Posts
Juveniles In Solitary Confinement
The recently signed order by President Barack Obama banning solitary confinement for juveniles in federal institutions will have no effect on prisoners, juvenile or adult in the California prison system. In fact, while the President’s order is a step forward and will hopefully be a North Star for other corrections authorities, there are only a few dozen juveniles in federal custody and only about a dozen in solitary confinement who will be affected by the order. And, again, no one in a California state-run prison comes under the federal order.
Sunday, January 31, 2016
Friday, January 29, 2016
Delaware Shackling Kids In Court
Push to End Shackling of Juveniles
(Information in this item comes from this January 23 News Journal article.)
Should juvenile defendants automatically be shackled in metal leg irons when they enter a Delaware courtroom? Rep. J.J. Johnson says this is an arcane practice that needs to stop, especially considering that adult defendants typically are not shackled during trial so it doesn't influence juries.
Crimes range from drug possession and theft to gun charges and rape. All are in state custody because they cannot afford to post bail. All are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Rep. Johnson is sponsoring HB 211, which would limit the use of shackles except in rare circumstances where the court can show that restraints are necessary to prevent flight or physical harm to the child or others. Nearly half of all states have ended this practice in the United States. In January 2014, the National Juvenile Defender Center, a nonprofit in Washington, D.C., launched a nationwide campaign to end indiscriminate juvenile shackling.
Defense attorneys and child advocates say this daily scene in Family Court is grisly – youth are restrained and left traumatized by a criminal justice system that is supposed to rehabilitate, not punish, them.
“People are realizing that the things we have done in the past have not worked and should be changed,” Rep. Johnson said. “This is one of the changes that should be made.”
Delaware House Democrats
411 Legislative Avenue
Dover, DE 19901
(Information in this item comes from this January 23 News Journal article.)
Should juvenile defendants automatically be shackled in metal leg irons when they enter a Delaware courtroom? Rep. J.J. Johnson says this is an arcane practice that needs to stop, especially considering that adult defendants typically are not shackled during trial so it doesn't influence juries.
Crimes range from drug possession and theft to gun charges and rape. All are in state custody because they cannot afford to post bail. All are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Rep. Johnson is sponsoring HB 211, which would limit the use of shackles except in rare circumstances where the court can show that restraints are necessary to prevent flight or physical harm to the child or others. Nearly half of all states have ended this practice in the United States. In January 2014, the National Juvenile Defender Center, a nonprofit in Washington, D.C., launched a nationwide campaign to end indiscriminate juvenile shackling.
Defense attorneys and child advocates say this daily scene in Family Court is grisly – youth are restrained and left traumatized by a criminal justice system that is supposed to rehabilitate, not punish, them.
“People are realizing that the things we have done in the past have not worked and should be changed,” Rep. Johnson said. “This is one of the changes that should be made.”
Delaware House Democrats
411 Legislative Avenue
Dover, DE 19901
Monday, January 25, 2016
Retroactively Appling Ban On LWOP For Kids
United States Supreme Court Rules Miller v. Alabama Is Retroactive
January 25, 2016
Print E-Mail Share
The United States Supreme Court today decided that states must retroactively apply the ban on mandatory death-in-prison sentences for juveniles.
In 2012, EJI lawyers argued at the Supreme Court that sentencing kids to life in prison without parole for any offense is cruel and unusual punishment, relying on the Court's recognition that children are less culpable than adults because of their unique immaturity, impulsiveness, vulnerability, and capacity for redemption and rehabilitation. On June 25, 2012, the Supreme Court issued an historic ruling in Miller v. Alabama, holding that mandatory life-without-parole sentences for all children 17 or younger convicted of homicide are unconstitutional. The Court wrote that requiring sentencers to consider “children’s diminished culpability, and heightened capacity for change” should make such sentences “uncommon.”
Most state courts, including the highest courts of Arkansas, Nebraska, Connecticut, Florida, New Hampshire, Illinois, Mississippi, Iowa, Massachusetts, Texas, and Wyoming, as well as federal courts across the country, applied Miller retroactively to people already serving the banned sentence and granted them new sentencing hearings, but a handful of states, including Louisiana, refused to do so.
Today's decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana now requires all states to apply Miller retroactively, which means that in Louisiana, Alabama, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, and Colorado, hundreds of people who were sentenced to die in prison for crimes when they were children are now entitled to new sentencing hearings.
Writing for the Court, Justice Kennedy explained that Miller is retroactive because it announced a substantive rule of constitutional law. Because Miller bars life without parole sentences for all but the rarest of juvenile offenders, "it rendered life without parole an unconstitutional penalty for 'a class of defendants because of their status' -- that is, juvenile offenders whose crimes reflect the transient immaturity of youth."
The Court underscored why Miller is a substantive rule: "Before Miller, every juvenile convicted of a homicide offense could be sentenced to life without parole. After Miller, it will be the rare juvenile offender who can receive that same sentence."
People serving juvenile life-without-parole sentences must now be afforded hearings where "youth and its attendant characteristics" are considered as sentencing factors. Alternatively, the Court wrote that states "may remedy a Miller violation by permitting juvenile homicide offenders to be considered for parole, rather than by resentencing them."
Importantly, states must provide an opportunity for release "to those who demonstrate the truth of Miller's central intuition -- that children who commit even heinous crimes are capable of change."
Supreme Court decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana
January 25, 2016
Print E-Mail Share
The United States Supreme Court today decided that states must retroactively apply the ban on mandatory death-in-prison sentences for juveniles.
In 2012, EJI lawyers argued at the Supreme Court that sentencing kids to life in prison without parole for any offense is cruel and unusual punishment, relying on the Court's recognition that children are less culpable than adults because of their unique immaturity, impulsiveness, vulnerability, and capacity for redemption and rehabilitation. On June 25, 2012, the Supreme Court issued an historic ruling in Miller v. Alabama, holding that mandatory life-without-parole sentences for all children 17 or younger convicted of homicide are unconstitutional. The Court wrote that requiring sentencers to consider “children’s diminished culpability, and heightened capacity for change” should make such sentences “uncommon.”
Most state courts, including the highest courts of Arkansas, Nebraska, Connecticut, Florida, New Hampshire, Illinois, Mississippi, Iowa, Massachusetts, Texas, and Wyoming, as well as federal courts across the country, applied Miller retroactively to people already serving the banned sentence and granted them new sentencing hearings, but a handful of states, including Louisiana, refused to do so.
Today's decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana now requires all states to apply Miller retroactively, which means that in Louisiana, Alabama, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, and Colorado, hundreds of people who were sentenced to die in prison for crimes when they were children are now entitled to new sentencing hearings.
Writing for the Court, Justice Kennedy explained that Miller is retroactive because it announced a substantive rule of constitutional law. Because Miller bars life without parole sentences for all but the rarest of juvenile offenders, "it rendered life without parole an unconstitutional penalty for 'a class of defendants because of their status' -- that is, juvenile offenders whose crimes reflect the transient immaturity of youth."
The Court underscored why Miller is a substantive rule: "Before Miller, every juvenile convicted of a homicide offense could be sentenced to life without parole. After Miller, it will be the rare juvenile offender who can receive that same sentence."
People serving juvenile life-without-parole sentences must now be afforded hearings where "youth and its attendant characteristics" are considered as sentencing factors. Alternatively, the Court wrote that states "may remedy a Miller violation by permitting juvenile homicide offenders to be considered for parole, rather than by resentencing them."
Importantly, states must provide an opportunity for release "to those who demonstrate the truth of Miller's central intuition -- that children who commit even heinous crimes are capable of change."
Supreme Court decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana
Thursday, January 21, 2016
What Really Happens When Cops Question Kids?
http://ias.umn.edu/2012/12/06/feld-barry/
What Really Happens When Cops Question Kids?
Presentation by Barry Feld
December 6, 2012, 1:30-3:30 p.m.
125 Nolte Center for Continuing Education
This study analyzes quantitative and qualitative data of interrogations of 307 sixteen- and seventeen-year-old youths charged with felony offenses. The findings bear on three policy issues: procedural safeguards for youths, time limits for interrogations, and mandatory recording of interrogations.
Barry Feld is a Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota
Organized by the 2012-2013 IAS collaborative Child and Youth Studies Across the Curriculum.
What Really Happens When Cops Question Kids?
Presentation by Barry Feld
December 6, 2012, 1:30-3:30 p.m.
125 Nolte Center for Continuing Education
This study analyzes quantitative and qualitative data of interrogations of 307 sixteen- and seventeen-year-old youths charged with felony offenses. The findings bear on three policy issues: procedural safeguards for youths, time limits for interrogations, and mandatory recording of interrogations.
Barry Feld is a Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota
Organized by the 2012-2013 IAS collaborative Child and Youth Studies Across the Curriculum.
Saturday, December 19, 2015
SB 260 AND 261; THE SAME, BUT DIFFERENT
SB 260 AND 261; THE SAME, BUT DIFFERENT
January, 2016 will herald the implementation of SB 261, which extends the factors of Youth Offender Parole Hearings (YOPH) to those lifers and long-serving determinate sentenced prisoners who were under 23 years old at the time of their crime. And while the factors of eligibility for the two bills are the same (under 23, not a sex crime, no conviction for additional serious/sex crime after the age of 23 and having served a minimum time, based on sentence) the timing of those coming to parole hearings under 261 will be substantially different..
Under the original YOPH bill, SB 260, the BPH had a total of 18 months to bring everyone affected by the bill to a parole hearing. This feat was accomplished, but not without fallout. Specifically, many determinate sentenced prisoners, coming to their first ever parole hearing in the last 6 months of the implementation period, were unprepared, both from a programming and rehabilitation standpoint, resulting is a dismal 5% grant rate for this cohort. And, because of the increased number of CRAs required, the FAD fell behind in preparing the evaluations, causing many prisoners to face their hearing with a CRA they had received mere days earlier.
Because of these findings, and because the number of prisoners potentially impacted under SB 261 is so large (an early estimate is perhaps 9,700) the legislature passed a companion bill to SB 261, SB 519, which allows for considerable alternation in the original time frame for hearings to take place. The two bills were passed out of the legislature together, signed by Gov. Brown on the same day and will go into effect in unison.
Instead of 18 months the BPH will now have two full years to bring all life term inmates who qualify for YOPH under the new age considerations to a hearing, either initial or subsequent. The hearings for lifers under 261 will begin in January, 2016 and must take place by the end of 2017. For those DSL inmates who qualify for 261, the board now has until the end of 2021 to bring those individuals to a parole hearing.
And while possibly waiting an additional 6 months in the case of lifers, or a few more years in the case of DSL inmates, might seem disappointing at first SB 261 still has the potential to cut years off a lifer’s sentence and for those DSL inmates serving impossibly long, virtual toe-tag sentences, 261 can be a real life-line. The additional time will also, it is anticipated, allow the FAD to complete and provide the required CRAs in a more timely fashion.
There are other, less impactful differences and nuances in the two bills as well as new procedures for implementing SB 261, all of which are too lengthy to detail in a short newsletter. Specifics of these details are being sent to prisons, for dissemination to the inmate population, and for the edification of correctional counselors. Whether or not the information actually reaches inmates is anyone’s guess.
The BPH has prepared a comprehensive 3 page explanation of these new developments, covering many areas of concern, including how notifications will be made, who will determine eligibility for inclusion in SB 261, how the new bill will affect PTA and other hearing scheduling matters. LSA will forward this document to any inmate who requests the report, along with explanatory notations on each section. More, in depth information will also be available in the December issue of CLN.
We can also provide an explanation of consultation hearings, which will be occurring for many inmates in the coming months in preparation for eventual consideration under YOPH. There is no charge for this information, however, stamps or SASE are helpful to our staff and budget.
Please send your requests to: LSA, PO BOX 277, Rancho Cordova, Ca. 95741 and mark the outer envelope : SB 261/519.
As previously announced, beginning in January CRAs will be done every 3 years instead of every 5 years and no Supplemental Risk Assessments will be done..
January, 2016 will herald the implementation of SB 261, which extends the factors of Youth Offender Parole Hearings (YOPH) to those lifers and long-serving determinate sentenced prisoners who were under 23 years old at the time of their crime. And while the factors of eligibility for the two bills are the same (under 23, not a sex crime, no conviction for additional serious/sex crime after the age of 23 and having served a minimum time, based on sentence) the timing of those coming to parole hearings under 261 will be substantially different..
Under the original YOPH bill, SB 260, the BPH had a total of 18 months to bring everyone affected by the bill to a parole hearing. This feat was accomplished, but not without fallout. Specifically, many determinate sentenced prisoners, coming to their first ever parole hearing in the last 6 months of the implementation period, were unprepared, both from a programming and rehabilitation standpoint, resulting is a dismal 5% grant rate for this cohort. And, because of the increased number of CRAs required, the FAD fell behind in preparing the evaluations, causing many prisoners to face their hearing with a CRA they had received mere days earlier.
Because of these findings, and because the number of prisoners potentially impacted under SB 261 is so large (an early estimate is perhaps 9,700) the legislature passed a companion bill to SB 261, SB 519, which allows for considerable alternation in the original time frame for hearings to take place. The two bills were passed out of the legislature together, signed by Gov. Brown on the same day and will go into effect in unison.
Instead of 18 months the BPH will now have two full years to bring all life term inmates who qualify for YOPH under the new age considerations to a hearing, either initial or subsequent. The hearings for lifers under 261 will begin in January, 2016 and must take place by the end of 2017. For those DSL inmates who qualify for 261, the board now has until the end of 2021 to bring those individuals to a parole hearing.
And while possibly waiting an additional 6 months in the case of lifers, or a few more years in the case of DSL inmates, might seem disappointing at first SB 261 still has the potential to cut years off a lifer’s sentence and for those DSL inmates serving impossibly long, virtual toe-tag sentences, 261 can be a real life-line. The additional time will also, it is anticipated, allow the FAD to complete and provide the required CRAs in a more timely fashion.
There are other, less impactful differences and nuances in the two bills as well as new procedures for implementing SB 261, all of which are too lengthy to detail in a short newsletter. Specifics of these details are being sent to prisons, for dissemination to the inmate population, and for the edification of correctional counselors. Whether or not the information actually reaches inmates is anyone’s guess.
The BPH has prepared a comprehensive 3 page explanation of these new developments, covering many areas of concern, including how notifications will be made, who will determine eligibility for inclusion in SB 261, how the new bill will affect PTA and other hearing scheduling matters. LSA will forward this document to any inmate who requests the report, along with explanatory notations on each section. More, in depth information will also be available in the December issue of CLN.
We can also provide an explanation of consultation hearings, which will be occurring for many inmates in the coming months in preparation for eventual consideration under YOPH. There is no charge for this information, however, stamps or SASE are helpful to our staff and budget.
Please send your requests to: LSA, PO BOX 277, Rancho Cordova, Ca. 95741 and mark the outer envelope : SB 261/519.
As previously announced, beginning in January CRAs will be done every 3 years instead of every 5 years and no Supplemental Risk Assessments will be done..
Parole For Young Lifers
SB 260 AND 261; THE SAME, BUT DIFFERENT
January, 2016 will herald the implementation of SB 261, which extends the factors of Youth Offender Parole Hearings (YOPH) to those lifers and long-serving determinate sentenced prisoners who were under 23 years old at the time of their crime. And while the factors of eligibility for the two bills are the same (under 23, not a sex crime, no conviction for additional serious/sex crime after the age of 23 and having served a minimum time, based on sentence) the timing of those coming to parole hearings under 261 will be substantially different..
Under the original YOPH bill, SB 260, the BPH had a total of 18 months to bring everyone affected by the bill to a parole hearing. This feat was accomplished, but not without fallout. Specifically, many determinate sentenced prisoners, coming to their first ever parole hearing in the last 6 months of the implementation period, were unprepared, both from a programming and rehabilitation standpoint, resulting is a dismal 5% grant rate for this cohort. And, because of the increased number of CRAs required, the FAD fell behind in preparing the evaluations, causing many prisoners to face their hearing with a CRA they had received mere days earlier.
Because of these findings, and because the number of prisoners potentially impacted under SB 261 is so large (an early estimate is perhaps 9,700) the legislature passed a companion bill to SB 261, SB 519, which allows for considerable alternation in the original time frame for hearings to take place. The two bills were passed out of the legislature together, signed by Gov. Brown on the same day and will go into effect in unison.
Instead of 18 months the BPH will now have two full years to bring all life term inmates who qualify for YOPH under the new age considerations to a hearing, either initial or subsequent. The hearings for lifers under 261 will begin in January, 2016 and must take place by the end of 2017. For those DSL inmates who qualify for 261, the board now has until the end of 2021 to bring those individuals to a parole hearing.
And while possibly waiting an additional 6 months in the case of lifers, or a few more years in the case of DSL inmates, might seem disappointing at first SB 261 still has the potential to cut years off a lifer’s sentence and for those DSL inmates serving impossibly long, virtual toe-tag sentences, 261 can be a real life-line. The additional time will also, it is anticipated, allow the FAD to complete and provide the required CRAs in a more timely fashion.
There are other, less impactful differences and nuances in the two bills as well as new procedures for implementing SB 261, all of which are too lengthy to detail in a short newsletter. Specifics of these details are being sent to prisons, for dissemination to the inmate population, and for the edification of correctional counselors. Whether or not the information actually reaches inmates is anyone’s guess.
The BPH has prepared a comprehensive 3 page explanation of these new developments, covering many areas of concern, including how notifications will be made, who will determine eligibility for inclusion in SB 261, how the new bill will affect PTA and other hearing scheduling matters. LSA will forward this document to any inmate who requests the report, along with explanatory notations on each section. More, in depth information will also be available in the December issue of CLN.
We can also provide an explanation of consultation hearings, which will be occurring for many inmates in the coming months in preparation for eventual consideration under YOPH. There is no charge for this information, however, stamps or SASE are helpful to our staff and budget.
Please send your requests to: LSA, PO BOX 277, Rancho Cordova, Ca. 95741 and mark the outer envelope : SB 261/519.
As previously announced, beginning in January CRAs will be done every 3 years instead of every 5 years and no Supplemental Risk Assessments will be done..
January, 2016 will herald the implementation of SB 261, which extends the factors of Youth Offender Parole Hearings (YOPH) to those lifers and long-serving determinate sentenced prisoners who were under 23 years old at the time of their crime. And while the factors of eligibility for the two bills are the same (under 23, not a sex crime, no conviction for additional serious/sex crime after the age of 23 and having served a minimum time, based on sentence) the timing of those coming to parole hearings under 261 will be substantially different..
Under the original YOPH bill, SB 260, the BPH had a total of 18 months to bring everyone affected by the bill to a parole hearing. This feat was accomplished, but not without fallout. Specifically, many determinate sentenced prisoners, coming to their first ever parole hearing in the last 6 months of the implementation period, were unprepared, both from a programming and rehabilitation standpoint, resulting is a dismal 5% grant rate for this cohort. And, because of the increased number of CRAs required, the FAD fell behind in preparing the evaluations, causing many prisoners to face their hearing with a CRA they had received mere days earlier.
Because of these findings, and because the number of prisoners potentially impacted under SB 261 is so large (an early estimate is perhaps 9,700) the legislature passed a companion bill to SB 261, SB 519, which allows for considerable alternation in the original time frame for hearings to take place. The two bills were passed out of the legislature together, signed by Gov. Brown on the same day and will go into effect in unison.
Instead of 18 months the BPH will now have two full years to bring all life term inmates who qualify for YOPH under the new age considerations to a hearing, either initial or subsequent. The hearings for lifers under 261 will begin in January, 2016 and must take place by the end of 2017. For those DSL inmates who qualify for 261, the board now has until the end of 2021 to bring those individuals to a parole hearing.
And while possibly waiting an additional 6 months in the case of lifers, or a few more years in the case of DSL inmates, might seem disappointing at first SB 261 still has the potential to cut years off a lifer’s sentence and for those DSL inmates serving impossibly long, virtual toe-tag sentences, 261 can be a real life-line. The additional time will also, it is anticipated, allow the FAD to complete and provide the required CRAs in a more timely fashion.
There are other, less impactful differences and nuances in the two bills as well as new procedures for implementing SB 261, all of which are too lengthy to detail in a short newsletter. Specifics of these details are being sent to prisons, for dissemination to the inmate population, and for the edification of correctional counselors. Whether or not the information actually reaches inmates is anyone’s guess.
The BPH has prepared a comprehensive 3 page explanation of these new developments, covering many areas of concern, including how notifications will be made, who will determine eligibility for inclusion in SB 261, how the new bill will affect PTA and other hearing scheduling matters. LSA will forward this document to any inmate who requests the report, along with explanatory notations on each section. More, in depth information will also be available in the December issue of CLN.
We can also provide an explanation of consultation hearings, which will be occurring for many inmates in the coming months in preparation for eventual consideration under YOPH. There is no charge for this information, however, stamps or SASE are helpful to our staff and budget.
Please send your requests to: LSA, PO BOX 277, Rancho Cordova, Ca. 95741 and mark the outer envelope : SB 261/519.
As previously announced, beginning in January CRAs will be done every 3 years instead of every 5 years and no Supplemental Risk Assessments will be done..
No Child Under 18 Should Be Tried As An Adult
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/12/14/what-age-should-young-criminals-be-tried-as-adults/no-one-younger-than-18-should-be-tried-as-an-adult.
The Opinion Pages
No One Younger Than 18 Should Be Tried as an Adult
Carmen Daugherty is the policy director for the Campaign for Youth Justice, which is dedicated to ending the practice of trying, sentencing and incarcerating youth under 18 in the adult criminal justice system.
Updated December 14, 2015, 10:40 AM
Laws that permit youth under the age of 18 to enter the adult criminal justice system represent a departure from the traditional understanding of juvenile justice — to serve the best interests of the child.
An overwhelming amount of research shows that the adult criminal justice system is ill equipped to meet the needs of youth offenders, from trial to incarceration and re-entry. Beyond what brain science reveals about adolescent development, experts contend that the adult criminal justice system does not deter repeat offenses by juveniles under 18.
Youth placed in the adult system had 34 percent more re-arrests, and often, at faster rates and more dangerous levels. Mental health needs go unmet in adult settings across the country and little training is offered to facility staff on working with the youngest offenders. Meanwhile, the juvenile justice system, more broadly, puts an emphasis on the rehabilitation, treatment, education and public safety of youth in its care. It is rare that you will find that kind of express mission — let alone a program focused on treatment and education — in state departments of corrections.
Young offenders are more likely to succeed on a personal level if they receive comprehensive services that support positive youth development. But in a broader sense, comprehensive juvenile justice is safer for society as a whole. Ninety-five percent of youth charged as adults return home by their 25th birthday: Don’t we want them better off than when they entered the system?
Yet nine states still place 17-year-olds in the adult system for any offense — including simple misdemeanors or traffic related offenses — building permanent adult records for juveniles before they are even out of high school. For North Carolina and New York, the age one goes into the adult system is 16.
Nearly every state uses a variety of legal processes to transfer youth to the adult system sometimes, either through judicial or prosecutorial discretion or through laws that prevent certain alleged offenses from being heard in juvenile or family courts.
But the federal government has released recommendations on best practices and approaches to reducing children's exposure to violence — including a recommendation to avoid prosecuting youth in adult courts that "ignore and diminish their capacity to grow."
Join Opinion on Facebook and follow updates on twitter.com/roomfordebate.
The Opinion Pages
No One Younger Than 18 Should Be Tried as an Adult
Carmen Daugherty is the policy director for the Campaign for Youth Justice, which is dedicated to ending the practice of trying, sentencing and incarcerating youth under 18 in the adult criminal justice system.
Updated December 14, 2015, 10:40 AM
Laws that permit youth under the age of 18 to enter the adult criminal justice system represent a departure from the traditional understanding of juvenile justice — to serve the best interests of the child.
An overwhelming amount of research shows that the adult criminal justice system is ill equipped to meet the needs of youth offenders, from trial to incarceration and re-entry. Beyond what brain science reveals about adolescent development, experts contend that the adult criminal justice system does not deter repeat offenses by juveniles under 18.
Youth placed in the adult system had 34 percent more re-arrests, and often, at faster rates and more dangerous levels. Mental health needs go unmet in adult settings across the country and little training is offered to facility staff on working with the youngest offenders. Meanwhile, the juvenile justice system, more broadly, puts an emphasis on the rehabilitation, treatment, education and public safety of youth in its care. It is rare that you will find that kind of express mission — let alone a program focused on treatment and education — in state departments of corrections.
Young offenders are more likely to succeed on a personal level if they receive comprehensive services that support positive youth development. But in a broader sense, comprehensive juvenile justice is safer for society as a whole. Ninety-five percent of youth charged as adults return home by their 25th birthday: Don’t we want them better off than when they entered the system?
Yet nine states still place 17-year-olds in the adult system for any offense — including simple misdemeanors or traffic related offenses — building permanent adult records for juveniles before they are even out of high school. For North Carolina and New York, the age one goes into the adult system is 16.
Nearly every state uses a variety of legal processes to transfer youth to the adult system sometimes, either through judicial or prosecutorial discretion or through laws that prevent certain alleged offenses from being heard in juvenile or family courts.
But the federal government has released recommendations on best practices and approaches to reducing children's exposure to violence — including a recommendation to avoid prosecuting youth in adult courts that "ignore and diminish their capacity to grow."
Join Opinion on Facebook and follow updates on twitter.com/roomfordebate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)