Debtors’ Prison For Kids

http://www.citizensforcriminaljustice.net/debtors-prison-kids-poor-children-incarcerated-families-cant-pay-juvenile-court-fees/
Debtors’ Prison For Kids: Poor Children Incarcerated When Families Can’t Pay Juvenile Court Fees

First-of-its-kind report finds children are being imprisoned nationwide when families can’t pay fines levied by juvenile justice system.
“The debt in effect creates a rift between parents and their children,” one survey respondent said, and went on to describe a grandmother who was told to consider giving up custody of her grandson in order to avoid paying his juvenile court fees. Many states are incarcerating poor children whose families can’t afford to pay juvenile court fees and fines, a report published Wednesday finds, which amounts to punishing children for their families’ poverty—and that may be unconstitutional.
Although the growing practice of incarcerating adults who are unable to pay municipal and court fees and fines has been documented for several years, as Common Dreams has noted, the latest report from the Juvenile Law Center is the first in-depth examination of the practice within the juvenile justice system.
The report, “Debtor’s Prison for Kids? The High Cost of Fines and Fees in the Juvenile Justice System” (pdf), documents the results of a survey of 183 people involved in the juvenile justice system—including lawyers, family members, and adults who had been incarcerated as children in the juvenile justice system—in 41 states.
The report authors discovered that in most states there is a pile-up of fees and fines imposed on children and their families once a child enters the juvenile justice system, and that “many statutes establish that youth can be incarcerated or otherwise face a loss of liberty when they fail to pay.”
A grandmother had taken custody of her grandson but when facing these insurmountable fees, she was told (by a county employee) that the only way she could avoid paying was to hand over custody [to the state].”—Juvenile Law Center survey respondent

There are myriad ways in which juvenile court systems levy fines on children’s families, the report authors found, and then imprison those children when their families are too poor to pay the mounting costs:
Many states impose a monthly fee on families whose children are sentenced to probation. When a family can’t pay the monthly fee, that counts as a probation violation, and the child is in most cases incarcerated in a juvenile detention facility.
If children are sentenced to a “diversion program,” or a community-based program meant to keep them out of detention and help them reintegrate into their communities, the families must pay the costs of such a program. When poor children are unable to pay, they are simply incarcerated instead.
Families in most states must pay for their children’s court-ordered evaluations and tests (such as mental health evaluations, STD tests, and drug and alcohol assessments). Failure to obtain certain evaluations may result in a failure to be granted bond by the court, which means the child would remain in juvenile detention. Or if the tests are performed and the family subsequently can’t pay for them, that counts as a probation violation and the child is re-sentenced, which can mean being incarcerated.
Some sentences involve a simple fine, such as truancy, and failure to pay results in the child’s imprisonment. “Even when fines are not mandated by statute, they may be treated as mandatory in practice,” the report authors note, describing one impoverished child’s experience with a $500 truancy fine in Arkansas: One individual who had been in the juvenile justice system there reported that he spent three months in a locked facility at age 13 because he couldn’t afford the truancy fine. He appeared in court without a lawyer or a parent and was never asked about his capacity to pay or given the option of paying a reduced amount. He assumed he had to either pay the full fine or spend time in jail. He explained, “my mind was set to where I was just like forget it, I might as well just go ahead and do the time because I ain’t got no money and I know the [financial] situation my mom is in. I ain’t got no money so I might as well just go and sit it out.”
“Almost all states charge parents for the care and support of youth involved with the juvenile justice system,” the report adds. Those include fees for room and board, clothing, and mental and physical healthcare, among many other charges, and “[i]nability to pay […] can result in youth being deprived of treatment, held in violation of probation, or even facing extended periods of incarceration.” (Juvenile prisons also charge their own, often higher, prices for children’s prescription medications, the report says, which frequently results in high charges that poor families cannot afford to pay and interrupts necessary healthcare for their children.)
In all 50 states, a statute exists which deems that if a child and their family can’t afford restitution charges—that is, payment to the victim(s) of the child’s crime, which is a popular sentence in juvenile court—the child is incarcerated.
Juvenile detention facilities are often unsafe and inhumane, as Common Dreams has reported.

And the fines imposed by juvenile court are “highly burdensome,” according to the report.
The average cost of juvenile system involvement is $2,000 per case in Alameda County, California,
for example, and “for young people incarcerated for extended periods of time, the costs can be
significantly higher.”

“When parents face incarceration or mounting debt for failure to pay, they have even fewer resources to devote to educating, helping, and supporting their children.”
—Juvenile Law Center
The report authors also observe that incarcerating children for their families’ inability to pay fees may be unconstitutional:

IT IS WORTH NOTING THAT THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAS MADE
CLEAR THAT AN INDIVIDUAL MAY NOT BE INCARCERATED FOR NONPAYMENT
IF THE COURT DOES NOT FIRST CONDUCT AN INDIGENCE DETERMINATION
AND ESTABLISH THAT THE FAILURE TO PAY WAS WILLFUL. THE SUPREME COURT
HAS ALSO HELD THAT COURTS MUST CONSIDER “ALTERNATIVE MEASURES OF
PUNISHMENT OTHER THAN IMPRISONMENT” FOR INDIGENT DEFENDANTS.
NONETHELESS, SOME STATES REQUIRE NEITHER WILLFULNESS NOR CAPACITY
TO PAY IN STATUTE, AND ONLY A FEW EXPLICITLY LIMIT OR PROHIBIT INCARCERATION
FOR FAILURE TO PAY.

ADDITIONALLY, THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT “COURTS MUST PROVIDE MEANINGFUL NOTICE AND, IN APPROPRIATE CASES, COUNSEL, WHEN ENFORCING FINES AND FEES.” THIS RIGHT IS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT FOR CHILDREN, WHO LACK BOTH THE DEVELOPMENTAL CAPACITY AND THE LEGAL KNOWLEDGE TO REPRESENT THEMSELVES.

“Moreover,” the report continues, “while further research is needed, existing studies suggest that court costs, fees, and fines have limited, if any, fiscal benefit to states and counties, given the difficulty in collecting from families in poverty and the high administrative costs in trying to do so.”
The Juvenile Law Center details the varying policies on juvenile court system fees state-by-state on a new website, and also highlights the few counties and states who are attempting to rectify the problem.
“Ultimately, state and local policymakers should establish more sustainable and effective models for funding court systems rather than imposing costs on youth and families who simply can’t afford to pay,” the Juvenile Law Center says.

180 Days For Stolen Cellphone

Abuse, Civil Rights, Criminal Justice System, Human Rights, Justice, Juveniles, law, Life In America, Mass Incarceration
A stolen cellphone, then an odyssey through Maryland’s juvenile justice system

Continue reading A stolen cellphone, then an odyssey through Maryland’s juvenile justice system
13 year old’s 1st offense was stealing a cellphone. Did he have to spend 891 days in juvenile system?
By Erica L. Green

Before Michael ever saw the inside of juvenile lockup, caseworkers recommended he be sent home.
The 13-year-old came from a stable, two-parent home in Columbia. He watched over his three younger siblings, did chores around the house, and enjoyed playing in his youth football league.
Then, he says, he fell in with the wrong group of kids. He was with one of the boys, he says, when they stole another teen’s cellphone.
It was Michael’s first offense. Juvenile caseworkers thought a letter of apology and counseling made the most sense. His attorney argued that a return home would be the best outcome for everyone.

https://prisonreformmovement.wordpress.com/2017/01/03/a-stolen-cellphone-then-an-odyssey-through-marylands-juvenile-justice-system/

Juvenile Lifer's Story

http://www.prisonsfoundation.org./uploads/mem-worth.pdf

When A Child Is Worth More Than The Worst Mistake He Ever Made:
A Juvenile Lifer's Story:
By Antonio Maurice Howard:
showard3387@gmail.com

This is a vivid and compelling story about redemption,growth,tragady,uncertainy,& forgiveness:

A Memoir Of An Adolescent & His Life In Adult Prison:

Pass Prop 57 For The Kids

July 1 at 1:31pm
We've got a number. The proposition on California's November ballot
that will get rid of prosecutorial direct file of children's cases in adult court
and provide real opportunities for people in prison to work toward freedom
is Prop 57. Let's pass this! YES ON PROP 57!!!!

Florida Teen Raped, Beaten

From the PLN in Print Archives
Lawsuit Claims Florida Teen Raped, Beaten in Prison Initiation Ritual
Florida's correctional facilities for youthful offenders are part of the state's adult prison system, and Florida incarcerates more minors than any other state in the nation. Approximately 140 juveniles are housed in detention centers on any given day, and in July 2013 that included a 17-year-old identified only as "R.W."
According to a lawsuit filed on January 17, 2016 by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and Florida Institutional Legal Services, a project of Florida Legal Services, Sumter Correctional Institution guard Bruce A. Kiser, Jr. stood by and watched while at least six youths beat and sexually assaulted R.W. in a bathroom in F Dorm as part of a prison initiation rite called a "test of heart." R.W. was cut repeatedly with sharpened pieces of barbed wire, choked unconscious and raped with a broomstick on July 24, 2013. Kiser never reported the incident.
"R.W. suffered a nightmare at Sumter," said SPLC attorney Miriam Haskell. "Unfortunately, his experience is not unique. A culture of brutality persists within the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC), and what R.W. endured is just another example of why children do not belong in the adult prison system." See: R.W. v. Kiser, U.S.D.C. (M.D. Fla.), Case No. 5:16-cv-00045-WTH-PRL.
An investigation by the FDOC's Office of the Inspector General "noted Kiser's inaction" and recommended a review of the incident, according to the SPLC, but Kiser reportedly "was not disciplined for his role in the attack and continues to be employed as a prison guard."
The FDOC had previously settled a similar lawsuit, agreeing to pay $700,000 to a youth who was permanently injured during a "test of heart" ritual at the Lancaster Correctional Institution. Another juvenile died in 2014 from injuries sustained in a comparable incident at a Florida prison for youthful offenders.
Read more: https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2016/may/5/lawsuit-claims-florida-teen-raped-beaten-prison-

Youngest Person In Indiana

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

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

Kids In Maryland Serving Life

Challenge seeks to hold Maryland to constitutional requirement of (A second chance) for rehabilitated juvenile lifers
April 6, 2016
BALTIMORE — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Maryland filed suit in federal district court in Baltimore contending that Maryland’s current sentencing and parole schemes unconstitutionally condemn youth to spend the rest of their lives in prison without any meaningful chance at parole and without adequate consideration of their youth.
More than 200 individuals are serving parole-eligible life sentences for offenses committed as youth in Maryland, yet no “juvenile lifer” has been paroled in the last 20 years under Maryland’s current scheme. The suit argues that in Maryland parole exists in name only, denying juveniles who have clearly demonstrated their rehabilitation any meaningful opportunity for release, as required by the Eighth Amendment.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Maryland Restorative Justice Initiative, a prisoners’ rights organization that includes juvenile lifers and their families among its members, as well as three individuals subjected to mandatory life sentences for offenses committed decades ago when they were teens. Although the plaintiffs are serving “life with parole” sentences, the suit argues that in practice Maryland never paroles lifers, instead operating a system of executive clemency in which commutation of life sentences is extraordinarily rare. In this way, Maryland converts “life with parole” sentences into de facto “life without parole” sentences that constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
In the last decade, the U.S. Supreme Court, joined by other state and federal courts around the country, has repeatedly ruled that the Eighth Amendment forbids condemning kids to the most serious penalties as if they were not minors. Building on common sense, social science, and a growing body of neuroscience relating to adolescent brain development, the Court has noted that youth are more likely to make rash decisions due to their lack of maturity, are especially vulnerable to external forces, and are, by definition, still developing. As such, the Court has ruled, young offenders cannot be judged solely on the basis of their actions as adolescents. They are capable of dramatic reform and rehabilitation as they mature – so long as they are not denied hope of a second chance.
As a result of these differences, young people have diminished culpability and greater prospects for reform than their adult counterparts, and the attributes of youth must be considered when subjecting youth to the harshest punishments. The Eighth Amendment bars life sentences for all juveniles other than the (rarest) juvenile offender “whose crime reflects irreparable corruption,” the Supreme Court has said. Under these rulings, youth cannot be condemned to life in prison without a real second chance—a “meaningful” and “realistic” opportunity for release upon demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.
In sum, government decisions about sentencing and parole must take into account the offender’s status as a child at the time of offense.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit argue that Maryland has not adhered to this constitutional rule in either sentencing or parole decisions by mandating life sentences without consideration of youth for certain offenses and by denying youth any real opportunity for release on parole even when they have plainly demonstrated their rehabilitation.
Most of the 200 Marylanders serving life sentences were sentenced under a mandatory scheme that doesn't require judges to consider their youth. Many have now served 30 or 40 years or more and have made admirable progress to demonstrate their maturity and rehabilitation.
Yet, no “juvenile lifer” has been paroled in the last two decades. This is so in part because Maryland is one of only three states in the country that requires the Governor to personally approve parole for any lifer, a rule that has politicized parole, entrenched barriers to release, and deprived deserving individuals of meaningful consideration for release.

“For decades, Maryland has denied any hope of release to juvenile lifers who have matured, who have done everything within their power to reform and to demonstrate their rehabilitation, and who the Constitution says deserve a second chance at life outside prison walls,” said Sonia Kumar of the ACLU of Maryland. “This second chance ~ this hope of redemption that the decisions of the Supreme Court promise young people ~ is all our clients ask. ”
One of the plaintiffs in the case, Nathaniel Foster, was given a mandatory life sentence in 1983 at the age of 17, for his involvement in a failed robbery attempt despite having no prior criminal record. At the time he had graduated from high school and was preparing to enroll in college. At sentencing, the judge in his case said he had no latitude to impose any other sentence. Mr. Foster is now 50 years old. He has never had a violent infraction during his entire, three-plus decades of incarceration, has earned stellar reviews as an employee from his supervisors, and has served as a mentor and volunteer providing hospice services to ailing prisoners. Despite his longstanding and extraordinary track record, as a result of Maryland’s dysfunctional parole scheme, Mr. Foster has never been recommended for parole.
I helped raise Nathaniel and now I feel so powerless, because it seems like he’s never going to get out,” said Brenda Allen, Nathaniel Foster’s aunt, who is a former parole officer. “He has worked so hard. I wish people would look at the kinds of things he’s accomplished. I don't know what else Nathaniel can do to prove he’s ready to return to society. I'm sorry for what happened. But he was just a kid himself.”
We are not asking for anything more than the law and basic fairness require,” said Walter Lomax, Executive Director of MRJI and a former lifer himself. “The men and women of MRJI who were sentenced as juveniles are not who they were decades ago. They have progressed and matured and deserve meaningful consideration for parole, not a system in which no one is paroled regardless of his or her merit.”
The plaintiffs are represented by pro bono attorneys Barry Fleishman and Jamie Brown of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP and ACLU of Maryland Legal Director Deborah Jeon and Staff Attorney Sonia Kumar.
Go to the ACLU of Maryland web site to download the complaint and learn more: http://aclu-md.org/

media@aclu.org
125 Broad Street 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004.
(212) 549-2666
https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-sues-ensure-consideration-youth-status-sentencing-and-parole

------------------------------------------

Posted: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 2:07 pm
Associated Press |
BALTIMORE (AP) — Sentencing juveniles to life in prison in Maryland is unconstitutional because they don't have a meaningful chance at parole, the American Civil Liberties Union said in a lawsuit filed Wednesday.

Young offenders don't get the second chance to which they're constitutionally entitled because no juveniles sentenced to life have been granted early release in the past 20 years, according to the lawsuit filed against Republican Gov. Larry Hogan and several officials in his administration in U.S. District Court in Baltimore.
The suit was filed on behalf of three defendants and the Maryland Restorative Justice Initiative. Hogan spokesman Matthew Clark said Wednesday that the administration is reviewing the filing.
There are about 200 inmates serving life sentences in Maryland prisons with the possibility of parole for crimes committed when they were younger than 18. Maryland is one of only three states that require the governor to approve parole for prisoner serving life.
Johnston said a system that leaves final discretion to the governor is flawed, pointing to then-Gov. Parris Glendening's announcement outside a prison in 1995 that he'd refuse on principle to grant parole for prisoners convicted of murder or rape. He said that gives prosecutors an advantage because arguing for life in prison without parole is more difficult.
If you get a life sentence, you're going to die in prison unless the governor lets you out, and not a single person has been released since the early 1990s, Johnston said.