES Call-in Meeting
Mark your calendars! Every first and third Tuesday of the month you can join CARES to hear informative and dynamic speakers on issues important to you. Our next meeting will be September 16, 2014, 8pm.
Compassion acrosstraditional divides Imagine a setting where the family of murder victims and the family of youth sentenced to adult prison terms sit and listen to each other with compassion and care. That is what our group "Healing Dialogue and Action" does. Think you might be interested? Learn more here: Healing Dialogue
Consider joining us on twitter
and get occasional text messages
about these important issues.
Go to: www.twitter.com/fairsentencing
Don't have regular access to a computer? No problem. You can sign up on any cell phone (it doesn't have to be a "smart" phone!) and get a text message from us. Just send a text from your cell phone to 40404 with
this message: follow fairsentencing
It's free, although normal text charges will apply.
Keep up at our website: www.fairsentencingforyouth.org
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Advocates block youth mandatory minimums
Advocates block youth mandatory minimums
Controversial "Audrie's Law" amended to pass committee
Under pressure from CJCJ and other youth advocates, California State Senator Jim Beall has amended SB 838 (also known as "Audrie's Law") to remove the provision that would have set a new precedent for mandatory minimums in the state's juvenile justice system.
After the bill passed unanimously through the state Senate on May 28, advocates worked to educate state assembly members and citizens on the dangers of mandatory minimum sentences. At the June 17 hearing of the Assembly Public Safety Committee, committee members heard expert testimony against SB 838 from Patti Lee, San Francisco's Deputy Public Defender and a CJCJ board member. More than a dozen organizations — including CJCJ, Human Rights Watch, and the Youth Law Center — also lined up to voice their opposition to the bill.
A week after the hearing, Sen. Beall removed the mandatory minimum provision and the committee passed the amended bill unanimously.
Thank you to all who contacted your representatives and helped protect our juvenile justice system from these punitive and ineffective policies!
Controversial "Audrie's Law" amended to pass committee
Under pressure from CJCJ and other youth advocates, California State Senator Jim Beall has amended SB 838 (also known as "Audrie's Law") to remove the provision that would have set a new precedent for mandatory minimums in the state's juvenile justice system.
After the bill passed unanimously through the state Senate on May 28, advocates worked to educate state assembly members and citizens on the dangers of mandatory minimum sentences. At the June 17 hearing of the Assembly Public Safety Committee, committee members heard expert testimony against SB 838 from Patti Lee, San Francisco's Deputy Public Defender and a CJCJ board member. More than a dozen organizations — including CJCJ, Human Rights Watch, and the Youth Law Center — also lined up to voice their opposition to the bill.
A week after the hearing, Sen. Beall removed the mandatory minimum provision and the committee passed the amended bill unanimously.
Thank you to all who contacted your representatives and helped protect our juvenile justice system from these punitive and ineffective policies!
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
40 Boardman Place San Francisco,
CA 94103 Phone: (415) 621-5661
40 Boardman Place San Francisco,
CA 94103 Phone: (415) 621-5661
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
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
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
Monday, April 14, 2014
Transgender 16-yo, transferred without charges to adult female prison,
Transgender 16-yo, transferred without charges to adult female prison, or maybe male
Posted: 10 Apr 2014 04:00 AM PDT
Since former Supreme Court justice Joette Katz has taken over the beleaguered Department of Children and Families (DCF), some weird ass shit has been going on over there. The latest is this really outrageous transfer of a transgender 16-year old male who identifies as female to an adult correctional facility.It’s not like she’s actually arrested for anything, though. The Courant reports:
In this case, the youth was arrested at a juvenile facility in Needham, Mass., in late January for an assault on a staff member — but the criminal charge was not pursued by prosecutors in Massachusetts. No criminal charges are pending against the youth.
The police report in Massachusetts said that the assault resulted in ”apparent minor injuries” to the staff member, said [Assistant Public Defender] Connolly, who reviewed the report.However, the incident report prepared by staff at Meadowridge Academy in Needham, does describe a violent outburst by the youth, who was upset, insubordinate and attempting to walk off campus when confronted by two staff members.
So? 16 year olds act out. There are no charges. The most galling part is that this is the very child that Commissioner Katz used as an example in her pitch for a locked detention facility:
On Feb. 14, Katz, while lobbying to open a secure treatment facility for girls in Middletown, brought up this youth’s story in testimony before the legislature’s appropriations committee. Katz didn’t name the youth, but said that a staff member was blinded and had her jaw broken in the assault. Katz said this youth would be appropriate for the locked program, which was the subject of opposition from advocates and some lawmakers. The allocation of $2.5 million was approved and the unit is now open on the campus of the former Riverview Hospital in Middletown.A state source said that the blindness to which Katz referred was temporary, and that the worker’s sight has returned.
Advocates for children are questioning Katz’s decision to use the youth’s story to make her case for DCF’s locked treatment program, while pushing for the youth to be transferred out of DCF care and into an adult prison. DCF’s request for the transfer was filed in court on Feb. 4.
So now this child goes to the adult female prison – the only female prison, pending an evaluation. At which point, they might decide to send her to a men’s prison. Because, you know, that’s even better for this troubled kid.This should come as no surprise, though, to people who follow the state juvenile and adult prison system. They’re quick to shove the problem off to someone else and the last thing you get in our locked facilities – be it for juveniles or adults – is the mental health treatment that so many desperately need.
apublicdefender.com
Posted: 10 Apr 2014 04:00 AM PDT
Since former Supreme Court justice Joette Katz has taken over the beleaguered Department of Children and Families (DCF), some weird ass shit has been going on over there. The latest is this really outrageous transfer of a transgender 16-year old male who identifies as female to an adult correctional facility.It’s not like she’s actually arrested for anything, though. The Courant reports:
In this case, the youth was arrested at a juvenile facility in Needham, Mass., in late January for an assault on a staff member — but the criminal charge was not pursued by prosecutors in Massachusetts. No criminal charges are pending against the youth.
The police report in Massachusetts said that the assault resulted in ”apparent minor injuries” to the staff member, said [Assistant Public Defender] Connolly, who reviewed the report.However, the incident report prepared by staff at Meadowridge Academy in Needham, does describe a violent outburst by the youth, who was upset, insubordinate and attempting to walk off campus when confronted by two staff members.
So? 16 year olds act out. There are no charges. The most galling part is that this is the very child that Commissioner Katz used as an example in her pitch for a locked detention facility:
On Feb. 14, Katz, while lobbying to open a secure treatment facility for girls in Middletown, brought up this youth’s story in testimony before the legislature’s appropriations committee. Katz didn’t name the youth, but said that a staff member was blinded and had her jaw broken in the assault. Katz said this youth would be appropriate for the locked program, which was the subject of opposition from advocates and some lawmakers. The allocation of $2.5 million was approved and the unit is now open on the campus of the former Riverview Hospital in Middletown.A state source said that the blindness to which Katz referred was temporary, and that the worker’s sight has returned.
Advocates for children are questioning Katz’s decision to use the youth’s story to make her case for DCF’s locked treatment program, while pushing for the youth to be transferred out of DCF care and into an adult prison. DCF’s request for the transfer was filed in court on Feb. 4.
So now this child goes to the adult female prison – the only female prison, pending an evaluation. At which point, they might decide to send her to a men’s prison. Because, you know, that’s even better for this troubled kid.This should come as no surprise, though, to people who follow the state juvenile and adult prison system. They’re quick to shove the problem off to someone else and the last thing you get in our locked facilities – be it for juveniles or adults – is the mental health treatment that so many desperately need.
apublicdefender.com
Being Bullied Throughout Childhood and Teens May Lead to More Arrests
August 1, 2013
Being Bullied Throughout Childhood and Teens May Lead to More Arrests, Convictions, Prison Time
Duration of bullying linked to more adverse legal consequences for victims, study finds
HONOLULU — People who were repeatedly bullied throughout childhood and adolescence were significantly more likely to go to prison than individuals who did not suffer repeated bullying, according to a new analysis presented at the American Psychological Association’s 121st Annual Convention.
Almost 14 percent of those who reported being bullied repeatedly from childhood through their teens ended up in prison as adults, compared to 6 percent of non-victims, 9 percent of childhood-only victims and 7 percent of teen-only victims, the study found. When comparing rates of convictions, more than 20 percent of those who endured chronic bullying were convicted of crimes, compared to 11 percent of non-victims, 16 percent of childhood victims, and 13 percent of teen victims. Compared to nonwhite childhood victims, white childhood victims faced significantly greater odds of going to prison, according to the study.
"Previous research has examined bullying during specific time periods, whereas this study is the first to look at individuals’ reports of bullying that lasted throughout their childhood and teen years, and the legal consequences they faced in late adolescence and as adults," said Michael G. Turner, PhD, of the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte.
The results also revealed that women who were chronically bullied from childhood through their teens faced significantly greater odds of using alcohol or drugs, and of being arrested and convicted than men who had grown up experiencing chronic bullying.
Turner analyzed data from the 1997 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, conducted by the U.S. Department of Labor and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The survey involved 7,335 individuals between the ages of 12 and 16 as of Dec. 31, 1996. The sample reflected the demographics of the United States.
The analysis identified four groups: non-victims (74 percent); those bullied repeatedly before the age of 12 (15 percent); those bullied repeatedly after the age of 12 (6 percent); and those repeatedly victimized before and after the age of 12 (5 percent). Accounts of repeated bullying were collected over several periods and the legal outcomes were assessed when participants’ were in their late teens or adults. These relationships were also examined across gender and race. The study followed youths over a 14-year period from early adolescence into adulthood.
"This study highlights the important role that health care professionals can play early in a child’s life when bullying is not adequately addressed by teachers, parents or guardians," Turner said. "With appropriate questions during routine medical checkups, they can be critical first points of contact for childhood victims. Programs that help children deal with the adverse impacts of repeated bullying could make the difference in whether they end up in the adult legal system."
https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2013/08/being-bullied.aspx
https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2013/08/bully-victimizations.pdf
Despite sustained decreases in rates of violent offending, scientific attention remains
focused on understanding the causes and consequences of violence, as well as evaluating efforts
to prevent such behaviors. One violent-related behavior that continues to receive significant
attention is bullying and bully victimization.1 Identified as the persistent harassment (physical,
verbal, emotional, or psychological) of one individual over another, accompanied by a power
imbalance, bullying has been documented as affecting approximately 30 percent of youth in the
US population.2,3 Empirical evidence related to the impact of bullying indicates those who bully
and/or experience a bully victimization report disproportionately higher levels of adverse social,
psychological, legal, and mental health outcomes.4-16 Two important themes emerge upon
review of this research. First, bully-victims (individuals engaging in bullying as well as who
have been victimized by a bully), are generally at the highest odds of exhibiting negative
outcomes later in life.2,17-21 Second, individuals engaging in the bullying experience most
frequently report the highest levels of negative consequences.9,11,14,15
A notable limitation of past research is that the bullying and victimization experiences
were only assessed for a restricted period of the life course.
Being Bullied Throughout Childhood and Teens May Lead to More Arrests, Convictions, Prison Time
Duration of bullying linked to more adverse legal consequences for victims, study finds
HONOLULU — People who were repeatedly bullied throughout childhood and adolescence were significantly more likely to go to prison than individuals who did not suffer repeated bullying, according to a new analysis presented at the American Psychological Association’s 121st Annual Convention.
Almost 14 percent of those who reported being bullied repeatedly from childhood through their teens ended up in prison as adults, compared to 6 percent of non-victims, 9 percent of childhood-only victims and 7 percent of teen-only victims, the study found. When comparing rates of convictions, more than 20 percent of those who endured chronic bullying were convicted of crimes, compared to 11 percent of non-victims, 16 percent of childhood victims, and 13 percent of teen victims. Compared to nonwhite childhood victims, white childhood victims faced significantly greater odds of going to prison, according to the study.
"Previous research has examined bullying during specific time periods, whereas this study is the first to look at individuals’ reports of bullying that lasted throughout their childhood and teen years, and the legal consequences they faced in late adolescence and as adults," said Michael G. Turner, PhD, of the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte.
The results also revealed that women who were chronically bullied from childhood through their teens faced significantly greater odds of using alcohol or drugs, and of being arrested and convicted than men who had grown up experiencing chronic bullying.
Turner analyzed data from the 1997 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, conducted by the U.S. Department of Labor and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The survey involved 7,335 individuals between the ages of 12 and 16 as of Dec. 31, 1996. The sample reflected the demographics of the United States.
The analysis identified four groups: non-victims (74 percent); those bullied repeatedly before the age of 12 (15 percent); those bullied repeatedly after the age of 12 (6 percent); and those repeatedly victimized before and after the age of 12 (5 percent). Accounts of repeated bullying were collected over several periods and the legal outcomes were assessed when participants’ were in their late teens or adults. These relationships were also examined across gender and race. The study followed youths over a 14-year period from early adolescence into adulthood.
"This study highlights the important role that health care professionals can play early in a child’s life when bullying is not adequately addressed by teachers, parents or guardians," Turner said. "With appropriate questions during routine medical checkups, they can be critical first points of contact for childhood victims. Programs that help children deal with the adverse impacts of repeated bullying could make the difference in whether they end up in the adult legal system."
https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2013/08/being-bullied.aspx
https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2013/08/bully-victimizations.pdf
Despite sustained decreases in rates of violent offending, scientific attention remains
focused on understanding the causes and consequences of violence, as well as evaluating efforts
to prevent such behaviors. One violent-related behavior that continues to receive significant
attention is bullying and bully victimization.1 Identified as the persistent harassment (physical,
verbal, emotional, or psychological) of one individual over another, accompanied by a power
imbalance, bullying has been documented as affecting approximately 30 percent of youth in the
US population.2,3 Empirical evidence related to the impact of bullying indicates those who bully
and/or experience a bully victimization report disproportionately higher levels of adverse social,
psychological, legal, and mental health outcomes.4-16 Two important themes emerge upon
review of this research. First, bully-victims (individuals engaging in bullying as well as who
have been victimized by a bully), are generally at the highest odds of exhibiting negative
outcomes later in life.2,17-21 Second, individuals engaging in the bullying experience most
frequently report the highest levels of negative consequences.9,11,14,15
A notable limitation of past research is that the bullying and victimization experiences
were only assessed for a restricted period of the life course.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)